[Pages S835-S847]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SYRIA

Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I have the honor of being the chair of
the U.S. Helsinki Commission representing this body. This is a
commission which was established in 1975 in order to implement the U.S.
responsibilities in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe. Its membership includes all the countries of Europe, as well as
the former Republics of the Soviet Union, Canada, and the United
States.
The main principles of Helsinki are we are interested in each other's
security. In order to have a secure nation, you need to have a nation
that respects the human rights of its citizens, which provides economic
opportunity for its citizens, as well as the defense of their borders.
We also have partners for cooperation, particularly in the
Mediterranean area, that used the Helsinki principles in order to try
to advance security in their region.
During this past recess, I took the opportunity to visit that region
on behalf of the U.S. Helsinki Commission. I was joined by several of
our colleagues looking at the current security issues. Our first visit
was to Israel, and our main focus, quite frankly, was on Syria--what is
happening today in Syria.
In Israel, we had a chance to meet with the Israeli officials, and it
was interesting as to how many brought up the concerns about Syria.
They were concerned about Syria's impact on Israel's neighbors and what
was going to happen as far as security in that region.
While we were there, there was an episode on the Syrian-Israeli
border, and the Israelis provided health care to those who were
injured, providing humanitarian assistance. We thank the Israelis for
providing that humanitarian assistance.
It was interesting that the Israeli officials pointed out the concern
about the refugees who are leaving Syria going into neighboring
countries. We know the vast numbers. There are almost 1 million Syrians
who have left Syria for other countries because of the humanitarian
concerns. About one-quarter of a million have gone to Jordan, about
280,000 are in Lebanon, about 281,000 in Turkey, another 90,000 in
Iraq, and 16,000 in Egypt.
Israel is concerned about the security of its neighbors and concerned
about how Jordan is dealing with the problems of the Syrian refugees,
how Lebanon is handling them. We note the concerns about Hezbollah
operations in Lebanon and how that is being handled with the Syrian
refugee issue.
We had a chance to travel to Turkey when we left Israel. We met first
with the Turkish officials in Ankara, and we received their account as
to what was happening in Syria and what Turkey was doing about it. We
then had a chance to visit the border area between Turkey and Syria.
We visited a refugee camp named Kilis, where there has been about
18,000 Syrian refugees. We also had a chance to meet with the
opposition leaders who were in that camp, as well as later when we were
in Istanbul meeting with the opposition leaders from Syria.
I mention that all because the humanitarian crisis is continuing in
the country of Syria. The Assad regime is turning on its own people.
Over 70,000 have been killed since the Arab Spring started in Syria.
While we were there, the Assad regime used scud missiles against its
own people, again killing Syrians and killing a lot of innocent people
in the process. This is a humanitarian disaster.
I wish to mention one bright spot, if I might. We had a chance to
visit the camps, I said, in Kilis, on the border of Syria and Turkey,
in Turkey. We had a chance to see firsthand how the Syrian refugees are
being handled by the Turkish Government. I want to tell you, they are
doing a superb job. I think it is a model way to handle a situation
such as this. They have an open border.
The border area at that point is controlled by the Syrian freedom
fighters. They control that area. The Turks allowed the Syrians to come
in and find a safe haven. The Turkish Government has built housing for
the refugees in the camp. We had a chance to see their children in
schools. They are attending schools. They are getting proper food and
proper medical attention. They have the opportunity to travel where
they want in Turkey, freedom of movement. They have the opportunity to
go back to Syria if they want to go back to Syria. The Turkish
authorities are providing them with a safe haven and adequate help.
They are doing this primarily with their own resources.
There is one other thing we observed when we were in this camp on the
border. We had a chance to meet with the elected representatives of the
refugees in Kilis. They actually had an election. They don't have that
opportunity in Syria. They are learning how to cast their votes. They
are learning what democracy is about. They are learning what
representation is about. We had a chance to talk to these
representatives about the circumstances in Syria and what we could do
to help.
First, I want to point out there is still a tremendous need for the
international community to contribute to the humanitarian needs of
those who are affected in Syria. There are approximately 4 million
Syrians in need of humanitarian assistance. There are 2\1/2\ million
internally displaced people within Syria. The United States has taken
the lead as far as humanitarian aid, having provided $384 million.
Other countries have stepped up but, quite frankly, more needs to be
done.
In talking with the opposition leaders--and we had a chance to talk
to them in depth when we were in Istanbul--they expressed to us a sense
of frustration that there hasn't been a better, more unified
international response to the actions of the Assad regime--to what the
Assad regime has

[[Page S836]]

done to its own people--and to get Assad out of Syria. Quite frankly,
they understand--or, as we explained--some countries might be willing
to provide a certain type of help; other countries may not. The United
States has provided nonlethal help, other countries are providing
weapons, still other countries training. But we need to coordinate
that. The absence of coordination provides a void in which extreme
elements are more likely to get into the opposition, and that is
something we all want to make sure doesn't happen.
The message I took back from those meetings is that the United States
needs to be in the lead in coordinating the efforts of the opposition.
We made it clear, and I think the international community has made it
clear, that Assad must go, and he should go to The Hague and be held
accountable for his war crimes. He has no legitimacy to remain in power
in Syria. That has been made clear and we underscored that point again.
We also underscored the point there is no justification for any
country--any country--providing assistance to the Assad regime on the
military side. As we know, Russia and Iran have provided help. That is
wrong. That is only adding to the problems and giving strength to a
person who has turned on his own people. But then we also need to
coordinate our attentions so we can provide the help they need and the
confidence they are looking for so they will have the necessary
training not only to reclaim their country but then to rule their
country in a democratic way that respects the rights of all of its
citizens.
As the Chair of the Helsinki Commission, I pointed that out to the
Syrian opposition, that we want to provide the help so they can rule
their country one day--we hope sooner rather than later--in a way that
respects the rights of all of its citizens and provides economic
opportunity for its citizens, for that is the only way they will have a
nation that respects the security of its country.
That was the message we delivered, and I hope the United States will
join other countries in a more concerted effort to get Assad out of
Syria. As I said, I think he should be at The Hague and held
accountable for his war crimes and held accountable for not allowing
the people of Syria to have a democratic regime.
With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.

Tenth Anniversary of PEPFAR

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I rise today, in this year of 2013, on
the tenth anniversary of the State of the Union Address given by
President George W. Bush when he introduced a program known as PEPFAR--
the President's Emergency Program for AIDS Relief--a program that has
had remarkable success in the last decade.
A lot of that success has taken place on the continent of Africa,
where I just returned from my seventh trip in the last decade. This was
a trip where remarkable things were observed happening all over the
continent in terms of AIDS infection being reduced, mother-to-child
transmission being in fact eliminated in many cases, and seeing that
the biggest challenge today for those who fall victim to AIDS is not
that they will die soon but that they will have the continuum of care
necessary to see to it they live a normal lifestyle with the
antiretrovirals provided by PEPFAR.
It is important that the American taxpayers, the American people,
those of us in Congress recognize what has been achieved in the last
decade, for our taxpayers have invested billions of dollars on the
continent of Africa to begin the process of trying to eliminate AIDS.
We cannot yet declare victory, but we can declare great victories in
battles along the way, and we are making more and more of them along
the way. Males are getting tested, females are getting tested, as they
should, and mothers are getting the care they need with antiretrovirals
during their pregnancies to prevent the transmission to their babies,
and we are seeing a continuation of the progress of the great program
started 10 years ago by this Congress, by President Bush, and by the
American people.
We are beginning to send the message, and we need to let the African
countries know, that we will be scaling down our investment and raising
their participation at the government level. It is important to see to
it that PEPFAR remains a viable program. In our visit of the past 7, 8,
now 9 days, I guess it was, we visited the Congo, we visited Mali,
Senegal, Morocco, and we visited South Africa. In each and every
country they are beginning the process of having more and more of their
health professionals taking more and more of the responsibility of
caring for people, testing people, and distributing the
antiretrovirals, which lessens the pressure on the budget of the United
States of America. But I think it is important to recognize that a
disease we feared was going to take much of the population of that
continent--and ours, for that matter--10 years ago is now a disease
that is being managed and being reduced, and over time, we hope, we
will have a generation free of HIV/AIDS not only in America but around
the world.
There is a troubling event happening on the continent of Africa and
in Asia, and that is there are those who are taking the volunteers who
come from our country and other organizations and actually stopping
them from giving inoculations and vaccinations to the people. Pakistan,
Afghanistan, and Nigeria are the last three countries on Earth where
polio still exists. A few weeks ago, in the Congo, in Nigeria, nine
workers were killed trying to give vaccinations to children in Nigeria
because Islamic leaders in those countries had tried to tell them that
in order to reduce the Arab population American donations of polio
vaccine would in fact cause them to be impotent when they grew up. That
is the farthest thing from the truth, but it is a wives' tale being
told to eliminate or keep vaccinations from getting to the people who
need them. In the country of Pakistan, since December 12, there have
been five attacks on workers distributing vaccines trying to eliminate
polio in Pakistan.
So as we celebrate the victories in terms of HIV/AIDS, polio,
malaria, and other diseases, we have to also recognize there is still
ignorance in some parts of the world that is prohibiting people who
will ultimately get sick and die from getting the vaccines necessary to
keep from contracting these difficult diseases. So I come to the floor
today to recognize the great achievement of the American people in the
war against AIDS on the continent of Africa, and the creation of PEPFAR
by George W. Bush, but also to send out a warning to those trying to
prohibit the vaccinations and the antiretrovirals from getting to the
people who need them in Nigeria, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Because one
day we want a generation free of HIV/AIDS and disease not just on the
continent of North America or the continent of Africa but around the
world.
It is a tribute to the American medical community, the researchers
and developers, the American people, and this Congress that the war on
AIDS is still being engaged, and we are declaring victory after victory
on the battlefield. One day we hope we will have a generation free of
AIDS not just in America but around the world.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, what is the pending business before
the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the Hagel
nomination.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak
as if in morning business for approximately 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Maryland.

Sequestration

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I was so excited when I came in because
I have a new desk in the Senate. With seniority, I have now moved to
the row where giants in our institution once stood. This is the
particular seat which just a few weeks ago was held by John Kerry.

[[Page S837]]

Although my desk location is new, I come to the floor with what seems
to be a persistent pattern in the Senate and in the Congress, which is
that when faced with big problems that affect the fate of the Nation,
let's delay, let's blame, and let's not get to the work the American
people elected us to do.
I rise today to speak about sequester--something that was never, ever
meant to happen. It came out of the dark days of the debt ceiling
debacle in the summer of 2011 when we were facing a downgrade of the
U.S. economy and a dysfunction of the Congress. In order to get us to
the table, we came up with an agreement to have a supercommittee that
would meet on both sides of the dome to come up with how we could begin
to solve the serious fiscal issues facing the United States of America.
There was an insistence, yes, by one side of the aisle that we have a
trigger. And, yes, the President looked back on history.
What we have now is a situation where we said what we would propose
as a trigger if we didn't get our act together, which we have not. We
would put into place something so serious, so Draconian, so
unthinkable, so unworkable that we would solve the problems through
regular order and find that sensible center Colin Powell has so often
talked about. Well, the supercommittee collapsed--not because there
weren't the great efforts of people such as Senators Murray and Durbin
and Members over at the House, such as Maryland's very own Chris Van
Hollen.
Then we were faced with New Year's Eve. We had put it off to New
Year's Eve and after the election, and here we were--while people were
wearing funny hats all over America, we were doing funny things. And
what did we do again? We put off sequester for 2 months--again not
solving the problem.
Well, now we have a rendezvous. On March 1, sequester will happen.
I am opposed to sequester. I think it is bad policy for our country.
It will hurt our economy. It will exacerbate the fragile job situation
we have. It will affect not only government employees but those who
work in private sector jobs because of the Federal Government.
I support what was originally intended: a balanced approach that
would look at increased revenues--particularly plugging up tax
loopholes, particularly getting rid of tax-break earmarks--along with
strategic cuts in spending and a review of mandatory spending to see
how else we could get more value for our dollar.
I am going to speak tomorrow about the impact on science, technology,
innovation, and jobs. Today I want to speak about my own beloved State
of Maryland and the people who work there.
Maryland is home not only to the Super Bowl champions but to Nobel
Prize winners and also people who work every day to help create the
jobs today and the jobs tomorrow.
I have the honor of representing 130,000 Federal employees.
They say: Wow, how many of them can we get rid of?
Well, why would we want to get rid of the people who work at the
Social Security Administration? These are the people who calculate the
eligibility for the benefits in regular Social Security and in
disability.
Why would we want to get rid of anybody who works for the Food and
Drug Administration, people who every day are analyzing clinical trials
to see if they can be moved to pharmaceutical or biotech or medical
device production, ensuring that when they come out into clinical
practice, they are safe, they have efficacy, they can be taken by the
American people, and we can export them around the world? Why would we
want to get rid of anybody at FDA who is helping make sure our drug
supply is safe?

How about the food inspectors? Right now, one of the turbo engines of
my Eastern Shore economy is seafood production and poultry production.
You can't have poultry production unless you have food inspectors. When
we start laying off or furloughing food inspectors, it is going to
affect those private sector jobs. If you don't have an inspector, you
are not going to be able to have those companies working with the same
level of production.
Hundreds of thousands more work because of the Federal Government,
iconic contractors, particularly in defense and also at NASA Goddard,
which is our space science center. Yes, there are 3,000 civil servants,
but there are also thousands of contractors. And what are they facing?
Layoffs, furloughs, pay cuts, and lousy morale. What are they worried
about? Their future. And they wonder whether they should give us
another future. Make no mistake; we are not only going to hurt our
economy, but there is an anti-incumbent fever developing around the
country.
Now, as we look at solving the problems, there are those who want to
protect lavish tax breaks or tax earmarks for a few. I want to stand up
here for the many, not only the people who are multimillionaires or
billionaires who can take a tax deduction on their corporate jets. I am
for the people who are working every day right now to find a cure for
Alzheimer's, to find a cure for autism, to find a cure for AIDS, to
find help a cure for the arthritic, and most recently not only what is
done by government but even what is done in private institutions.
Within the last few weeks at Johns Hopkins University, under Federal
help from the Veterans' Administration, on an American war veteran from
Iraq who had lost both arms, Hopkins was able to perform surgery that
did the first successful arm transplant. Doesn't that bring tears? That
happened because of the genius of the Hopkins personnel, with financial
help from the VA to do the kind of research to make sure that not only
the surgery was a success but also that the autoimmune suppression was
also.
This is what the American people want us to do to not only help that
veteran, but what we learn through the VA will also then move into
civilian clinical practice.
We have to come up with a solution where government is doing the job
to help the American people with compelling human needs or America is
doing the job that enables other people to keep their jobs or protect
their livelihoods--for example, weather. People watch the Weather
Channel and say: Isn't that Cantore great? I love Cantore. We even
tweet each other from time to time. But Jim Cantore and the Weather
Channel get a lot of their information from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. That is the agency in Maryland that runs
the weather forecast for all of America, predicting hurricanes,
tornadoes, and it also ties up with the global weather prediction
system that protects our ships at sea--civilian, cargo, military--as
well as whether airlines can fly or not.
When we look at our legislation we have to know that there are real
consequences to those employees. The numbers sound like a lot, but
their contribution to saving lives and saving livelihoods is enormous.
Then we look at compelling human need. Do the American people really
want to protect people not paying taxes on their second million over
Head Start? If the sequester goes into effect, we are going to have a
terrible effect on special education. Special education teachers would
be affected, and it would be an across-the-board cut in education. The
same with title I. Maryland would lose over $14 million.
Federal law enforcement is something I know you are very keenly
interested in, Mr. President. If the sequester goes into effect, it is
going to affect over 1,000 Federal agents--at the FBI, at the Drug
Enforcement Agency, at the Marshals Service. We don't know much about
our Marshals Service. They are so quiet and efficient. Do you know what
they do? They protect our judges at the Federal courthouses. You
remember some got shot or wounded. It also serves warrants for runaway
fugitives, and it also enforces the law on sexual predators in our
country. Do we really want to furlough these men and women? I don't
think so.
Then there is the FBI. The FBI is crucial not only in mortgage fraud,
financial fraud, but now the world of cyber. Do you know, last year in
America there were 300 bank robberies? That is a terrible number if you
are one of those banks. But there were thousands of attacks by cyber on
our American financial institutions, of which the FBI was prime time.
Do we really want to lay them off? No, I don't think so.

[[Page S838]]

There is another issue of safety, and that goes to aviation safety. I
am deeply concerned about the cut in air traffic control with
furloughs, layoffs, or asking even fewer to work longer hours. We
cannot have it.
When we think about law enforcement, it also cuts Border Patrol. I am
for comprehensive immigration reform, but I am also for protecting
American borders. We now have 57,000 border control agents, a
surprising number. If the sequester goes in, we could be forced to lay
off or furlough 5,000 of them. Do you know what a furlough is? It says
to someone who is going to be out there in the desert facing those who
engage in the illegal traffic of people, guns, or drugs: While you are
out there in that hot Sun, you are in harm's way, putting your life in
danger, we are going to ask you only to work 4 days a week, and we are
going to furlough you one-fifth of the time. To that border control
agent being furloughed, that is a 20-percent cut.
I will say this: If the Federal employees are going to take a 20-
percent cut and be furloughed, we should take a 20-percent cut. I think
I should be treated like my Social Security employees, like my NIH
employees working for cures, like FDA, the food inspectors, the people
inspecting cargo coming into the Port of Baltimore or looking for
illegal cargo coming into our airports. If they take a hit we should
take a hit, and I look forward to moving on that legislation.
I hope we do not get to that point--not for me to protect my pay, but
to protect their future; to say, America, we believe in what you are
doing, and we want to protect you so you can do your job for America
instead of protecting all these breaks for billionaires.
People can say: Didn't we do the tax break thing New Year's Eve with
Biden and McConnell? Yes. It was a nonpayment, but there are lots and
lots of very juicy loopholes or tax breaks--tax breaks for sending jobs
overseas, tax breaks for reductions on corporate jets.
Do we need those? Those are really earmarks. A tax earmark goes to
people in a particular class, and it lasts indefinitely. While we are
waiting for comprehensive tax reform, let's go after some of these and
come up with a balanced approach for revenue.
Mr. President, I know you were a Governor so you know about bond
ratings. In my State of Maryland and my large counties, they are going
to be affected by sequester because as the Federal Government goes,
Moody's rates our bond rating. Maryland could lose millions of dollars
and have to pay high interest rates on bonds.
This is going to have a terrible impact, particularly in the area of
school construction. It will cost hundreds if not thousands of jobs in
not building schools we need or roads that need repair or water systems
that need to be upgraded.
People say: Oh, well, that is government. That is the way it is. Mr.
President, I want you to realize if in fact people begin to lose their
jobs or get furloughed and lose a big part of their income, they are
not going to be spending money in the local economy, the real economy.
It also means they will not be giving to their charitable
organizations. It is regrettable, but if you have less money to spend
and you save it somewhere for your family, you are not going to be
giving to the United Way, to that great Federal campaign.
The lab assistant at NIH who is facing losing her job is not going to
give to her favorite charity. The customs official at Thurgood Marshall
Airport is not going to have the same disposable income to make sure
they give again to the United Way.
We have to stop sequester. Thursday I will be joining with my
colleagues, my Democratic colleagues. We have a plan. Our plan is
simple and straightforward: We come up with $86 billion. Half of that
is in revenue. What does that mean? It means we come up with money for
the Buffett rule. It was argued by Warren Buffett when he said he
should pay the same rate of taxes as his secretary.
What that means is that on his second million--not his first; we
believe in entrepreneurship, the job creators, et cetera. But on his
second million he will pay the same rate as somebody who makes $55,000
a year.

The other is we want to close a loophole sending jobs overseas. For
too long we have rewarded exporting jobs while we should have a Tax
Code that rewards export of products, whether it is that great
pharmaceutical industry or art, protecting intellectual property, and
so on.
We have come up with that, and then we have a cut in the farm subsidy
program where we will no longer pay people not to plant. That will be
about $27 billion. Then, yes, we do cut defense, but that doesn't
trigger until 2015 when our troops are home from Afghanistan. We never
want to, through our budget problems, put our troops into harm's way.
I wanted to share what is going to happen. In my State we represent
many great Federal iconic agencies that moved to Maryland in the early
1930s, 1940s, and 1950s when real estate was so high in Washington, DC.
I am so proud of them. They win the Nobel prizes. They help us win the
markets.
They are coming up with the new jobs, the new ideas for the new jobs
for tomorrow. They are out there--for example, the Coast Guard--making
sure the Chesapeake Bay is safe or they are dealing with our customs.
Money is going to the University of Maryland, to Johns Hopkins, to not
only help our veterans get new arms but to get a new life. Isn't that
what the people want?
We can be more frugal. We have to be sensible, but let's not do
sequester. It is bad money management, and we can do better. What we
cannot do is continue to delay and put the entire burden on
discretionary spending. Let's stand up, let's be counted, let's have a
vote on Thursday. I do hope the Democratic alternative prevails.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, following my remarks I ask unanimous
consent that the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor, be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before Senator Mikulski, the chair of the
Appropriations Committee, leaves the floor, I want to thank her for her
very hard work along with several colleagues putting together a plan
that is a commonsense plan to avoid this sequester, these automatic,
senseless spending cuts. It was not easy to do, but I think they
figured out a way to pay for it, as she described, called the Buffett
rule, which basically says to a multimillionaire: We think it is only
fair that you pay the same effective tax rate as your secretary.
If you were to ask anyone on the street, any party--Republican,
Democratic--if they think that is the right way to go, I am convinced
90 percent of the people would say: Of course. I thank her. I know
Senator Inouye is looking down and smiling because his successor,
Senator Mikulski, is doing such a great job already.
I rise as a Senator from California. Senator Feinstein and I
represent 38 million people. Anything that happens around here comes
down very hard on our State--or if it is a good thing, it is very good
for our State. What we are facing is not a good thing, the sequester.
It is a self-inflicted wound that will harm our economy.
I have to say, when I listened to Speaker Boehner over there--he is
refusing to do anything about it. He says, and I will not quote him
because it would be language not acceptable, but he basically said in
the press, and it is written there--I urge everyone to see it--that the
Senators ought to get off their ``blank'' and get to work and get
something done.
I am proud to say we have an alternative to the sequester. Senator
Mikulski laid it out. I believe we have a majority vote in this Senate
for that plan.
I hope our colleagues will not filibuster. Let's have that up-or-down
vote because when you are looking at job losses into the hundreds of
thousands--and that is certainly true in my State and the country as a
whole--no one should filibuster a plan that would stave off that pain.
How did we get to this place? In 2011 the Republicans decided to hold
our country hostage over raising the debt ceiling. We know if we do not
pay our bills--which is what the debt ceiling is about--this country is
going to face default, and our credit rating is going to be lowered.
Even though we finally resolved this thing at the eleventh hour, we
still caused the downgrade the time

[[Page S839]]

before. This time we averted another downgrade, but it is very
important that we remember why we got to this place of facing this
sequester. The Republicans played games with the debt ceiling again.
Even though under Ronald Reagan, their hero--and, by the way, I think
even Ronald Reagan would have a hard time getting into the Republican
Party these days because Ronald Reagan said you should never play games
with the debt; even talking about the debt is a problem. We raised the
debt when Ronald Reagan was President; 18 times we raised the debt
ceiling. But all of a sudden, when there is a Democratic President,
they are playing games. That is wrong. Obviously, we didn't want to see
another downgrade. We had already seen a delay the last time, which
cost us $1.3 billion, in borrowing costs alone.

In order to avert this, on August 2, 2011, we enacted the Budget
Control Act. When it became law, we were within hours of defaulting on
our debts. The Budget Control Act allowed us to raise the debt ceiling,
but on the condition that a ``supercommittee'' find $1.2 trillion in
cuts or force a trigger of across-the-board cuts known as
sequestration.
Straight from my heart, I say this: No one thought the sequester
would go forward. Everyone thought the pain to the economy would be so
great that everybody would sit down and resolve it. But here is what is
going on right now. Democrats say the way to resolve it and avert the
sequester is to have dollar-for-dollar spending cuts and increases in
revenues. Republicans say 100-percent spending cuts and they would
prefer to do no defense cuts and have it all come out of education,
transportation, medical research, law enforcement, the environment.
That is what their plan was last year. So let's face it. No one thought
we would get to this point, but we are at this point.
What is the choice? I think it is pretty clear what the choice is. It
is the Democratic plan, which is a growing economy, versus the
Republican plan, which is a sequester, which is a slowing economy. When
I say that, I mean it.
Mark Zandi, who is one of the leading economists in the country, said
if sequestration goes forward, it would cut a half of a point off our
economic growth. What does that mean? It means jobs lost. I have to
say, when I look at my State, this is not a pretty picture.
The Los Angeles Times, in an article by Ricardo Lopez and Richard
Simon today, says: ``California braces for impending cuts from Federal
sequestration.'' I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the
Record.

[From the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 25, 2013]

California Braces for Impending Cuts From Federal Sequestration

(By Ricardo Lopez and Richard Simon)

California's defense industry is bracing for a $3.2-billion
hit with the federal budget cuts that are expected to take
effect Friday.
But myriad other federally funded programs also are
threatened, and the combined effect is expected to slow the
momentum that California's economy has been building over the
last year.
As the state braces for pain from so-called sequestration,
there are warnings of long delays at airport security
checkpoints, potential slowdowns in cargo movement at harbors
and cutbacks to programs, including meals for seniors and
projects to combat neighborhood blight.
Despite the grim scenarios from local and state officials,
economists say the cuts' overall blow to the economy would be
modest, felt more acutely in regions such as defense-heavy
San Diego and by Californians dependent on federal programs,
such as college students who rely on work-study jobs to pay
for school.
Critics say the cuts come at an inopportune time because
the economic recovery in the U.S. and California is still
weak.
``We need stimulus, not premature austerity,'' Gov. Jerry
Brown said during a break at the National Governors Assn.
meeting in Washington.
Rep. John Campbell (R-Irvine) contends that critics of the
cuts are exaggerating the effects.
``If we can't do this, what can we do'' to reduce
Washington's red ink, he asked. ``We ought to be panicked
about the day when people won't buy our debt anymore because
we borrowed too much.''
If automatic spending cuts occur as planned, the growth in
the country's gross domestic product is likely to slow by 0.4
percentage points this year, from about 2% to 1.6%,
economists said.
California's GDP would see a similar slowdown. The state
stands to lose as much as $10 billion in federal funding this
year, according to Stephen Levy, director of the Center for
Continuing Study of the California Economy in Palo Alto.
Levy said the more than $1 trillion in cuts planned over
the next decade include ``items in the federal budget that
invest for the future,'' such as support for research and
clean energy, that particularly affect California because of
its ``innovation economy.''
The ripple effects the cuts might have on business and
consumer confidence--which would further dampen economic
activity--remain to be seen, said Jason Sisney, a deputy at
the state's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office.
``We're at a point where gains in housing and construction
markets have begun to take hold,'' Sisney said. ``A slowdown
from sequestration would come at just the moment that the
economy was beginning to right itself.''
Jerry Nickelsburg, a UCLA economist who writes a quarterly
economic forecast on the Golden State, said the state's
recent economic gains would provide a buffer against
sequestration.
``California can absorb it,'' Nickelsburg said. ``Will it
slow economic growth? The answer is yes. Will it result in
negative economic growth? I think the answer is no.''
Los Angeles officials project that the city would lose more
than $100 million at a time when they're struggling to close
a hole in the city's budget.
Douglas Guthrie, chief executive of the Los Angeles city
housing authority, said Monday that rent subsidies to as many
as 15,000 low-income families would be cut an average $200 a
month, forcing many families to search for less expensive
housing. His agency also might face as many as 80 layoffs in
an already reduced workforce.
But Guthrie said in a letter to the Los Angeles City
Council that the housing authority must plan for the
``painful consequences'' of the federal budget cuts and is
preparing to send warning notices to participants in the
housing assistance program ``as soon as we see that the cuts
are made and there are no immediate prospects to resolve the
budget crisis.''
At Yosemite National Park, snow plowing of a key route over
the Sierra would be delayed, ranger-led programs are likely
to be reduced and the park would face ``less frequent trash
pickup, loss of campground staff, and reduced focus on food
storage violations, all of which contribute to visitor safety
concerns and increased bear mortality rates,'' according to
the National Park Service.
Some programs, such as Social Security, would be spared
from the $85 billion in cuts nationwide due to kick in
Friday. But defense programs are expected to be cut by about
13% for the remainder of the fiscal year and domestic
spending by about 9%, according to the White House budget
office.
The Obama administration sought Monday to highlight the
effects close to home in an effort to step up the pressure on
Congress to replace across-the-board cuts with more targeted
reductions and new tax revenue collected from taxpayers
earning more than $1 million a year.
The Los Angeles Unified School District is bracing for a
loss of $37 million a year in federal funding. Supt. John
Deasy said Monday that he is sending a letter to the
California congressional delegation warning about the
``potential very grave impact'' of the cuts on Los Angeles
schools.
Rachelle Pastor Arizmendi, director of early childhood
education at the Pacific Asian Consortium for Employment in
Los Angeles, said she anticipated that the cuts would cost
her agency $980,000 in federal Head Start funding. That would
force PACE to eliminate preschool for about 120 children ages
3 to 5.
``It's not just a number,'' she said. ``This is closing
down classrooms. This is putting our children behind when
they're going to kindergarten.''
The nonprofit serves about 2,000 children, providing most
of them two meals a day in addition to preschool education.
The cuts would mean PACE would have to lay off four of its 20
teachers, forcing the closure of eight Head Start classrooms,
Arizmendi said.

Mrs. BOXER. Our Governor makes the point--he has a way of getting to
the point: ``We need stimulus, not premature austerity,'' said Gov.
Jerry Brown.
The Republicans have become the austerity party and the Democrats
have become the jobs party. I think people want jobs. There are still
too many long-term unemployed. We have a stubbornly high unemployment
rate. There is no question about it.
Jerry Nickelsburg, a UCLA economist who writes a quarterly economic
forecast on the Golden State--my State--said: The State's recent
economic gains would provide a buffer against sequestration, but would
it slow economic growth? Yes. Why would we do something like this, a
self-inflicted wound, when there is an easy way to get out of it, which
is to put into place a rule that says on a person's second million
dollars, once they get to that point, they are going to pay an
effective tax rate equal to their secretary? Give me a break. This is
the greatest country on Earth, and the people I know who live in
California, for the most part, in the wealthy brackets

[[Page S840]]

are very happy to pay their fair share. They want to pay their fair
share. They want to give back. They love this country. It gave them
everything. A lot of them started with nothing.
So we have the two plans. The Democratic plan was outlined by Senator
Mikulski and we are going to vote on it on Thursday. I pray to God it
is not filibustered and a majority will rule and we will get it done.
It will create a growing economy because it is a balanced plan with
half cuts, half revenues.
Then there is a Republican plan which we don't know yet, but the one
they passed in the House doubled down on the cuts to education, the
environment, transportation, and left defense alone. That is not fair,
and that is a sure way we are going to lose hundreds of thousands of
jobs.
I wish to share a picture with my colleagues. I don't know if people
can see this, but it is on the front page of the Washington Post and it
is a picture of a shipyard worker. The look on his face I can only
describe as frightened. As a matter of fact, when I saw the photo,
without seeing what the story was about, I thought, This man is
expecting some terrible gloom and doom to occur. And, yes, it is his
fear that he will be laid off. He said his wife is pregnant and he
doesn't have a second source of income in the family and he is
desperate.
We just went through that. Why would we ever do it again? And people
say to me, What is going to happen? How will I feel it back home? Will
I have a longer wait at the airport? Yes, you might. Will I go to the
National Park Service and it may be closed down? Yes. Will job training
centers, some of them, shut down? Yes. There is a list of what will
happen.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the
consequences of the sequester cuts nationwide.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The Consequences of Sequester Cuts

to Education

70,000 Children From Head Start
10,000 Teacher Jobs
7,200 Special Education Teachers
2,700 Schools From Receiving Title 1 Funds, Cutting Support
for 1.2 Million Students

to Public Health

424,000 HIV Tests Conducted by CDC
25,000 Breast and Cervical Cancer Screenings
804,000 Outpatient Visits to Indian Health
Service Hospitals and Clinics
2,100 Food Inspections
4 Million Meals Served to Seniors Through
Programs Like Meals on Wheels
600,000 Women and Children From Receiving Nutrition
Assistance
1,000 NSF Grants--Impacting 12,000 Scientists and Students
$902 Million From SBA Loan Guarantees for Small Businesses

to Security and Safety

1,000 FBI Agents and Other Law Enforcement Personnel
1,000 Criminal Cases From Being Prosecuted by U.S.
Attorneys

Mrs. BOXER. We are looking at 70,000 children not being able to go to
Head Start. We are looking at 10,000 teacher jobs. We are looking at
7,200 special ed teachers--we know those special ed teachers; they are
angels from heaven who work with kids who can't even sometimes manage
to get dressed in the morning by themselves.
Then: 2,700 schools won't receive title I funds, cutting support for
1.2 million children who need help learning to read. Tell me, does this
make sense, when all we have to do is ask someone earning a second
million dollars to pay the same effective rate as a secretary? I don't
get it.
How about 424,000 HIV tests conducted by the CDC won't happen, so
someone is going to sneak through and give HIV to someone else? Really,
that is not a smart thing. Twenty-five thousand breast and cervical
cancer screenings will not take place, and some poor woman who might
have had a chance to catch breast cancer at an early stage is thrown
overboard. Eight hundred thousand outpatient visits to Indian hospitals
and clinics. Food inspections. Just the time to cut back on food
inspections. How about 4 million meals will be cut that would have been
served to seniors through programs such as Meals-on-Wheels. Four
million seniors won't get that. And what if they don't have a loving
child to take care of them or what if they don't have a neighbor to
take care of them? Six hundred thousand women and children won't
receive nutrition assistance, and we have a lot of hungry people in
this great country of ours; scientific grants to find cures for the
diseases that plague our families, whether they are rich or poor or
anywhere in the middle, to find the cures for Alzheimer's, to find the
cures for diabetes. Small businesses that do so well when they get that
little seed money--$902 million cut from there.
Then: 1,000 FBI agents and other law enforcement personnel, and that
is because we are just so safe in our communities. I have gone around
my State and not one person ever came up to me and said, I want less
enforcement in my neighborhood. It is just too much. It is too safe.
Not one person ever told me, oh, don't bother checking my air or my
water quality; I am just fine.
So if we take these cuts and we apply them to our States, we will
find out what happens and it is not a pretty picture. Los Angeles alone
could lose as much as $115 million in Federal grants, just in the first
6 months of 2013. Community development, public safety, I have been
through it.
We don't have to inflict this pain on the American people. Everything
I said relates to jobs. All of those cuts, what do they mean? Real
people who do real things in the community such as law enforcement,
teaching our kids, et cetera, will lose their jobs, not to mention
people in the Defense Department who are making sure we are always safe
and ready. That is why we see the look on his face, because he is
potentially one of those people.
In closing, I want to thank those who have put together a package for
us, and I have a plea to my Republican friends: Do not filibuster this.
Too many lives are at stake. Too many jobs are at stake. Put your plan
forward, get a vote on it if you have a plan or if your plan is to let
sequester go through, let's see that vote again, and let us have our
vote on our plan to avoid this pain and suffering people are going to
feel.
I actually have one more point to make and then I will turn to my
friend from Arkansas. We hear a lot of posturing from my Republican
friends about how the Democrats are such big spenders and all they want
to do is spend and tax and tax and spend. What party led the way to the
first balanced budget in almost 30 years? I will give my colleagues a
clue: It was not the Republican Party. It was the Democratic Party.
When Bill Clinton was President, we not only balanced the budget but we
left George W. Bush a surplus of $281 billion.
By the way, I happened to be here when we voted on the budget plan
and we did not have one vote to spare. We did it ourselves.
What did George W. Bush do with this huge surplus? He squandered it.
He put two wars on the credit card, never paid for them; gave tax
breaks to people who didn't need them, and handed President Obama a
$1.2 trillion deficit, which is now projected to be $850 billion for
2013. It is going in the right direction under a Democratic President.
We want to get that down and we can get that down, and we can work
together to get that down, but we do not have to do this sequester.
History has shown us the balanced approach we used when Bill Clinton
was President of smart investments in things that help our people such
as job training and education and lifting up our children, and making
sure they don't go hungry--those kinds of investments pay off in a
society.
We have 23 million jobs. Under George W. Bush, we lost jobs: George
W. Bush, we lost jobs. And this President, our President who just got
reelected, is following the model of Bill Clinton: a balanced approach
to deficit reduction, investments in things we need, cutting things we
don't need, and working together.
I say if we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. We
are coming out of the greatest recession since the Great Depression,
and we cannot afford to have this sequester. We need to avert it, come
together with a balanced plan of cuts and revenues, not just the cuts-
only approach, the austerity approach of the Republicans.
I hope they don't filibuster our approach and let us have an up-or-
down vote and pass this with a majority.

[[Page S841]]

I thank my colleagues very much, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank my Senate colleague from California
for her remarks and also want to finish one point she was making there
at the end. But before I do, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that the final 20 minutes prior to the vote be equally divided and
controlled between Senators Levin and Inhofe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PRYOR. I want to thank Senator Boxer for her comments on
balancing the budget. One of the things we need to understand is that
we can do this. It was not that long ago when President Clinton was
elected and he focused on balancing the budget. He made it a priority
of his administration. He made it a Democratic priority for the
Democratic Party. They passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1993. It
passed without one Republican vote in this Chamber and without one
Republican vote in the House Chamber. But nonetheless it did pass. It
probably caused some people some elections a couple years later, but
nonetheless it was the right thing to do. It got us on the course to
fiscal stability. It took 4 years, but we did balance the budget.
But there is one thing we also need to mention as we talk about that.
One advantage Bill Clinton had that we have not had in the last few
years is a robust, vibrant, and growing economy. He had the longest
economic expansion in U.S. history. That did not happen by accident.
That took a lot of work. It took a lot of bipartisan effort here in the
U.S. Senate, there in the U.S. House of Representatives, and down at
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It had Governors working together. It had all
of us working together to try to make sure we got the economy back on
track because if the economy is growing, the revenues improve, and also
your safety net programs are not hit nearly as hard.
So one of the things we need to focus on as a Congress--certainly as
a Senate--is we need to focus on growing the U.S. economy. That brings
me to my discussion today about sequestration.
When we look at the analysis on what sequestration could do to the
U.S. economy, there could be 750,000 jobs lost in this economy. That is
a .6 percent shrinkage of the economy by the end of this year. We are
not talking about somewhere way down the road, out in the outyears. We
are talking about at the end of this year it will have a negative
impact on the U.S. economy. That is going to continue to hurt our debt
and deficit problem. We need to do all we can to avoid this and to grow
the U.S. economy. We need a growing U.S. economy. There should not be
government policies that are shrinking the economy. We should be
growing the economy.
I wish to say, if you look at the numbers for government employees--
and I think a lot of the news media has focused on government
employees. There has been a lot of discussion in the press conferences
and there is all the blame game that has been going on, and I want to
talk about that in a few moments. But if you look at the numbers in the
public sector--the Federal employees who will either be laid off or
furloughed or for whatever reason will not be able to function--those
are big numbers. But that only tells part of the story. In fact, that
only tells a small part of the story because this sequester is going to
harm the private sector much more than it harms the public sector.
This is something we should understand, that the American people
should understand. I would hope the American people would insist we
work together to get something done here in the next few days if
possible, certainly in the next few weeks to avoid this sequester.
In my State of Arkansas, there are 91 poultry and meat processing
facilities that will have to close their doors at least at some point
because they do not have meat inspectors and food inspectors on site.
That is 91 facilities. That is a lot of employees. We have employees at
52 Arkansas FSA offices. These are Department of Ag offices that are
out around the counties to help people in the farming industry, to give
them some government resources, advice, et cetera. Fifty-two of those
offices are not going to close their doors, but they are going to have
to furlough their employees. There is no doubt they will be at partial
strength instead of full strength at a very critical time for farmers
all over the State of Arkansas.
Also, we have an FDA facility there, the National Center for
Toxicological Research, and it is going to be cut by an estimated $3
million. Well, that facility is a nice little economic engine for that
part of the State. That means when they cut it, it is going to have a
negative ripple effect, an adverse ripple effect in that part of our
State's economy.
I know in this Chamber and in this town there is a lot of discussion
about making the government small and how we should cut the government
and how the government should be lean and all that. Do you know what. A
lot of that I do not disagree with. But I do think it is important for
all of us, as responsible policymakers, to understand the reality that
whether we like it or not--and many of us have philosophical
disagreements on this; and I am not trying to get into that, but
whether we like it or not, our government is very intertwined in the
U.S. economy, our government is a critical part of the U.S. economy.

So you take something like the food industry--and I am chairman of
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture--if you take something
as basic as agriculture--something that may not be very sexy, that does
not get a lot of headlines, that people do not think a lot about
because we take it for granted in this country that we are going to
have a good, healthy, robust food supply, but that does not have to be
the case. It certainly is not the case in most countries around the
world. We are very spoiled. We are very fortunate in this country to
have that. But the agricultural sector cannot function without the
government.
Again, we have a safe food supply. We need inspectors out there to
make sure that meat and other foods that are being processed get that
USDA seal of approval--grade A, whatever it is. That means something.
If we cannot know our food is safe, then we have diminished what it
means to live in this country. We do not want to get into that. Let's
avoid that. This is avoidable.
I know a lot of Arkansans, when I talk to them, say: Can't you all do
something? Can't you work together? The answer is yes, we can work
together. It is just a matter of political will. We have to make up our
minds that is what we are going to do, that we are going to work
together.
In 2011, we passed the Budget Control Act. Here again, I think the
news media has not covered this a lot, has not explained this very well
to most Americans. But one of the things the Budget Control Act of 2011
did, among other things, is it set spending caps for the Federal
Government. So as back in the 1980s, when people worried about $180
billion deficits--now we have much larger deficits than that, but back
then in the 1980s, we put on the Gramm-Rudman spending caps and things
such as that--Gramm-Rudman-Hollings--and there were other efforts over
the years.
Well, that is what we have done with the Budget Control Act. We have
spending caps for the next 10 years--now it is for the next 9 years
when it comes to Federal spending. I think people do not always
appreciate that because what they hear out of Washington--instead of
people explaining what is going on and trying to help the American
people understand what they get from Washington--is blame, blame,
blame. I cannot count the number of press conferences we have had where
one side has come out to blame the other side. I know some of the House
Members just came out and blamed the Senate. Democrats are blaming
Republicans. Republicans are blaming the President. The President is
blaming the Congress. It goes on and on and on. It never stops. It is a
dead-end street.
The truth is we voted for sequester. I do not care who came up with
the idea, we voted for it. As we have talked about many times on this
floor, the reason we put sequester in in the first place was because it
was such a bad idea; it will be so hard to do; it does not make a lot
of sense. But, nonetheless, it was to try to force our folks to get to
a budget deal. It did not happen. But I think the important thing is,
all Americans need to know everybody in Washington owns this. You can
blame all you want. You can have as many

[[Page S842]]

press conferences as you want, but everybody in Washington owns this.
We need to own up to our responsibility as Congressmen and Senators and
as the President and do what we can to not hurt this country.
Let me talk for a few more moments because I see one of my colleagues
has arrived here. Let me say the sequestration, again, was an idea that
was put together because they wanted it to be so painful that we would
never get here. These are arbitrary cuts. You do not take into account
the efficiency of programs, the effectiveness of programs. You do not
take into account the merits of programs. You just cut across the
board.
I think we probably will do some more cuts. We probably should do
some more cuts. I think if you look at the Simpson-Bowles blueprint--
that proposal a lot of us have talked about over the last couple
years--they would probably look at that and look at the numbers and say
we still need to do some cutting. But we also need some revenue. We
still need to do that. But our cuts should be smart and they should be
deliberate and they should increase the bang that the taxpayer gets for
their buck. That is not what sequestration does. It does not achieve
any of those goals.
One thing about the Department of Agriculture--here again, people
need to understand this; we talk about this here in our committee rooms
and whatnot, but I think a lot of times the message does not get out--
agriculture funding has already been cut by 15 percent. There has
already been a 15-percent cut to agriculture, starting in 2010 to
today: 15 percent. I think it is unwise for us to cut an industry which
is one of the core strengths of the U.S. economy.
If we look at the U.S. economy, there are a lot of things we do well.
But there is no doubt at all we do agriculture better than anyone else
in the world. There is not even a close second place. You innovate when
it comes to agriculture. This is where you maximize crops. The United
States of America is the gold standard for agricultural productivity
and new technology and innovation and all these great things to make
this country the breadbasket that it is. So why in the world are we
going to cut, cut, cut agriculture? It does not make any sense.
Of course, rural America is struggling disproportionately. With the
recession and all that has hit rural America, it is tough out there.
Let me tell you, I come from a very rural State. It is tough. These
cuts are going to harm rural America much more than they will harm
urban America and suburban America. It is a fact of life. Again, that
is another reason why we need to avoid this.
So in closing--I know I have one of my colleagues here who wishes to
speak--let me get back to the meat inspectors. The Department of
Agriculture says they may have to be furloughed for up to 15 days. That
means you are going to have to temporarily close--maybe for a day at a
time--6,000 processing plants nationwide. There are over 90 of those in
Arkansas. Just in my State, that is going to have an impact on not
those few government jobs, it is going to have an impact on 40,000 jobs
in the private sector--40,000 jobs in the private sector--because of
this.
It also is going to disrupt the efficiencies we have in the protein
markets in this country. What that means is, prices are going to go up,
people are going to pay more for their meat products at the grocery
store and at the restaurant. This is not going to be a win for anybody.
And I think you are going to see about $400 million in industry wages
that could be lost as a result. That is not going to help the U.S.
economy.
Then you expand what the U.S. Department of Agriculture does beyond
row crop and livestock-type agriculture. They do a lot in the area of
clean water, fire and rescue vehicles in rural communities. They do
community building in rural America--things such as hospitals, school
construction. They do rental assistance programs, and a lot of these
are for the poorest of the poor out there around our country. Again, it
is going to disproportionately hurt these people who can least afford
it.
I mentioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but also at the FDA,
it seems to me almost every one of their employees around the country
could be subject to these furloughs and these cuts and will be
adversely affected.
Do we want to interrupt the gold standard we have with food and drugs
in this country through the FDA? I would say no.
I think it is time for us to come together, to work together, to find
a solution. I think one of the bits of good news we see in Washington
is there is nothing wrong here that we cannot fix with some political
will. I think that is what this is all about. It is a little bit of a
test of wills right now, but I think there is no doubt we can fix this
with some political will.
Mr. President, with that, I will yield the floor.
I see my colleague from Vermont is in the Chamber.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. I thank my colleague from Arkansas for yielding.
When we talk about sequestration, when we talk about deficit
reduction, it is important to put that discussion in a broader context.
The broader context needs to be, No. 1, what is the fairest way to move
toward deficit reduction and what is the best approach in terms of
economic policy making our country strong and creating jobs.
I fear very much the debate we are currently having has very little
to do with financial issues. I believe it has a lot to do with
ideology. It is all about economic winners and losers in our country.
It is all about the power of big money. It is all about the soul of
what America is supposed to be.
You may have noticed there was a poll done. I can't remember who did
it, but it was consistent with all the other polls I have seen. They
asked the American people: Are you concerned about deficit reduction?
Do you think we should cut Social Security and Medicare?
Overwhelmingly, Democrats said no, Republicans said no.
Yet here in the Congress, surrounded by lobbyists and campaign
contributors who are very wealthy, that is where we are heading. We are
heading toward a so-called chained CPI, which very few people outside
the beltway understand. This will mean cuts, significant cuts in Social
Security and in benefits for disabled veterans.
The American people say we think the wealthiest people in this
country should help us with deficit reduction, protect the safety net.
In Congress, there is a fierce attack by the Republicans and some
Democrats on the safety net. To a large degree, we are allowing large
corporations, that are enjoying very low effective tax rates, to get
away with what they are doing.
When we talk about who should help us with deficit reduction, we need
to look at what is going on economically in the United States of
America. We don't discuss this issue enough. We need more people coming
down to the floor to talk about it. We have the most unequal
distribution of wealth and income of any major country on Earth, and
the gap between the very wealthy and everyone else is growing wider.
Today, the wealthiest 400 individuals in this country own more wealth
than the bottom half of American people, 150 million people. You have
150 million here, you have 400 over there. Who do you think should pick
up the burden of deficit reduction?
Should we go after children who are having a hard time getting the
nutrition they need or seniors who can't afford prescription drugs?
Yes, we could do that.
Is that a moral thing to do? No. Is that good economics? No.
Today, one family, the Walton family of Walmart, is probably the most
major welfare beneficiary in America. So many of their low-paid
employees are on Medicaid, food stamps or other Federal programs. This
one family owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of the American
people.
Do you know what we did a couple months ago? We gave the Walton
family a tax break by expanding the estate tax.
Today, the top 1 percent owns 38 percent of all financial wealth--1
percent owns 38 percent. The bottom 60 percent owns less than 3 percent
of all wealth.
What do we think? Do we want to go after the bottom 60 percent,
families

[[Page S843]]

who are making $25,000, $30,000 a year, falling further and further
behind? Do we want to take away the educational opportunities and the
nutrition their kids can get? Yes, we may do it that way. Maybe it
makes more sense to go after the top 1 percent who are doing
phenomenally well.
Do you know what. The vast majority of Americans agree with that, but
this Congress does not reflect the interests of the vast majority of
the American people. It is not the American people who are funding the
campaigns for Members of the Senate and the House. It is not the
average American who has well-paid lobbyists all over this place.
As Warren Buffett has pointed out, the 400 richest Americans are now
worth a record-breaking $1.7 trillion, more than 5 times what they were
worth two decades ago.
While the wealthiest people are becoming even richer, the Federal
Reserve reported last year that median net worth for middle-class
families dropped by nearly 40 percent from 2007 to 2010, dropped by 40
percent. That is the equivalent of wiping out 18 years of savings for
the average middle-class family.
Whom do we go after? Do we think it makes any economic or moral sense
to go after a middle class which is disappearing or maybe do we ask the
wealthiest people in this country--who are doing phenomenally well--to
help us with deficit reduction?
As bad as wealth inequality is, the distribution of income, what
people make every year is even worse. It is an amazing statistic, and I
hope everybody pays attention to this.
The last study on the subject of income distribution showed that from
2009 to 2011, the last study we have, 100 percent of all new income
went to the top 1 percent, while the bottom 99 percent actually saw a
loss in their income. In a sense it doesn't matter, given that
incredible imbalance in income, what kind of economic growth we have.
All the gains are going to go to the top 1 percent.
I have some friends over in the House, our Republican friends, who
are saying: No, no, no. We can't ask these people to help us more with
deficit reduction. I think that is very wrong.
When we are talking about how to reduce the deficit--and we all want
to do that--we need to understand we can't get blood out of a stone. We
can't ask people who are earning less and in many cases working longer
hours. We can't ask the 14 percent of Americans who are unemployed. If
we add people who have given up looking for work and people who are
working part-time, we cannot get blood out of a stone. As Willy Sutton
the bank robber reminded us, you go where the money is. In this case,
all the money and all the income gains are with the top 1 percent.
The other point that needs to be made is we need to ask the question
of how we reached the place we are right now. No. 1, we need to ask who
is best able to help us with deficit reduction. It is surely not the
struggling middle class. It is surely not the disabled veterans and
their families. It is surely not elderly people who can't afford
prescription drugs. It is surely not kids who don't have enough to eat.
The second question we need to ask is how did we get to where we are
today. Did this deficit just arrive yesterday?
I think we all remember that in the last year of the Clinton
administration this country had a $236 billion surplus, a surplus. The
economists were projecting that the surplus would expand, expand, and
expand.
What happened from the year 2000 to 2013 so that we went from a very
significant surplus to a very serious deficit? That needs to be
understood when we talk about sequestration and deficit reduction. The
answer is, as everybody knows, we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A strange thing happened. We forgot to pay for those two wars. When we
go into two wars and we are taking care of all those veterans who have
been hurt, that adds up to something like $3 trillion by the time we
take care of the last veteran, as we must.
During the Bush administration, we gave huge tax breaks to the
wealthiest people in this country, didn't offset it. That adds up. We
passed the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, didn't pay for
that. That adds up.
Most important, because of the greed, recklessness, and illegal
behavior on Wall Street, we were plunged into a major recession, high
unemployment, businesses going under, less tax revenue coming into the
Federal coffers.
I know my Republican friends say cut, cut, cut, cut benefits for
disabled vets, cut Social Security, cut Medicaid, cut nutrition, cut
Head Start. We could do it that way, but we should also understand that
at 15.8 percent as compared to GDP, the percentage of GDP, our revenue
is almost the lowest it has been in 60 years.
Yes, in the middle of a recession we are spending a lot of money
making sure people don't go hungry, making sure people who lost their
jobs have unemployment benefits, making sure people have affordable
housing. It is true. What is also true is that at 15.8 percent, as a
percentage of GDP, our revenue is less, almost less than it has been in
60 years.
Today, not only are we seeing a growing gap between the very wealthy
and everybody else, it is important to take a look at large
corporations. When we do, we find that corporate profits are at an
alltime high, while corporate income tax revenue as a percentage of GDP
is near a record low. Profits are soaring, and the effective tax rate
is near a record low.
In 2011, corporate revenue as a percentage of GDP was just 1.2
percent lower than any other major country in the OECD, including Great
Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, et cetera. Corporate revenue
as a percentage of GDP is 1.2 percent lower than any other major
country in the OECD. In 2011, corporations paid 12 percent of their
profits in taxes, the lowest since 1972.
We have a choice. Do we go after the elderly? Do we go after the
sick? Do we go after the children? Do we go after the poor or maybe do
we say that when corporate profits are at a record level and their
effective tax rate is the lowest since 1972, maybe we say to corporate
America, hey, help us with deficit reduction.
The last figures we have seen on this issue is that in 2005, one out
of four major corporations paid no income tax at all while they
collected over $1 trillion of revenue over that 1-year period.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SANDERS. Let me conclude by simply saying we are losing $100
billion a year from tax havens in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere.
There are ways to do deficit reduction without hurting the most
vulnerable people in this society.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Before Senator Sanders leaves, let me commend him. I
didn't hear all his remarks, but I know the subject of his address, his
remarks, was the fact corporations now contribute about 10 percent of
the total revenue which comes into Uncle Sam. Years ago, it was about
50 percent, and then gradually it has come down to about where it is
now.
The reason for that, mainly, is that there are a whole bunch of
gimmicks and loopholes which have been inserted into our tax laws which
need to be closed. If they can be closed, we would be able to avoid
sequestration. That is how big the loopholes are.
I am not talking about deductions, which most people would say serve
a useful purpose. Whether people agree with that purpose, at least
deductions, as we generally understand deductions, serve some kind of a
productive purpose. For instance, corporations get accelerated
depreciation when they buy equipment. That serves a very important
purpose. It gives an incentive to buy equipment.
Even the oil and gas credit, which I don't support, nonetheless, the
purpose of it is to give an incentive to explore and drill for oil and
gas. Whether one agrees with that purpose, at least it is a purpose.
When it comes to these loopholes and gimmicks which are used to shift
revenues to tax havens, there is no useful purpose. The only purpose is
taxable. Those are the loopholes which we can close, and those are the
loopholes which it seems to me there ought to be broad bipartisan
support to close. If we can close them, we can avoid sequestration.
Again, that is how big these loopholes are.

[[Page S844]]

I very much appreciate the reference by the Senator from Vermont to
our Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the work we have been
doing, and I very much appreciate the energy he brings to this effort.
It ought to be bipartisan. Again, these kinds of loopholes are not what
most people consider to be legitimate deductions but are a kind of tax-
avoidance scheme that should not be in the law even if we had no
deficit. I guess one of the critical differences between these kinds of
tax-avoidance gimmicks and the ordinary deductions corporations take is
the fact that the use of these and the abuse of these should be
eliminated on a bipartisan basis.
So I would like to thank my friend. I wish I had caught the early
part of his remarks, but that was not to be.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the President's
nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense.
I know Senator Chuck Hagel well from having served with him for many
years in the Senate. We were sworn in as Senators on the same day and
traveled to Iraq together in 2003 as part of the first Senate
delegation there after the war began.
Senator Hagel's courageous military service deserves our praise and
gratitude, and I know he cares deeply about our servicemembers. His
experience as a soldier during the war in Vietnam is significant as the
Senate considers his nomination to be Secretary of Defense, but, of
course, it is but one factor that we must weigh in our consideration of
him for this critical Cabinet post. Senator Hagel and I spent 90
minutes in my office discussing a wide range of issues, which I
appreciated, and I reviewed carefully the lengthy Senate Armed Services
Committee hearing on his nomination.
The next Secretary of Defense will be responsible for managing a
massive bureaucracy, the defense budget, threats emanating from Iran,
North Korea, and Islamist extremism, the withdrawal of United States
combat forces from Afghanistan, and an increasingly provocative Chinese
military as well as personnel issues affecting those serving in
uniform.
With regard to our servicemembers, I am confident that Senator Hagel
would devote the necessary attention to address the horrendous rate of
sexual assault in the military and would work to reduce the
unacceptable, record high number of suicides among our troops.
As the coauthor with former Senator Joe Lieberman of the law that
repealed the military's ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy that barred
openly gay people from serving in the military, I am now satisfied that
Senator Hagel is committed to implementing this law fully.
We also discussed the specter of sequestration, which would lead to
irresponsible cuts that would cripple our readiness and capability to
project power on land, air, and sea. Senator Hagel reiterated Secretary
Leon Panetta's position that such meat-ax cuts would be disastrous and
catastrophic to our national security and economy.
In addition, I understand Senator Hagel's overall philosophy on the
need to exercise caution before deploying military forces. Such
restraint, at times, can provide a valuable voice of caution to temper
the impulse to exercise America's significant military edge.
Nevertheless, several critical issues loom large as I contemplate the
threats facing our national security and consider Senator Hagel's
nomination. These issues include the proliferation of terrorism, the
threat of a nuclear-armed Iran and the reality of a nuclear-armed North
Korea, an increasingly dangerous and unstable Middle East that
threatens our national interests and our ally Israel, and the
possibility of deep and indiscriminate cuts in the defense budget that
would undermine America's strength and security.
While Osama bin Laden is dead and al-Qaida has suffered significant
losses in Afghanistan and Pakistan, violent Islamist extremism has
metastasized to other regions around the world, particularly to the
countries in North Africa. The terrorist attack in Benghazi left four
Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, and an attack
killed three Americans at an Algerian gas facility. AQAP's top bomb-
maker is still at large, and Hezbollah and Hamas continue to rearm in
Lebanon and Gaza. Hundreds of rockets have been fired from Gaza into
Israel, the vast majority fortunately stopped by the highly effective
Iron Dome.
Senator Hagel's views on these critical threats are unsettling to me.
For example, with regard to Hezbollah, Senator Hagel was unwilling to
ask the European Union to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist
organization in 2006. While 88 other Senators, including then-Senators
Obama and Clinton, supported this reasonable request, Senator Hagel did
not. Hezbollah has the blood of more Americans on its hands than any
other terrorist organization besides al-Qaida, yet Senator Hagel
refused to urge the EU to call Hezbollah what it is--a terrorist
organization.
Senator Hagel has explained to me that he had a principle of not
sending correspondence to foreign leaders because he believes the
President, not Congress, conducts foreign policy. Indeed, in January
2009, former Senator Hagel did sign an ill-advised letter counseling
Barack Obama to spearhead direct, unconditional talks with Hamas--a
position that President Obama wisely chose to disregard.
Senator Hagel's general principle of abstaining from sending letters
to foreign leaders on policy matters did not, however, preclude him
from signing a 2007 letter to the Prime Minister of Vietnam to
encourage efforts to bring the Peace Corps to that country. If
expanding the Peace Corps' presence warrants an exception to Senator
Hagel's policy of not sending letters to foreign leaders, I cannot
fathom why a matter as grave and as clear as a request to the EU to
name Hezbollah a terrorist group would not warrant a similar exception.
When it comes to the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, the American
people have been told for several years that Iran is 18 to 24 months
away from having the capability to build a nuclear weapon. I fear that
we are truly within that time window as I speak today. A nuclear-armed
Iran would have grave consequences for the United States and would pose
an existential threat to the State of Israel. The prospect of a
nuclear-armed Iran could also fuel the most significant proliferation
of nuclear weapons in the Middle East since the dawn of the nuclear
age. Thus, Senator Hagel's votes, statements, and views on this grave
threat matter a great deal.
What concerns me as much as his repeated reluctance previously to
leave all options on the table is his past hesitancy to exercise all of
the non-military options, such as unilateral sanctions, that are the
primary peaceful means of inducing Iran to cease its nuclear weapons
program and allow for International Atomic Energy Agency inspections.
Senator Hagel supports multi-lateral sanctions contending that they
work better and has opposed unilateral sanctions. Certainly, in an
ideal world, multi-lateral sanctions can be more effective, and I
welcome other countries that wish to join the United States in adopting
sanctions. But the United States' imposition of sanctions--even if we
were to act virtually alone--not only helps to disrupt Iran's nuclear
program but also demonstrates moral leadership.
In the last Congress, I introduced legislation to make shipping
classification societies choose between doing business with Iran or
with the United States Coast Guard. It was a unilateral effort. I did
not have the authority to make this change at the U.N. Initially, these
organizations thought it would be business as usual. As the bill moved
through Congress and now that the bill is law, none of them continues
to work with Iran. That's just one example of an effective unilateral
action.
Particularly concerning to me is a press report that Senator Hagel
thwarted an effort in 2008 to pass sanctions against Iran that was
supported by more than 70 Senators. The Department of Defense contends
that Senator Hagel joined other Republican Senators in holding the Iran
Sanctions bill due to concerns they and the Bush administration had on
how to impose the most effective sanctions on Iran. According to the
Department, his disagreement was not with the objectives of the bill,
but was a vote based on its effectiveness at that time.
I am not, however, aware of any other Republican Senator blocking
that bill. Furthermore, it does not

[[Page S845]]

matter who else may have been involved because no one but Senator Hagel
is the President's nominee to be the Secretary of Defense.
We are at a moment in history when there can be no reservation,
hesitancy, or opposition to enact any and all sanctions that could
change Iran's calculus regarding its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
We are seeing a major transformation in the Middle East. The United
States' interests in this region are vital: trade through the Suez
Canal, the availability of energy resources, the security of Israel,
the prevention of Iran developing a nuclear weapon, and the future of
Syria which has the potential to destabilize the region.
Will we be resolute and stand by our friends and allies, even during
this tumultuous time? In our partnership with Israel, there is an
opportunity for the United States to demonstrate that we stand by our
allies even when the neighborhood looks more dangerous than it has in
decades.
Unfortunately, I am concerned that Senator Hagel's nomination would
send the wrong message at the wrong time to our allies and adversaries
around the world about the resolve of the United States. It is telling
and disturbing that when I asked Senator Hagel what he believed were
the greatest threats facing our country, he identified the resource
shortage that could result from the addition of two billion more people
during the next couple decades as near the top of his list. While there
no doubt will be tremendous challenges associated with this
development, his response concerned me when I consider all of the
enormous near-term threats facing our country.
In my judgment, Islamist terrorism, a nuclear-armed North Korea and
potentially a nuclear-armed Iran, an unstable and chaotic Middle East,
cyber attacks, Chinese provocations, and budget constraints will likely
consume the attention of our country's national security leaders during
the next 4 years. I believe a vote in favor of Senator Hagel would send
the wrong signal to our military, the American people, and to the world
about America's resolve regarding the most important national security
challenges of our era.
I am unable to support Senator Hagel to be the next Secretary of
Defense because I do not believe his past positions, votes, and
statements match the challenges of our time, and his presentations at
his hearing did nothing to ease my doubts. I regret having to reach
that conclusion given our personal relationship and my admiration for
Senator Hagel's military service. But I have concluded that he is not
well-suited for the tremendous challenges our country faces during this
dangerous era in our history.
As I announce my decision to cast my vote in opposition to Senator
Hagel's nomination, let me address one final question: Should this
nomination, which causes me such great concern, be filibustered? As a
general rule, I believe a President has the right to choose the members
of his Cabinet, and only in extraordinary circumstances should such a
nomination be filibustered. I oppose Senator Hagel's nomination, but I
cannot join in a filibuster to block each Senator's right to vote for
or against him.
I wish that President Obama had made a different choice for this
critical position, but he is entitled to have this nominee receive a
direct vote on the Senate floor. And I, for one, will vote against the
nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I support the confirmation of our former
colleague and my friend, Chuck Hagel, to serve as Secretary of Defense.
Providing advice and consent on a nomination for the President's
Cabinet is one of the Senate's most significant constitutional
responsibilities, particularly in the case of the Secretary of Defense.
It is a very serious responsibility because no duty is more important
than preserving the safety and security of our Nation and its people.
I believe this nominee has the knowledge and ability to carry out the
duties of this important office. Chuck Hagel feels strongly that the
United States should be the most capable military power in the world.
He also believes the United States must continue to be committed to
Israel's security and its ability to defend its borders.
At a time when our adversaries continue to increase their arsenals of
rockets and missiles and to develop medium- and long-range ballistic
missiles that threaten our security, the security of our deployed
forces, and the security of our friends and allies, it is imperative
that we continue to develop, field, and maintain a robust missile
defense capability. I know Senator Hagel is supportive of these
efforts, and I will be pleased to join with him in further advancing
these priorities.
Senator Hagel is a decorated Vietnam veteran, a successful
entrepreneur, Deputy Administrator of the Veterans' Administration,
President and CEO of the USO, and a two-term United States Senator.
Throughout his distinguished career in public service, Senator Hagel
has proven himself to be a fair, intelligent and courageous leader of
good character and integrity.
I am confident that Senator Hagel will serve with distinction as
Secretary of Defense.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for
the nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel to be our next Secretary
of Defense. He is eminently qualified for the position and possesses an
exemplary record of service to this country. I strongly believe that a
President is entitled to his cabinet selections unless there is
something in an individual's record or background that is
disqualifying. And there is nothing in Senator Hagel's background that
is disqualifying. He is a veteran, he has been a successful CEO, and he
has served at highest levels of the legislative and executive branches.
I served with Senator Hagel during his two terms in the U.S. Senate--
including his service on the Senate Intelligence Committee from 2003-
2008. I found him to be a knowledgeable and independent voice with a
strong grasp of the pressing national security issues facing our
country. Those of us who served with him know Senator Hagel's story
well. His career began as a sergeant in the U.S. Army in Vietnam where
he served with distinction and earned two Purple Hearts. Indeed, as an
enlisted man, he has seen the true costs of war. He understands that
the use of military force should always be a last resort and should
only be undertaken with a clear strategy, clear mission and the
resources to get the job done. He understands that we have a solemn
obligation to take care of our returning veterans and the families and
loved ones of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. As we emerge from
over 10 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan that is the kind of
leadership we need at the Department of Defense and, more importantly,
that is the kind of leadership the men and women in uniform deserve.
They will take pride in the fact that Senator Hagel will be the first
enlisted man and the first Vietnam veteran to head the Department.
Chuck also served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the USO
and as the Deputy Administrator of the Veterans Administration during
the Reagan administration, where he fought to ensure that our veterans
received the benefits they earned, including assistance for those
suffering from Agent Orange. He then went on to the private sector
where he co-founded VANGUARD Cellular Systems, a leading cellular
carrier in the U.S. Most recently, he co-chaired the President's
Intelligence Advisory Board.
Now, it is no secret that Senator Hagel has his critics, but let us
take a closer look at who has endorsed his nomination.
A bi-partisan group of 13 former Secretaries of State, Secretaries of
Defense, and National Security Advisors from the Reagan, George H.W.
Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush administrations sent a letter to the
Senate expressing their support for Senator Hagel to be the next
Secretary of Defense arguing that he is ``uniquely qualified to meet
the challenges facing the Department of Defense and our men and women
in uniform.'' They continued:

Our extensive experience working with Senator Hagel over
the years has left us confident that he has the necessary
background to succeed in the job of leading the largest
federal agency.

He has also received endorsements from 11 senior retired military
leaders, over fifty Ambassadors and statesmen, and numerous veterans'
organizations.

[[Page S846]]

A group of ten former U.S. Ambassadors--including four former
Ambassadors to Israel--argued that:

We can think of few more qualified, more non-partisan, more
courageous or better equipped to head the Department of
Defense at this critical moment in strengthening America's
role in the world.

The group of retired Generals and Admirals from the Army, Air Force,
Marines, and Navy--including General Anthony Zinni, General Brent
Scowcroft, and Admiral William Fallon--went even further. In an open
letter, they argued that Senator Hagel ``would be a strong leader'' as
the next Pentagon chief and that he's ``eminently qualified for the
job.'' But, more importantly, they believe that he understands the
challenges that our warfighters face and is the person who can best
lead the Pentagon.
And, even with all the accusations about Senator Hagel's views on
Israel, Israeli Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said that ``[Senator
Hagel] certainly regards Israel as a true and natural U.S. ally.''
Clearly, those of us here in the Senate who support Senator Hagel's
nomination are not alone in believing he will make a fine Secretary of
Defense and will serve our nation, once again, with distinction.
Make no mistake, difficult challenges lie ahead. We are transitioning
out of Afghanistan, but its future remains uncertain, and the threat of
global terror endures, particularly in North Africa. We are on the
verge of seeing massive cuts to the Pentagon's budget due to
sequestration, which will negatively impact readiness and the defense
industrial base. The nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea move
forward, and new tests and provocations continue, including in areas
such as cybersecurity.
In my view, Senator Hagel has the insight, experience, and know-how
to take on this daunting agenda and help protect American lives and
U.S. national security interests. I look forward to supporting his
nomination as the next Secretary of Defense, and I urge my colleagues
to do the same.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, is the remainder of the time reserved for
the Hagel nomination or is it just open?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is. There is 20 minutes, with 10 minutes on
each side.
Mr. LEVIN. And the vote is to take place at 4:30?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. LEVIN. And the time is evenly divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I think it is safe to say that is accurate.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, 5 weeks ago Senator Hagel was warmly
introduced at his nomination hearing by two former chairmen of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Sam Nunn and Senator John
Warner, who represent the best bipartisan tradition of the Senate and
our committee. As a matter of fact, the Presiding Officer, Senator
Manchin, was present at the time when that presentation was made by
Senators Nunn and Warner, and he was a witness to how powerful their
testimony in support of Senator Hagel was.
Senator Nunn told the committee:

I believe that our Nation is fortunate to have a nominee
for Secretary of Defense with the character, the experience,
the courage, and the leadership that Chuck Hagel would bring
to this position.

He said:

There are many essential characteristics and values that a
Secretary of Defense should possess in our dangerous and
challenging world.

And he named a few of them, including someone who sets aside fixed
ideology and biases to evaluate all options and then provides his or
her candid judgment to the President and to the Congress. He also named
this characteristic: someone who pays attention to people with the best
ideas regardless of their party affiliation.
And then Senator Warner said:

Folks, there is an old saying in the combat Army infantry
and Marine Corps. ``Certain men are asked to take the
point,'' which means to get out and lead in the face of the
enemy. Chuck Hagel did that as a sergeant in Vietnam. If
confirmed, Chuck Hagel will do it again, this time not before
a platoon, but before every man and woman and their families
in the Armed Services.

Facing Senator Hagel, he said this:

You will lead them. And they will know in their hearts we
have one of our own.

Earlier today the Senate acted in a bipartisan fashion in voting to
end the filibuster of this nomination by a very substantial vote.
If confirmed, Senator Hagel would be the first former enlisted man
and the first veteran of the Vietnam war to serve as Secretary of
Defense. This background gives Senator Hagel an invaluable perspective
not only with respect to the difficult decisions and recommendations a
Secretary of Defense must make regarding the use of force and the
commitment of U.S. troops overseas but also with respect to the day-to-
day decisions a Secretary must make to ensure that our men and women in
uniform and their families receive the support and assistance they need
and deserve.
Our country faces major challenges. Abroad, we face challenges from
Afghanistan, where the Department of Defense faces key decisions about
the pace of the drawdown between now and the end of 2014, decisions
about the size and the composition of a residual force, and decisions
about the terms and conditions for our ongoing presence in Afghanistan
after 2014.
Elsewhere overseas, we face the ongoing threat of Iran's nuclear
weapons program, the destruction and instability caused by Syria's
civil war, and the outgrowth of al-Qaida affiliates in ungoverned
regions, including Yemen, Somalia, and north Africa.
We also face extremely difficult issues here at home. We have been
warned that sequestration and a yearlong continuing resolution risk
creating a hollow force and could confront our military leaders with
the untenable choice between sending troops into harm's way without
adequate training and equipment or being unable to take on certain
missions at all. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has
described the impact of this budget crisis on the Department of Defense
as a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10.
Now as much as anytime in the recent past, our men and women in
uniform need a Secretary of Defense to guide them through difficult
situations around the world and to defend their interests here at home.
The President needs a Secretary of Defense in whom he has trust, who
will give him unvarnished advice, a person of integrity and one who has
a personal understanding of the consequences of decisions relative to
the use of military force.
It is time to end the uncertainty relative to the leadership at the
Pentagon. The time has come to now confirm Chuck Hagel as our next
Secretary of Defense, and I hope the Senate will, on a bipartisan
basis, soon do exactly that.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is, Shall the Senate advise and consent to the
nomination of Charles Timothy Hagel, of Nebraska, to be Secretary of
Defense.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 41, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 24 Ex.]

YEAS--58

Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Pryor

[[Page S847]]

Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--41

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NOT VOTING--1

Lautenberg

The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
The President shall be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

____________________