[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 181 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7956-S7987]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from Virginia, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  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the quorum call be rescinded.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. I ask unanimous consent there be 2 minutes of debate, 
equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to the Udall of Colorado 
amendment No. 1107; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the 
Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment, with no amendments 
in order prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado.


                           Amendment No. 1107

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, this amendment strikes 
controversial detainee provisions that have been inserted in the 
National Defense Authorization Act. It would require that the Defense 
intelligence and law enforcement agencies report to Congress with 
recommendations for any additional authorities they need in order to 
detain and prosecute terrorists. The amendment would then ask for 
hearings to be held so we can fully understand the opposition to these 
provisions by our national security experts--bipartisan opposition, I 
might add--and hopefully avoid a veto of the Defense authorization 
bill.
  In short, we are ignoring the advice and the input of the Director of 
the FBI, the Director of our intelligence community, the Attorney 
General of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and the White 
House, who are all saying there are significant concerns with these 
provisions; that we ought to move slowly.
  We have been successful in prosecuting over 300 terrorists through 
our civil justice system. Let's not fix what isn't broken until we 
fully understand the ramifications.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 30 seconds to Senator Graham.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, section 1031 is a congressional statement 
of authority of already existing law. It reaffirms the fact this body 
believes al-Qaida and affiliated groups are a military threat to the 
United States and they can be held under the law of war indefinitely to 
make sure we find out what they are up to; and they can be questioned 
in a humane manner consistent with the law of war.
  Section 1032 says if you are captured on the homeland, you will be 
held in military custody so we can gather intelligence. That provision 
can be waived if it interferes with the investigation.
  These are needed changes. These are changes that reaffirm what is 
already in law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Supreme Court has recently ruled--this 
is the Supreme Court talking:

       There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own 
     citizens as an enemy combatant. A citizen, no less than an 
     alien, can be

[[Page S7957]]

     part of the supporting forces hostile to the United States, 
     and such a citizen, if released, would pose the same threat 
     of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict.

  That is the Supreme Court's statement. We can and must deal with an 
al-Qaida threat. We can do it properly. The administration helped to 
draft almost all of this bill. The provisions which would be struck----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. Are provisions which even the administration has helped to 
draft. So I would hope we would deal with the al-Qaida threat in an 
appropriate way, in a bipartisan way. The committee voted 
overwhelmingly for this language.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three seconds.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. The Director of the FBI, the Secretary of 
Defense, the Attorney General, and the Director of Intelligence have 
all said let's go slow.
  Pass the Udall amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient 
second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Franken). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 210 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Wyden

                                NAYS--60

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Nelson (NE)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Whitehouse
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Begich
     Murkowski
       
  The amendment (No. 1107) was rejected.


                             change of vote

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 210, I voted ``nay.'' 
It was my intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 
that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the 
outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I could have Senator McCain's attention 
as well, what we are trying to do next is to move to two amendments, if 
we can. Both are next on the pending list. One is the Paul amendment 
No. 1064, repeal the authorization for use of military force against 
Iraq. The second one is not directly after his but follows after two 
Feinstein amendments. Senator Feinstein told me she could not be here 
early this afternoon. I told her if hers could be made part of a 
unanimous consent agreement, that could come later because this 
afternoon we have other things we can do. So the second amendment on 
this list is another nongermane amendment by Senator Landrieu, No. 
1115, relative to small business research grants.
  What we are trying to do is work out a unanimous consent agreement. 
There will be 60-vote thresholds on those two amendments. Neither one 
of them, I believe, is germane. As part of that agreement, we would 
also next move to approximately 40 cleared amendments which we would 
then ask be passed as cleared. That would all be part of a unanimous 
consent agreement we are currently drafting.
  So I want to alert our colleagues----
  Mr. McCAIN. For the benefit of our colleagues, could I add also the 
agreement of a half hour time limit on the Paul amendment? He would 
agree to that. I am sure Senator Landrieu would agree to a short time 
agreement on her amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am sure she told me that would be OK. When we prepare 
our unanimous consent agreement, we will doublecheck that.
  So that is where we stand. We hope in the next few minutes to be able 
to bring to the body a unanimous consent agreement. In the meantime, 
unless there is someone else who seeks recognition, I would note the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. 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. COBURN. I have cleared with Senator Levin to be able to speak 
about a topic but not offer an amendment. I understand we are working 
on a unanimous consent agreement. I do have an amendment that at the 
appropriate time hopefully will be able to be brought up, but I wish to 
discuss it now. I think it is a way for us to save $1.1 billion over 
the next 5 years in the Defense Department, give children of on-base 
military schools a better education, help the local school districts 
through Impact Aid by $12,000 per student per year, and actually do 
what we are intending to do in terms of education.
  We have 64 schools right now on 18 military bases within the United 
States. There are 26,000 students taught by 2,300 teachers. That is 1 
teacher for every 11 students. The average cost per student per year is 
$51,000 in a military school--$51,000. That is 250 percent higher than 
the highest cost district anywhere in the United States--2\1/2\ times.
  This amendment says let's use local schools, let's help local schools 
through these military bases, and let's give an exemption if we need 
to, if it is not available. If we were to do that, three positive 
things would happen. The first one is probably a better education. 
According to the teachers, conditions are so bad that some of the 
educators at base schools envy the civilian public schools off base, 
which admittedly have their own challenges. ``Some of the new schools 
in town make our schools look like a prison,'' said David Primer, who 
uses a trailer as a classroom to teach students German at Marine Corps 
headquarters in Quantico, VA. In other words, what they are looking at, 
what they are doing, and for the cost of it, the value can be higher. 
That is No. 1.
  Second, it will help the local school districts because they will not 
only get Impact Aid, but they will be given up to $12,000 per year per 
student off a military base.
  Then, finally, third, it will, over the next 5 years, save $220 
million a year out of the military's budget that they would not be 
spending. That is after the $12,000 and the Impact Aid. So it is a way 
to save $1.1 billion and give a better education with better facilities 
to the children of our military service bases, these 26,000 students at 
16 military installations. It is a win-win-win.
  My hope is we will be able to call up this amendment and make it 
pending in the future.

[[Page S7958]]

  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, I had a number of amendments that I was 
just going to discuss, unless the chairman is planning to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is fine, if my colleague wishes to discuss amendments 
without attempting to offer any amendments.
  Mr. INHOFE. No, that is not my intention. I just want the chance to 
talk about them.
  Mr. LEVIN. I appreciate that. If I could ask my friend about how long 
he needs?
  Mr. INHOFE. Until the chairman is ready to speak.
  Mr. LEVIN. That sounds good.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there are a number of amendments I think 
will probably not come up, but they should. We talked about this some 
time ago.
  The Federal Aviation Administration has come up with a change for 
their SUB-S nonscheduled carriers that is going to make them comply 
with certain of the wage and hour--the crew rest requirements. Here is 
the problem we have. About 95 percent of the passengers who go into--
this is our troops--Afghanistan today are carried by nonscheduled 
airlines as opposed to military and about 40 percent of the cargo that 
is going in.
  Now, the problem we have is, with the 15-hour restriction on crew 
rest, they are unable to bring them in, leave them there, and then go 
back to their point of origin--someplace in Germany--without exceeding 
that 15-hour limitation. The only choice they would have is to leave 
them in Afghanistan, which they cannot do because that is a war zone.
  So I want to have a way of working this out. We want to pursue this 
because the carriers understand what the problem is. These are the 
nonscheduled carriers. So it is something I think is very significant, 
and we need to be addressing it.
  Another issue is, JIEDDO is the group that is the Joint Improvised 
Explosive Device Defeat Organization. They have done great work in 
their technology in stopping the various technologies over there, the 
IEDs that have been killing and causing damage to our troops and to our 
allies. The problem we have is it is set up just for Iraq and 
Afghanistan. When everything is through in Iraq and Afghanistan, that 
might put them in a position where they would cease to exist, and yet 
the technology and what they are doing right now is useful in the 
United States even though it is not designed by the legislation to do 
that. I believe this is something that can be corrected.
  Another area that needs to be addressed--and I have some ideas, and 
this is one I would like to get in the queue; it is not pending at this 
time, so there is a little bit of a problem there, but it might be 
something that could be addressed in conference--is the military bases 
should be able to benefit from the production of domestic energy and 
resources on those bases.
  In the case of the McAlester depot, they could horizontally drill and 
come out with some pretty good royalties that would otherwise go to the 
general fund or go to the State of Oklahoma. It is kind of divided in 
that way. Well, the problem is there is a cost that is incurred by the 
military operation. We need to have something that is going to allow 
them to receive the benefits of the production that takes place under 
the military installations through horizontal drilling.
  I think everyone is for doing this. But the problem is, it could be 
scored in that if we took all of the existing production, then that 
would be money that would not otherwise go to our general fund. So what 
I would propose is to have this in the form of an amendment, and then 
change it to say: Any operation from this point forward--that money, 
those royalties, could go back to the military base because what we all 
agree on is we do not want our bases to have to foot the bill for these 
things that are taking place.
  I have an amendment, No. 1101, that would stop the transfer of the 
MC-12W ISR aircraft from the Air Force to the Army. I think it is 
something that is pretty significant. We are talking about intelligence 
and reconnaissance. The MC-12W is a King Air or a C-12. Right now it is 
under the jurisdiction of the Air Force, and this bill would change it 
from the Air Force to the Army. Well, neither the Air Force nor the 
Army wants to make that change, and there ought to be a way to support 
that.
  There are several other amendments that will be coming forward that 
will be offered. One I feel very strongly about has to do with the sale 
of the F-16C/D models to Taiwan.
  Then, lastly--and I feel very strongly about this--back in 2007, we 
changed the commands to create AFRICOM. AFRICOM, prior to this time, 
was part of three commands: Central Command, Pacific Command, and 
European Command. Well, it is so significant in terms of national 
security, in terms of our economy and the activity that is going on 
there right now.
  For example, ever since 9/11, we have been working with the Africans 
to help develop in Africa our programs--our 1206 programs, our train-
and-equip programs. More recently, we have been involved in the LRA 
issue in poor countries in Africa.
  Well, there is an effort now--almost any Member I guess would feel 
the same way--to take that command that is now in Stuttgart, Germany, 
and put it in Texas or Florida or someplace in the United States. I 
think that would be something that would inure to the benefit maybe of 
a Member, a Senator, but, on the other hand, it creates certain 
problems.
  When the African Command came into effect--and I think that is one of 
the few issues that I, probably, am more familiar with than most other 
Members--the obvious place would have been to have that command located 
in Africa itself. My choice at that time was Ethiopia. I think there is 
a lot of jurisdiction for that. But they said because of the political 
problem--if we go back historically in Africa, and we look at the 
colonialism, there is this thing embedded back in the minds of people 
in Africa, thinking that having a command, a U.S. command located in 
Africa, it might revert back to some of the colonial days. That is the 
concern people had.
  So, anyway, I thought it would have been better to have it in Africa 
itself. But because of this--and, by the way, I have talked to many of 
the Presidents of countries over there--President Kikwete in Tanzania 
and President Kagame in Rwanda and President Kabila in the Congo, and 
several of the others--and they say: Yes, you are right. It would be 
better to have that command located somewhere in Africa, but we have 
the political problem with the people who would think that is a move 
back toward colonialism. So it is a complicated problem.
  However, I do believe all of the generals pretty much believe that 
AFRICOM should remain where it is. At least Stuttgart is in the same 
time zone. It is easier to transport people and equipment back and 
forth. So I would support defeating any of the amendments that would 
change that situation.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KIRK. 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. KIRK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        First Year in the Senate

  Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, last week we celebrated Thanksgiving, the 
time of year when we look back and we give thanks for our blessings. We 
are all grateful for our family, our men and women in uniform, and 
those who also

[[Page S7959]]

defend our Nation in civilian life. I am particularly thankful this 
year, because 1 year ago today I had the honor of my life to be sworn 
in as the newest junior Senator for the State of Illinois to complete 
Senator Obama's term.
  And what a year it has been. Coming from the House of 
Representatives, I had to adjust to the measured place and pace of the 
Senate. But while Americans may have a dim view of what we do here, I 
remain an optimist. Americans have always faced tough challenges but 
then rose to the occasion more successfully than any other people in 
history.
  Although I believe there is much more to do to reduce debt, repeal 
burdensome regulations, and encourage job creation, I want to take a 
few minutes to lay out what my team has accomplished for the State of 
Illinois and the Nation in 1 year.
  In my first 30 days in office we moved three times, we hired a staff, 
and then voted to prevent the largest tax increase in history, while 
Congress extended tax relief for millions of Americans in that 
legislation.
  We also worked to block the transfer of al-Qaida terrorists from 
Guantanamo Bay to northwestern Illinois. Since then, Congress enacted 
the Budget Control Act, mandating about $2 trillion in reduced Federal 
borrowing over the next 10 years, which in my view is only a first step 
in addressing Washington's out-of-control spending. No one here would 
say that we have come near to solving the problem, but I am heartened 
by the bipartisan and bicameral support of the Gang of Six proposal, 
and now with the probable support of 45 Republican and Democratic 
Senators, I hope we will soon go big with their recommendations to find 
$4 trillion in savings.
  The Congress approved three free-trade agreements to boost U.S. 
exports to South Korea, to Colombia, and Panama, as both President 
Obama and Speaker Boehner wanted. The action will open markets for 
Illinois farmers and boost exports for companies and employers such as 
John Deere in Moline, Caterpillar in Peoria, ADM in Decatur, and 
Navistar in suburban Warrenville.
  Congress repealed the onerous requirement mandated by the health care 
law that required small businesses to document all payments over a few 
hundred dollars. This absurd 1099 rule was the first part of the health 
care law to be repealed, and it will soon be followed by the misnamed 
CLASS Act that even the Obama administration appears to have canceled 
by executive action.
  Additionally, Congress reformed our patent system by moving to a 
first-to-file, instead of a first-to-invent, system. This signals to 
inventors that they should quickly file their invention and allows us 
to innovate without endless and expensive litigation. Along with that 
effort, the Kirk amendment authorizing the patent office to have a 
small business fast lane became law.
  My office published a Great Lakes report card that gave our largest 
body of fresh water a C grade to draw attention to invasive species, to 
poor water quality, and beach closures, demonstrating the need for our 
legislation by myself and Senator Durbin to ban sewage dumping in the 
Great Lakes.
  To create more construction jobs in Illinois, I introduced the 
Lincoln Legacy Infrastructure Development Act which would unlock more 
than $100 billion in new revenue for roads, rail, transit, and 
airports, through more infrastructure funded by public-private 
partnerships. I have since met with Secretary LaHood, Chief of Staff 
Daley, and House Chairman Mica as a way to advance this legislation to 
restart our economy.
  We have also had an active year in protecting our allies and 
America's interests overseas. On the floor today, we may consider the 
Menendez-Kirk amendment pending to the Defense Authorization Act which 
would impose crippling sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran. This is a 
result of a collaborative effort involving 92 Senators who signed the 
Schumer-Kirk letter calling for the United States to collapse Iran's 
terror-sponsoring bank.
  In May, Senator Gillibrand and I introduced the Iran Human Rights and 
Democracy Promotion Act which establishes a special representative on 
human rights and democracy in Iran, imposing sanctions on companies 
that sell or service products that enable the Iranian regime to oppress 
its people. It would require a comprehensive strategy to promote 
Internet freedom in Iran and reauthorize the Iran Freedom Support Act. 
The bill is now part of the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Sanctions 
Consolidation Act.
  In February, the Senate passed a Kirk resolution condemning human 
rights abuses in Iran, and we founded the Iranian Dissident Awareness 
Program to make dissidents such as Hossein Ronaghi-Maleki, a blogger 
and human rights activist, and Nasrin Sotoudeh, a lawyer and human 
rights activist, household names now in America.
  We also fought for strict assurances that data collected from our new 
X-band radar in Turkey would be shared with our allies in Israel.
  In total, my office introduced 18 bills and resolutions and 11 
amendments. We cosponsored 132 pieces of legislation.
  I am a member of four committees that have held more than 130 
hearings and markups. This year we worked on the reform of No Child 
Left Behind, and those reforms passed the committee with bipartisan 
support. We also worked on legislation regarding flood insurance 
funding bills under the Appropriations Committee.
  Most Americans who watch cable news think all Democrats and all 
Republicans may hate each other. While Congress has grown more 
partisan, I am particularly proud of the bipartisan partnerships we 
have fostered in such a short time. I have continued a longstanding 
battle against the corrupt sugar program by working with Senator 
Shaheen of New Hampshire on S. 25 to Stop Unfair Giveaways and 
Restrictions Act, the SUGAR Act of 2011, which would eliminate sugar 
price supports and increased costs for consumers that destroy American 
manufacturing jobs.
  Senator Wyden and I introduced legislation targeting more than $60 
billion in Medicare fraud every year by issuing new identify theft-
proof medical ID cards, offering the same ID card protection our troops 
have for our seniors.

  I also joined Senator Wyden in his efforts to ensure your 
constitutional rights are protected with regard to your GPS data and 
cell phone and other location information.
  Senator Casey and I worked together on antibullying legislation to 
keep our kids safe at school.
  I joined Senator Whitehouse in an effort to criminalize the pointing 
of lasers against civil aircraft to keep that industry safe.
  In my capacity as the top Republican member of the Military 
Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, we 
worked across the aisle with Chairman Tim Johnson to pass the first 
stand-alone appropriations bill out of the Senate since 2009. Since 
then, we have broken the logjam on appropriations bills, and I hope to 
quickly complete that legislation.
  I especially wish to recognize one of my first friends in the Senate, 
Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, for our collaborative effort on 
many issues, the latest being a bipartisan resolution calling for the 
Congress to go big on deficit reduction. When we first came to the 
Senate together, we saw that there were few opportunities for 
Republicans and Democrats to interact outside the Senate floor. That is 
why we began to have an open lunch together each Thursday instead of 
the regularly scheduled partisan lunches, to discuss ways to bridge the 
political divide in the Senate and in Washington.
  I also wish to highlight the partnership I have developed with my 
senior Senator from the State of Illinois. While we may not see eye to 
eye on many issues, Senator Durbin and I have worked closely on a whole 
host of issues for Illinois. Following in the footsteps of the late 
Senator Paul Simon, Senator Durbin and I have now held more than 25 
joint constituent coffees here in Washington. It is like a townhall 
meeting, where we talk with Illinois families about what is going on at 
home and in the Congress.
  In March, Senator Durbin and I worked with Secretary of 
Transportation Ray Lahood to help the city of Chicago, American, and 
United Airlines come to an agreement to keep the O'Hare Modernization 
Program moving forward. This is the single greatest job creation 
program in northern Illinois, and the agreement that we helped foster 
keeps thousands at work at O'Hare.

[[Page S7960]]

  We worked closely to bring high-speed rail to the State of Illinois, 
and together introduced legislation to expand charter schools, to 
improve access to EpiPens at schools for children with severe 
allergies, to ensure military families in North Chicago continue to 
receive their Federal education assistance.
  We fought to open a new Federal prison in Thompson, IL, but without 
al-Qaida detainees, to create jobs in northwestern Illinois, and 
address also flooding issues in southern Illinois and levee 
rehabilitation in the metro east area. We have also successfully 
confirmed four new judges for central and northern Illinois, and have 
an additional two nominations, one Democrat, one Republican, pending.
  But legislation is not all we do here. In my opinion, one of the most 
important things a Member of Congress can focus on is constituent 
service. We formed advisory boards for African Americans, Latinos, 
small business, agriculture, health care, education, and students. 
Since I first came to the House of Representatives in 2001, I have 
worked diligently as an advocate for Illinois before the Federal 
Government. In 1 year now, my staff has held more than 3,440 meetings 
with constituents and other officials and dignitaries. To be as 
accessible as possible, I have visited 50 out of Illinois's 102 
counties and held 20 townhall meetings throughout the State.
  This month, my successor in the House of Representatives, Congressman 
Bob Dold, and I held the first ever live Facebook townhall meeting and 
answered questions we received via the social networking site and 
Twitter.
  My office has arranged 340 Capitol and White House tours for 
approximately 2,800 constituents. We received more than 85,000 phone 
calls and responded to 66,000 letters and e-mails. We have helped more 
than 4,000 constituents with casework details before the government, 
and written more than 200 letters in support of Illinois towns, 
counties, and organizations for Federal grants. I have convened eight 
constituent advisory boards and met a total of 18 times. My office 
helped process 122 passports and assisted 750 veterans and their 
concerns before the VA.
  We have accomplished quite a bit this year. I remain optimistic about 
the long-term future of our Nation. We can outinnovate and outproduce 
any nation on the planet if we create an environment that supports full 
job creation. But there is still a lot of work to do. The Illinois 
unemployment rate stands at over 10 percent. It seems each day we hear 
of a new company thinking of leaving our State.
  The health care law threatens a further drag on our economy. We face 
a global sovereign debt crisis in Europe and fears of future credit 
devaluations for the United States.
  U.S. troops continue to pursue enemies of freedom in Afghanistan and 
Iraq, and Iran continues its effort to develop nuclear weapons. 
Protests are accelerating in Egypt, and civil unrest in Syria. Piracy 
remains a concern off the coast of Somalia.
  As I have for the past year, I will spend the next 5 years making 
sure that America remains the best place on Earth for any individual to 
rise to their full potential, a place where your rights are protected 
against the government, whose main mission should be to defend us, and 
to foster higher incomes for our families.
  In these battles, I will advance the interests of the State of 
Illinois as the job engine at the center of the Nation's economy, 
protector of the Lake Michigan and Mississippi ecosystems, and the 
special place that sent Abraham Lincoln and hopefully future Lincolns 
for national leadership when America needs it most.
  Of course, my heart and soul will always be with the troops--their 
care, their mission, and their spirit of defending a place that is the 
greatest force for human freedom and dignity ever designed.
  I am truly grateful for the opportunity to serve my Nation twice--in 
the Navy and in the Senate. I thank the people of Illinois for this 
first year in the Senate and for the even bigger things we will do 
together in the years to come.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRANKEN. 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. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I have filed two amendments that I will 
offer at some time, and I will talk about them now.
  I am strongly opposed to the detention provisions in the Defense bill 
before us. I am disappointed that Senator Udall's amendment did not 
pass. Taken together, sections 1031 and 1032 would fundamentally alter 
how we investigate, arrest, and detain individuals suspected of 
terrorism.
  Before I get into the details of why I oppose these detainee 
provisions, I think it is important to recognize that September 11 
irrevocably and unalterably changed our lives. I was in Minnesota on 
that terrible day. A number of Minnesotans died in the towers, in the 
air, and at the Pentagon. In New York, in the months following the 
attacks, I attended the funerals of brave firefighters and law 
enforcement officers who sacrificed their lives to help rescue folks 
from the towers. I cannot shake those images from my mind, and I am 
guessing, like many of you, I will never be able to erase the horrors 
of September 11 from my mind.
  September 11 reminded us that we are vulnerable and that we are 
fighting an unusual enemy. It forced us to reassess our approach to 
counterterrorism, and it forced us to redouble our efforts to track 
down the people who aim to do us harm. But it is exactly in these 
difficult moments, in these periods of war when our country is under 
attack, that we must be doubly vigilant about projecting what makes us 
Americans.
  The Founders who drafted our Constitution and Bill of Rights were 
careful to draft a Constitution of limited powers--one that would 
protect Americans' freedom and liberty at all times, both in war and in 
peace.
  Today, as we contemplate fundamentally altering the criminal justice 
system our Founders developed in order to create a military detention 
system--a system that would permit the indefinite detention of U.S. 
citizens and lawful residents of the United States for acts committed 
in the United States--I think it is important to pause and remember 
some of the mistakes this country has made when we have been fearful of 
enemy attack.
  Most notably, we made a grave and indefensible mistake during World 
War II when President Roosevelt ordered the incarceration of more than 
110,000 people of Japanese origin, as well as approximately 11,000 
German Americans and 3,000 Italian Americans. There is a memorial right 
across the street from the Capitol that should remind us all of this 
terrible mistake.
  In 1971, President Richard Nixon signed into law the Nondetention Act 
to make sure the U.S. Government would never again subject any 
Americans to the unnecessary and unjustifiable imprisonment that so 
many Japanese Americans, German Americans, and Italian Americans had to 
endure.
  It wasn't until 1988--46 years after the internment--that President 
Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act, that the government formally 
acknowledged and apologized for the grave injustice that was done to 
citizens and permanent residents of Japanese ancestry.
  These were dark periods in American history, and it is easy standing 
here today to think that is all behind us, that it is a distant memory. 
But I fear that the detention provisions in this bill forget the 
lessons we learned from the mistakes we made when we interned thousands 
of innocent Japanese, Germans, and Italians or when we destroyed the 
lives of supposed Communist sympathizers with nary a shred of evidence 
of guilt.
  In the weeks following September 11, the Justice Department made 
extraordinary use of its powers to arrest and detain individuals. We 
arrested hundreds of people for alleged immigration violations and 
dozens more under a material witness statute. None of these individuals 
were charged with a crime. All of this happened without the military 
detention scheme envisioned in this bill. This was also a mistake and 
one that should not be repeated.
  But if we pass the Defense authorization bill with section 1031, 
Congress

[[Page S7961]]

will, according to the arguments that were made on the floor last week, 
for the first time in 60 years, authorize the indefinite detention of 
U.S. citizens without charge or trial. This would be the first time 
Congress has deviated from President Nixon's Nondetention Act. What we 
are talking about is that Americans could be subjected to life 
imprisonment--think about that for just a moment--life imprisonment 
without ever being charged, tried, or convicted of a crime, without 
ever having an opportunity to prove your innocence to a judge and a 
jury of your peers, and without the government ever having to prove 
your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe that denigrates the 
very foundation of this country. It denigrates the Bill of Rights and 
what our Founders intended when they created a civilian, nonmilitary 
justice system for trying and punishing people for crimes committed on 
U.S. soil. Our Founders were fearful of the military, and they 
purposely created a system of checks and balances to ensure that we did 
not become a country under military rule. If this bill passes, the 
Supreme Court should find these detention provisions unconstitutional.
  Let's put that aside for now and focus on what we are currently doing 
right to fight terrorism. We are doing a heck of a lot of great things 
when it comes to national security. I think we actually need to 
remember that, and we need to remember that we are winning the fight 
against terrorists without trampling on our constitutional rights.
  Just last May, under the tremendous leadership of President Obama and 
Secretary Panetta, head of the CIA, we hunted down and killed Osama bin 
Laden. A few days ago, the Washington Post reported that the al-Qaida 
core has contracted and weakened since then, and its leadership ranks 
have been reduced to two members. To be sure, that does not mean that 
al-Qaida is no longer a threat, particularly coming from groups outside 
the core, but it is a remarkable achievement. Our current 
counterterrorism strategy is not broken. Indeed, just the opposite is 
true. We are winning the war against al-Qaida. There is no indication--
none--that we need to fundamentally alter our approach to locating 
terrorists here or overseas.
  Under Director Mueller's leadership, the FBI has turned itself inside 
out, and over the last 10 years, since September 11, it has become an 
intelligence-gathering counterterrorism machine. I can't say I have 
always agreed with 100 percent of the FBI's tactics, and there are 
times when I worry they may be overstepping, but make no mistake, if 
our goal is hunting down the bad guys, the FBI knows what they are 
doing. There is no reason to think we need to change course and create 
an entirely new system that would completely supplant the resources and 
expertise of the FBI.
  For those who would argue that we need to shift these people out of 
our civilian criminal justice system and away from article III courts 
and into a military system, I have to ask why. Where is the sign that 
we have a problem that needs fixing? There is no reason to think we 
need to create an entirely different framework for a problem we have 
been dealing with for centuries. This enemy is not so different that we 
need to upend our criminal justice system.
  I think this is a solution in search of a problem. There is no need 
to go down this path. We should be focused on doing what is best for 
this Nation and what is best for protecting Americans. We should be 
working together on this, not coming up with additional ways to divide 
and polarize this country. That is why, when the Secretary of Defense, 
the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the FBI 
express serious concerns about these provisions and when the 
President's top counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, complains that 
these provisions will make it even harder for them to locate and detain 
terrorists in the United States and overseas, we should probably listen 
to them.
  Section 1031 runs the risk of authorizing the indefinite detention 
without trial of Americans. Section 1032 is unnecessary and complicates 
our counterterrorism policy. They are bad policy.
  In short, these provisions should not be passed. They are not well-
considered terrorism policy, and they would authorize poorly understood 
and deeply troubling policies. That is why I have put forward 
amendments that would strike each of these two sections. That is why I 
cosponsored Senator Mark Udall's amendment, the cousin of our Presiding 
Officer. That is why I cosponsored his amendment, and I would be happy 
to cosponsor amendments from our Presiding Officer as well, but that is 
why I cosponsored Senator Mark Udall's amendment that would have sent 
these matters back to the administration and the relevant committees of 
Congress for the full consideration, discussion, and debate they 
deserve. Our national security and our freedom require nothing less.
  I thank the Chair, 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.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendments Nos. 1125 and 1126

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I understand the procedure, it is 
now appropriate for me to speak on my pending amendments. I will not 
offer my two amendments for a vote now, but I would like to take the 
opportunity to speak about them at this time. I trust that is in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my continued 
opposition to the detention provisions in the Defense authorization 
bill.
  I was on the Intelligence Committee prior to 9/11, and I have watched 
the transition since that time. I have watched America--to use a 
phrase--get its act together, and I am proud of where this country 
stands at this time with the procedures, the interrogation techniques, 
the custody issues, and the prosecutions that have been successful in 
the last 10 years. In my judgment, this country is safer now than we 
were before 9/11.
  Before the recess, I laid out my views on why the detainee provisions 
in the Armed Services bill were detrimental to national security 
because they reduce the President's flexibility to make decisions on 
how best to detain and potentially interrogate and prosecute suspected 
terrorists. Today, I would like to speak to the two amendments I have 
filed, and I will describe them in a moment.
  Let me also reference two letters in opposition to the detention 
provisions in the underlying bill: one written to me from the Director 
of National Intelligence, James Clapper, and the second written 
yesterday to Chairman Levin from Bob Mueller, the Director of the FBI.
  These letters are in addition to the Statement of Administrative 
Policy, which includes a veto threat to the detention provisions and 
the letter from the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, both of which 
were inserted into the Record before the recess.
  So I note that the provisions in the bill we are considering are 
opposed by the White House, by the Secretary of Defense, the Director 
of National Intelligence, and the Director of the FBI. These top 
national security officials are all concerned that the bill reduces the 
administration's flexibility to combat terrorism, both at home and 
abroad, and I would agree with that.
  I will ask at the appropriate time for a vote on amendment No. 1125, 
which will limit mandatory military custody to terrorists captured 
outside the United States. This is a very simple amendment that only 
adds one word, ``abroad,'' to section 1032 of the underlying bill.
  Currently, this bill creates a presumption that members or parts of 
al-Qaida or ``associated forces'' will be held in the military 
detention system, and I disagree with that approach. I believe the 
President should have the flexibility to hold captured terrorists in 
the military or the criminal justice systems, and the decision of which 
system to use should be made based on the individual facts and evidence 
of each case.
  Putting aside that general view, I am very concerned that creating a 
presumption for military custody--which this bill does--and requiring a 
cumbersome waiver process will jeopardize counterterrorism cases and 
intelligence gathering. This concern is not

[[Page S7962]]

only mine, it has been raised by the White House, by Secretary Panetta, 
and very directly by Director Mueller in his letter.
  So my amendment would clarify the situation and remove the confusion 
and delay that I believe this bill will cause. My amendment will make 
clear that under section 1032 of this bill the U.S. Armed Forces are 
only required to hold a suspected terrorist in military custody when 
that individual is captured abroad. All that amendment does is add that 
one word, ``abroad,'' to make clear that the military will not be 
roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists. My amendment does 
not remove the President's ability to use the option of military 
detention or prosecution inside the United States.
  My amendment makes clear that inside the United States there is no 
presumption for military custody. Inside the United States, a Customs 
agent or local law enforcement officer could follow his or her standard 
process and turn a suspected terrorist over to the FBI for handling 
without having to worry about whether a waiver may apply or whether it 
is required.
  The FBI has changed. There are 56 field offices, there is a national 
security branch, and it is staffed with thousands of agents inside the 
United States. The FBI is well equipped to handle a terrorist inside 
the United States, but the Department of Defense is not. Listen to what 
Director Mueller wrote. He notes, and I quote:

       The legislation introduces a substantial element of 
     uncertainty as to what procedures are to be followed at 
     perhaps the most critical time in the development of an 
     investigation. . . .

  Now, I understand that the chairman and ranking member of the Armed 
Services Committee have included a waiver and have required that the 
administration issue procedures to lay out how the mandatory military 
custody provision will be carried out. But the administration is 
telling us, with a unanimous voice from all its senior counterterrorism 
officials, that this provision is harmful and unnecessary. But we say 
Congress knows better. I don't believe we do know better, and I think 
not to listen to those who are really responsible to carry out these 
missions in what is a very difficult field today, based on a careful 
assessment of national security, is a mistake.
  The administration has threatened to veto this bill and said it 
``strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032'' 
in its official Statement of Administration Policy because it would, 
and I quote, ``tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement 
professionals.'' So here are the experts saying: Don't do this, it will 
tie our hands; and here is the political branch saying: We know better.
  If something had gone wrong, if there had been mistakes, if there 
hadn't been over 400 cases tried successfully in civilian Federal 
criminal courts in the last 10 years and 6 cases and a muffed history 
of military prosecution in these cases, I might agree. But the march is 
on here in Congress: militarize this thing from stem to stern. And I 
disagree with that. When something isn't broke, don't fix it.
  Mr. President, there are rapid reaction teams part of the HIG--or 
High-Value Interrogation Group--who can deploy on a moment's notice, 
who can rapidly assess a suspect, who can carry out a proper and 
effective interrogation, and the executive branch then has an 
opportunity to decide whether the facts and the evidence really are 
best suited for a Federal criminal prosecution in Article III courts, 
or the facts and the evidence are really best suited for a military 
commission prosecution.
  This flexibility is what we are taking away from the executive branch 
under the provisions in this bill. It was well practiced during the 
Bush Presidency, and it has been well practiced by the Obama 
Presidency. Virtually every national security professional connected to 
the handling of terrorists and the intelligence obtained from them says 
to change it would be a mistake. So I believe the amendment I am 
offering--limiting mandatory military custody to detainees outside the 
United States--is a major improvement to the underlying bill. It 
removes the uncertainty that will occur if military custody is required 
for detainees captured inside the United States.
  Frankly, I would prefer that the provision--section 1032--be struck 
in its entirety, as I don't believe we should be creating a presumption 
of military custody over the law enforcement route. That is not what 
this country is about. There is the posse comitatus law on the books. 
The military isn't supposed be roaming the streets of the United 
States. But if there is going to be this type of provision, it should 
at least do no harm to our ability to detain, interrogate, and 
prosecute terrorists. So I ask for my colleagues' support on this 
amendment.

  While I am on the Senate floor, I would like to speak briefly to the 
second amendment I have filed and on which I also seek a vote, since 
the Udall amendment has failed; that is, amendment No. 1126, which 
would prohibit U.S. citizens from being held in indefinite detention 
without trial or charge.
  As Members know, section 1031 of the underlying bill updates and 
restates the authorization for the use of military force that was 
passed on September 18, 2001, 10 years ago, 1 week after the attacks of 
9/11. The provision updates the authority to detain terrorists who seek 
to harm the United States, an authority that I believe is consistent 
with the laws of armed conflict. However, I strongly believe that the 
U.S. Government should not have the ability to lock away its citizens 
for years, and perhaps decades, without charging them and providing a 
heightened level of due process. We shouldn't pick up citizens and 
incarcerate them for 10 or 15 or 20 years or until hostilities end--and 
no one knows when they will end--without giving them due process of 
law.
  So my amendment simply adds the following language to section 1031 of 
the underlying bill:

       The authority described in this section for the Armed 
     Forces of the United States to detain a person does not 
     include the authority to detain a citizen of the United 
     States without trial until the end of hostilities.

  It is hard for me to understand how any Member of this body wouldn't 
vote for this amendment because, without it, Congress is essentially 
authorizing the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without 
charge or trial.
  As I said on the Senate floor previously, 40 years ago Congress 
passed the Non-Detention Act of 1971 that expressed the will of 
Congress and the President that America would never repeat the 
Japanese-American internment experience--something that I witnessed as 
a child up close and personal--and would never subject any other 
American to indefinite detention without charge or trial. In the 40 
years since President Richard Nixon signed the Non-Detention Act into 
law, Congress has never made an exception to it.
  A key issue in this bill is that this is the Congress making an 
explicit exception that has never been made before by the Congress, and 
what we are saying is, it is OK to detain an American citizen without 
trial, ad infinitum. I don't think it is. I don't think that is what 
our Constitution is all about. Yet the provision in this bill would do 
just that.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a column 
published yesterday in the San Jose Mercury News of California from 
Floyd Mori.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From MercuryNews.com, Nov. 27, 2011]

 S. Floyd Mori: Internment Specter Raises Ugly Head in Forgetful U.S. 
                                 Senate

                           (By S. Floyd Mori)

       The oldest generation of Japanese-Americans, those whose 
     earliest memories were of their lives and families being 
     upended by internment without charge or trial in 
     concentration camps during World War II, at least take 
     comfort in the hope that America is now committed to never 
     inflicting that experience on any other group of Americans or 
     immigrants. But our trust in that commitment is being shaken 
     by a bill poised to go to the Senate floor that could once 
     again authorize indefinite detention without charge of 
     American citizens and others now living peacefully in our 
     country.
       We have reason to believe in the commitment of Americans to 
     say never again to indefinite detention. In 1988, the Civil 
     Liberties Act officially declared that the Japanese-American 
     internment had been a ``grave injustice'' that had been 
     ``carried out without adequate security reasons.'' In other 
     words, the indefinite detention of Japanese-Americans during 
     World War II was not only wrong, but unnecessary.

[[Page S7963]]

       A bill on the Senate floor raises the question of whether 
     the Senate has forgotten our history. S. 1253, the National 
     Defense Authorization Act, has a provision in it, 
     unfortunately drafted by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John 
     McCain, R-Ariz., that would let any U.S. president use the 
     military to arrest and imprison without charge or trial 
     anyone suspected of having any relationship with a terrorist 
     organization. Although Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and 
     more than a dozen of her colleagues are bravely calling for a 
     halt to a damaging bill, they face significant opposition.
       The troubling provision, Section 1031, would let the 
     military lock up both Americans and noncitizens in the 50 
     states. There would be no charges, no trial, no proof beyond 
     a reasonable doubt. All that would be required would be 
     suspicion.
       Although the details of the indefinite detentions of 
     Japanese-Americans during World War II and the proposed 
     indefinite detentions of terrorism suspects may differ, the 
     principle remains the same: Indefinite detentions based on 
     fear-driven and unlawfully substantiated national security 
     grounds, where individuals are neither duly charged nor 
     fairly tried, violate the essence of U.S. law and the most 
     fundamental values upon which this country was built.
       As the measures to indefinitely detain Japanese-Americans 
     during World War II have been deemed a colossal wrong, the 
     same should be true of modern indefinite detention of 
     terrorism suspects. Our criminal justice system is more than 
     equipped to ensure justice and security in terrorism cases, 
     and we certainly should not design new systems to resurrect 
     and codify tragic and illegitimate policies of the past.
       As our history shows, acting on fear in these situations 
     can lead to unnecessary and unfruitful sacrifices of the most 
     basic of American values. In the 10 years since the 9/11 
     attacks, Congress has shown admirable restraint in not 
     enacting indefinite detention without charge or trial 
     legislation. Now with the president seeking to end the 
     current wars, the Senate must avoid repeating the mistakes of 
     the past and protect American values before they are 
     compromised. We cannot let fear overshadow our commitment to 
     our most basic American values.
       The Senate can show that it has not forgotten the lessons 
     of the Japanese-American internment. It should pass an 
     amendment that has been offered by Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., 
     that would remove Section 1031 from the act. This Senate 
     should not stain that great body by bringing to the floor any 
     detention provision that would surely be looked upon with 
     shame and regret by future generations.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I know Mr. Mori well. He is the national executive 
director of the Japanese American Citizens League, which is the oldest 
and largest Asian-American civil rights organization in the United 
States. The Japanese American Citizens League--or JACL as we would 
say--has been an active voice on the wrongful internment of Japanese 
Americans during World War II, and I believe it is worth listening to 
what they have observed from that painful history.
  The administration has threatened to veto this bill and said the 
following in its official Statement of Administration Policy:

       After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention 
     authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole 
     series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts 
     to protect the country.

  Yet by allowing the military to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely, 
Congress would be opening a great number of serious legal questions, in 
my judgment.
  This amendment would restore the language that was in an earlier 
version of this bill that would have established a similar ban on the 
indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. It is also consistent with the 
way we have conducted the war on terror over the past 10 years. In 
cases where the United States has detained American citizens, including 
John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla, they have eventually been 
transitioned from indefinite detention to the criminal justice system, 
and both have been convicted and are serving long prison sentences. 
John Walker Lindh pleaded guilty to terrorism charges and was given a 
20-year sentence, and Jose Padilla was convicted of terrorism 
conspiracy and sentenced to a 17-year prison sentence.
  So I believe this amendment is consistent with past practice and with 
traditional U.S. values of due process. We are not a nation that locks 
up its citizens without charge, prosecution, and conviction. My 
amendment reflects that view, I believe in that view, and I hope this 
body does as well. So I urge its adoption.
  Mr. President, in conclusion, I ask my colleagues' support on these 
two amendments because I believe they will improve the legislation.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. 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. TESTER. Thank you, Mr. President. It is good to see the Senator 
in the chair.
  I rise to speak on amendment No. 1145. I cannot call up this 
amendment at this point in time, but hopefully at some time during this 
debate we can deal with this issue of foreign base closures, which is 
what amendment No. 1145 does.
  I have offered--along with my colleague from Texas, Senator 
Hutchison--to establish an overseas basing commission. We are joined on 
this amendment by Senators Conrad, Wyden, and Sanders.
  This commission would be charged with saving taxpayer money by 
identifying and reevaluating our overseas military base structure and 
investments. It is not a new discussion. This has been done before. In 
Washington, colleagues from both sides of the aisle have long advocated 
for issues similar to this one.
  In Montana, Senator Mike Mansfield--a personal hero of mine and one 
of the truest statesmen of this body--advocated fiercely throughout his 
public service for a more commonsense approach to our overseas military 
commitment. Senator Mansfield's approach balanced our national security 
interests and decisions with decisions and investments that made sense 
fiscally. The time could not be more appropriate to renew this call. 
Given our budget outlook, we have a responsibility to exhaustively look 
for savings across our government. We need to be smart and we need to 
work together.
  It makes a lot of sense to me that cutting overseas military 
construction projects that have minimal negative impacts on our 
national security and military readiness is the right idea. We know 
there is a significant higher cost associated with maintaining 
facilities and forces overseas, particularly in Europe, than here in 
the United States. We also know we need a more complete picture of the 
cost, the benefits, and the savings associated with overseas basing as 
we make tough budgetary decisions. Given our military's advanced 
capabilities, it is time for some responsible decisions about how to 
best secure our country while saving American taxpayers every penny we 
possibly can.
  As Montana families examine their bottom line and as the country 
works to cut spending, it is past time to give our outdated military 
bases and installations a closer look. An overseas basing commission 
would independently address these issues firsthand and ensure that 
military construction spending and operational maintenance spending 
match our capabilities and our national security strategy.
  As we move forward, I hope we will do so in the spirit of Senator 
Mansfield by working together and by making commonsense decisions that 
keep us both safe and spend our taxpayer dollars more wisely.
  As I said when I opened these remarks, I think this is a no-brainer. 
We need to take a step back, look at the money we are spending on 
overseas bases, make sure we are getting the best bang for the buck and 
make sure it meets our national security needs. With a lot of these 
post-World War II installations, they can be shut down, we can save 
some money, and it is a win-win situation for everybody.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative 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 was listening in the cloakroom to Senator 
Tester's comments about his amendment, and I wish to tell everyone how

[[Page S7964]]

right on point he is. I am focusing on overseas bases and the need to 
close some of those bases. We have another Defense bill coming up 
fairly soon, if we cannot get something done on this bill--and I hope 
we can--whether it is the sense of the Senate or otherwise to put our 
focus there, because we need to reduce our presence particularly in 
those bases, I believe, in Europe, where we simply no longer need those 
bases and cannot afford to maintain them. But whether we can get a 
commission done is a different issue because that could actually slow 
down the process, to appoint a BRAC-type commission.
  I just wished to comment while he was still on the floor that I 
believe he is right. He is focused on that which is critically 
important for not just the Armed Services Committee but for this Senate 
to look at, which is to look at the huge number of overseas facilities 
we have and the fact that there are many we no longer need and we have 
to look there for some significant savings. I just wished to commend 
the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Levin for his comments. 
As we look for opportunities to save money, as we look for 
opportunities to focus in on the war on terror, I think our time has 
come to take a hard look at our overseas basing and do what, quite 
frankly, will enhance our opportunities to fight the war on terror 
while saving the taxpayers dollars over the short term and the long 
haul.
  I thank Chairman Levin for his comments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I wish to address the Senate as if in 
morning business for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     National Labor Relations Board

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate for the 
fifth time in the last 3 years to discuss this administration's 
relentless pursuit to modify and change the labor laws of this country 
that have served us well for in excess of 70 years. A particular 
instance that is going to take place tomorrow causes me to come one 
more time to discuss this subject.
  A few days before Thanksgiving last week, the National Labor 
Relations Board posted a notice that they would meet at 10 a.m. on 
Wednesday morning to discuss passing a rule that will change a 75-year 
precedent in labor law, a rule that will reduce the time period between 
the filing of a petition for a union organization and a vote to as 
little as 10 days.
  Historically, in our country, it has been an average of 38 days from 
the filing of the petition to the vote as to whether to organize. For 
no cause or reason, other than unleveling the playing field, NLRB has 
decided to rush this rule through in an ambush-type of event. If we 
pull the facts back and look, it is quite easy to see what they are 
trying to do.
  Craig Becker, who is on the National Labor Relations Board as a 
recess appointment of the President of the United States, was denied 
approval in the confirmation process in the Senate. The President chose 
to appoint him in a recess appointment which expires at the end of this 
December. Therefore, in the waning hours of his service on the Board, 
at a time in which the majority has a 2-to-1 vote, they are going to 
rush through a change in an amendment to the labor laws in the United 
States of America that have served us for 70 years. It is not right. It 
is not fair. At a time of high unemployment and distress in our 
economy, the worst thing to do is change the rules of the game that 
have served the country so well.

  I will fire a warning shot also. I think there is something else that 
will probably happen before the end of the year, and that is there will 
probably be a posting of a rule to make microunionization possible. It 
has already been discussed by the NLRB. It is a process whereby we 
could take separate departments in the same company and let them 
unionize one at a time. Take a Home Depot, for example, or a Kroger 
grocery store. Let the butchers unionize and then let the bakers 
unionize and then let the detergent salesmen unionize and then let the 
janitors unionize and let the shop end up having 15, 20, 25 different 
union organizations in the same store. That has never been able to be 
possible and it is not right. It should be across the board within the 
company.
  So I come to the floor to let everybody know at NLRB that I know what 
is going to happen tomorrow morning. I know it is a rush to judgment 
and it is a bad judgment and it is a mistake. We have great labor laws 
in this country. In fact, if we take this petition and change it down 
to 10 days, we are not recognizing the fact that of all the elections 
that have taken place in the last couple years, the unions have won 67 
percent of the time. There is no problem with the organization laws, 
and there is no reason to compress the time from the filing of the 
petition to the vote. Fair is fair. A company that has an organization 
petition filed against it ought to have a reasonable period of time to 
assess the grievances that are advertised against them rather than 
compressing the vote period and having a rush to judgment.
  I hope tomorrow the NLRB will recognize that a rush to judgment is 
wrong. It is not good for the country, it is not good for our economy, 
and it is not good for the American people. I will oppose it and do 
oppose it today, as I will oppose microunionization should they attempt 
to do the same before this year is out.
  I yield back my time and notice the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. 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. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, with the chairman's permission, 
I would like to speak on the Defense bill.
  Mr. President, I wish to thank Chairman Levin. I wish to thank 
Senator McCain. I wish to thank the entire Armed Services Committee and 
all the dedicated staff for their efforts in crafting this National 
Defense Authorization Act.
  I am going to continue to work with all of my colleagues to resolve 
some of the very challenging provisions, one of which we just voted on, 
having to do with what courts the detainees are going to be prosecuted 
in. I am hopeful compromises will be reached in the days ahead so this 
bill can be passed and signed into law.
  There are five amendments I and others have offered that I wish to 
talk about. The first is amendment No. 1210. It has been crafted in 
consultation with the Government Accountability Office and it would 
require the Department of the Navy to evaluate the cost and benefits of 
stationing additional destroyers at Naval Station Mayport in 
Jacksonville, Fl. One may ask why.
  Well, the frigates at Mayport that will all be decommissioned by 
2015, but the ships that will replace them, the Littoral combat ships, 
will not arrive until 2016. Therefore, there is a hiatus of a year in 
which the ship repair industry, that was built up to take care of the 
Navy's fleet, will be without work. From the standpoint of keeping the 
maintenance and repair of the Navy's fleet, we need to determine if it 
will be more cost effective for the Navy to mitigate this problem by 
bringing additional destroyers to Mayport during that timeframe, 
extending the service lives of the existing frigates, or by boosting 
the industry by bringing ships from around the country to the 
Jacksonville ship repair industry for repair.
  Doing nothing is not an option because the ship repair business would 
take too big of a hit. In order to provide some oversight of the Navy's 
methodology, so that we can get the greatest bang for the buck and keep 
the Navy fleet at the level of readiness it needs, I am asking for the 
GAO to assess and report independently on these measures. My colleague 
from Florida, Senator Rubio, has joined as a cosponsor.
  I urge support of this amendment. It should not be a controversial 
amendment. I hope the committee will be able to accept it.
  I have also proposed amendment No. 1236, which requires the 
Department of the Air Force to further explain their plan to change the 
flag officer positions at the Air Force Materiel Command. Reducing 
oversight and eliminating officers with vital experience

[[Page S7965]]

could damage the Air Force's weapons testing mission. So this amendment 
simply requires the Air Force to submit a report which would be 
assessed by the GAO. Again, this should not be a controversial 
amendment and ought to be accepted by the committee.
  Senator Schumer of New York and I are working to ensure that the 
Department of Defense and the Veterans Affairs Department continue to 
study and evaluate the harmful effects of the garbage burn pits at our 
base in Balad in Iraq. This has gotten some attention in the press. It 
is horrible. What we are seeing is when our troops are exposed to these 
toxic fumes from these open burn pits, we see the consequences in their 
health that turn up later. Obviously, it is not only a diminution of 
the health of our troops which we ought to first and foremost protect, 
but of course there is a continuing cost to the U.S. Government, 
because years later, what we are finding is--and this comes out of the 
first gulf war experience with those open burn pits--we have determined 
that serious health problems could be traced back to the breathing in 
of those toxic substances because the troops were exposed to the fumes 
coming out of those burn pits.
  What this amendment does--and it should not be controversial--is it 
requires a study be designed to take a look at those burn pits and 
further focus on the serious medical effects on our troops. So far, the 
reports have been inconclusive, but troops are still getting sick and 
it needs to be understood; thus, the reason for that study. Next year 
we will work to have the actual study funded. But Senator Schumer and I 
want to get on with this study and we ask and it should be accepted by 
the committee as a noncontroversial amendment. After all, it is what we 
all want, the protection of our troops.
  Let me talk about amendment No. 1209. This addresses the longstanding 
problem faced by relatives of those who have been killed in action or 
whose death is related to service in the military, and that is the 
current law of a dollar-for-dollar reduction of Department of Defense 
Survivor Benefit Plan annuity offset, dollar for dollar, by the 
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation which comes from the Department 
of Veterans Affairs. The stand-alone bill, S. 260, filed by Senator 
Inhofe and myself, is cosponsored by--get this--49 Senators. The Senate 
has supported eliminating this offset for years. I hope that in the 
Senate, on this Defense authorization bill, we are going to remain 
steadfast in support of military widows and family members. Why? 
Because the Survivor Benefit Plan is an optional program for military 
retirees offered by the Defense Department. It is like an insurance 
plan. Military retirees pay premiums out of their retirement pay to 
ensure that their survivors will have adequate support when that 
retired military person passes away. For many retirees, reasonably 
priced insurance from the public marketplace is not available due to 
their service-related disabilities and their health issues; thus, the 
reason for this insurance plan, the Survivors Benefit Plan. SBP is a 
way for retirees to provide some income insurance for their survivors. 
It pays survivors 55 percent of the servicemember's retired pay. That 
is for the survivors of the retired military person when that person 
dies. It is an insurance policy.
  The Dependency and Indemnity Compensation--DIC--is a completely 
different survivor benefit and it is administered by the Veterans' 
Administration. When a servicemember dies, either due to a service-
related disability or illness or active-duty death, surviving spouses 
are entitled to monthly compensation of $1,154 from the Veterans' 
Administration. But here is the rub:
  Of the 270,000 survivors receiving the SBP--the insurance policy that 
the military retiree has paid for--about 54,000 are subject to the 
offset, meaning some of their SBP is taken away. According to the 
Defense Actuary, 31,000 survivors' SBP is completely offset by the VA's 
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, meaning they only have $1,154 a 
month to live on. These survivors are entitled to both under two 
different laws, but then there is a law that says you have to offset 
one from the other.
  Military retirees in good faith bought into the insurance plan--the 
SBP. They were planning for the future for their families. The 
government now says we are going to take some of that money away. What 
it means is we are not taking care of those who were left behind in the 
same manner as these servicemembers thought they were going to get when 
they took care of our country. I know of no purchased annuity plan that 
would deny payout based on receipt of a different benefit. I say that 
having had some experience in insurance in my former life years and 
years ago as the elected insurance commissioner of the State of 
Florida.
  It was said best by President Lincoln when he said in his second 
inaugural address that one of the greatest obligations in war is to 
``finish the work we are in; to bind up the Nation's wounds; to care 
for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his 
orphan.''
  That is the whole intention of these two laws, but we are not doing 
it. We are not honoring our servicemembers. The government must take 
care of our veterans, their widows and their orphans. Almost every year 
in the Senate we have passed this, eliminating the offset. What happens 
is it goes down to the conference and they eliminate it because it is 
going to cost money. We have had a couple of times where important 
little steps were taken in the right direction with some lessening of 
the offset, but we must meet our obligations to military families with 
the same sense of honor their loved one rendered during their service 
to this country, so we must eliminate this offset.
  Finally, there is an amendment to sanction the Central Bank of 
Iran. In just the previous 2 months, Iran has attempted a terrorist 
attack on U.S. soil, while continuing to develop its nuclear capability 
back home, and it has done so in complete disregard for the Non-
Proliferation Treaty.

  The United States has led the international community in enacting 
crippling sanctions against the Iranian regime. We need to tighten down 
the screws more. We have done so in 1996 with the Iran Sanctions Act 
and again in 2009 with the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability 
and Divestment Act.
  So we must continue these efforts. By sanctioning the Central Bank of 
Iran, we will make it clear to Iran's religious leaders--and that is 
what we have to say--that there are real consequences to their support 
for terrorism and their attempts to develop nuclear weapons.
  A nuclear Iran would be disastrous for the region. It would be 
disastrous for Europe. It clearly would be a threat against Israel, one 
of our strongest allies, and it clearly is a threat to the national 
security interests of the United States.
  The cost of inaction is too great. That is why we ought to go after 
the Central Bank of Iran by sanctioning them.
  I think I have offered a number of amendments along with and on 
behalf of our colleagues that should be able to be accepted, and I 
would implore the leadership of the committee to please consider these.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Levin-
McCain amendment No. 1092, which is the regular order, be modified with 
the changes that are at the desk--that amendment addresses the issue of 
counterfeit parts in the Department of Defense supply chain; further, 
that the amendment, as modified, be agreed to; that upon disposition of 
the Levin-McCain amendment, the Senate resume consideration of the Paul 
amendment No. 1064; that there be 30 minutes of debate, equally divided 
in the usual form, on the Paul amendment; that upon the use or yielding 
back of time, the Senate resume consideration of the Landrieu amendment 
No. 1115; that there be up to 30 minutes of debate, equally divided in 
the usual form, on the Landrieu amendment; that upon the use or 
yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the 
two amendments--the Paul and Landrieu amendments--in the following 
order: Paul amendment No. 1064 and Landrieu amendment No. 1115; that 
there be 2 minutes, equally divided, prior to each vote and there be no 
amendments in order to either amendment prior to the votes; and that 
both

[[Page S7966]]

amendments be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1092), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

       At the end of subtitle C of title VIII, add the following:

     SEC. 848. DETECTION AND AVOIDANCE OF COUNTERFEIT ELECTRONIC 
                   PARTS.

       (a) Revised Regulations Required.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     revise the Department of Defense Supplement to the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation to address the detection and avoidance 
     of counterfeit electronic parts.
       (2) Contractor responsibilities.--The revised regulations 
     issued pursuant to paragraph (1) shall provide that--
       (A) contractors on Department of Defense contracts for 
     products that include electronic parts are responsible for 
     detecting and avoiding the use or inclusion of counterfeit 
     electronic parts or suspect counterfeit electronic parts in 
     such products and for any rework or corrective action that 
     may be required to remedy the use or inclusion of such parts; 
     and
       (B) the cost of counterfeit electronic parts and suspect 
     counterfeit electronic parts and the cost of rework or 
     corrective action that may be required to remedy the use or 
     inclusion of such parts are not allowable costs under such 
     contracts.
       (3) Trusted suppliers.--The revised regulations issued 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) require that, whenever possible, the Department of 
     Defense and Department of Defense contractors and 
     subcontractors--
       (i) obtain electronic parts that are in production or 
     currently available in stock from the original manufacturers 
     of the parts or their authorized dealers, or from trusted 
     suppliers who obtain such parts exclusively from the original 
     manufacturers of the parts or their authorized dealers; and
       (ii) obtain electronic parts that are not in production or 
     currently available in stock from trusted suppliers;
       (B) establish requirements for notification of the 
     Department of Defense, inspection, test, and authentication 
     of electronic parts that the Department of Defense or a 
     Department of Defense contractor or subcontractor obtains 
     from any source other than a source described in subparagraph 
     (A);
       (C) establish qualification requirements, consistent with 
     the requirements of section 2319 of title 10, United States 
     Code, pursuant to which the Department of Defense may 
     identify trusted suppliers that have appropriate policies and 
     procedures in place to detect and avoid counterfeit 
     electronic parts and suspect counterfeit electronic parts; 
     and
       (D) authorize Department of Defense contractors and 
     subcontractors to identify and use additional trusted 
     suppliers, provided that--
       (i) the standards and processes for identifying such 
     trusted suppliers complies with established industry 
     standards;
       (ii) the contractor or subcontractor assumes responsibility 
     for the authenticity of parts provided by such supplier as 
     provided in paragraph (2); and
       (iii) the selection of such trusted suppliers is subject to 
     review and audit by appropriate Department of Defense 
     officials.
       (4) Reporting requirement.--The revised regulations issued 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) shall require that any Department 
     of Defense contractor or subcontractor who becomes aware, or 
     has reason to suspect, that any end item, component, part, or 
     material contained in supplies purchased by the Department of 
     Defense, or purchased by a contractor of subcontractor for 
     delivery to, or on behalf of, the Department of Defense, 
     contains counterfeit electronic parts or suspect counterfeit 
     electronic parts, shall provide a written report on the 
     matter within 30 calendar days to the Inspector General of 
     the Department of Defense, the contracting officer for the 
     contract pursuant to which the supplies are purchased, and 
     the Government-Industry Data Exchange Program or a similar 
     program designated by the Secretary of Defense.
       (b) Inspection of Imported Electronic Parts.--
       (1) Inspection program.--The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall establish a risk-based methodology for the enhanced 
     targeting of electronic parts imported from any country, 
     after consultation with the Secretary of Defense as to 
     sources of counterfeit electronic parts and suspect 
     counterfeit electronic parts in the supply chain for products 
     purchased by the Department of Defense.
       (2) Information sharing.--If United States Customs and 
     Border Protection suspects a product of being imported or 
     exported in violation of section 42 of the Lanham Act, and 
     subject to any applicable bonding requirements, the Secretary 
     of Treasury is authorized to share information appearing on, 
     and unredacted samples of, products and their packaging and 
     labels, or photographs of such products, packaging and 
     labels, with the rightholders of the trademarks suspected of 
     being copied or simulated, for purposes of determining 
     whether the products are prohibited from importation pursuant 
     to such section.
       (c) Contractor Systems for Detection and Avoidance of 
     Counterfeit and Suspect Counterfeit Electronic Parts.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     implement a program for the improvement of contractor systems 
     for the detection and avoidance of counterfeit electronic 
     parts and suspect counterfeit electronic parts.
       (2) Elements.--The program developed pursuant to paragraph 
     (1) shall--
       (A) require covered contractors to adopt and implement 
     policies and procedures, consistent with applicable industry 
     standards, for the detection and avoidance of counterfeit 
     electronic parts and suspect counterfeit electronic parts, 
     including policies and procedures for training personnel, 
     designing and maintaining systems to mitigate risks 
     associated with parts obsolescence, making sourcing 
     decisions, prioritizing mission critical and sensitive 
     components, ensuring traceability of parts, developing lists 
     of trusted and untrusted suppliers, flowing down requirements 
     to subcontractors, inspecting and testing parts, reporting 
     and quarantining suspect counterfeit electronic parts and 
     counterfeit electronic parts, and taking corrective action;
       (B) establish processes for the review and approval or 
     disapproval of contractor systems for the detection and 
     avoidance of counterfeit electronic parts and suspect 
     counterfeit electronic parts, comparable to the processes 
     established for contractor business systems under section 893 
     of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4311; 10 
     U.S.C. 2302 note); and
       (C) effective beginning one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, authorize the withholding of payments 
     as provided in subsection (c) of such section, in the event 
     that a contractor system for detection and avoidance of 
     counterfeit electronic parts is disapproved pursuant to 
     subparagraph (B) and has not subsequently received approval.
       (3) Covered contractor and covered contract defined.--In 
     this subsection, the terms ``covered contractor'' and 
     ``covered contract'' have the meanings given such terms in 
     section 893(f) of the Ike Skelton National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383; 
     124 Stat. 4312; 10 U.S.C. 2302 note).
       (d) Department of Defense Responsibilities.--Not later than 
     270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall take steps to address shortcomings 
     in Department of Defense systems for the detection and 
     avoidance of counterfeit electronic parts and suspect 
     counterfeit electronic parts. Such steps shall include, at a 
     minimum, the following:
       (1) Policies and procedures applicable to Department of 
     Defense components engaged in the purchase of electronic 
     parts, including requirements for training personnel, making 
     sourcing decisions, ensuring traceability of parts, 
     inspecting and testing parts, reporting and quarantining 
     suspect counterfeit electronic parts and counterfeit 
     electronic parts, and taking corrective action. The policies 
     and procedures developed by the Secretary under this 
     paragraph shall prioritize mission critical and sensitive 
     components.
       (2) The establishment of a system for ensuring that 
     government employees who become aware of, or have reason to 
     suspect, that any end item, component, part, or material 
     contained in supplies purchased by or for the Department of 
     Defense contains counterfeit electronic parts or suspect 
     counterfeit electronic parts are required to provide a 
     written report on the matter within 30 calendar days to the 
     Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the 
     contracting officer for the contract pursuant to which the 
     supplies are purchased, and the Government-Industry Data 
     Exchange Program or a similar program designated by the 
     Secretary of Defense.
       (3) A process for analyzing, assessing, and acting on 
     reports of counterfeit electronic parts and suspect 
     counterfeit electronic parts that are submitted to the 
     Inspector General of the Department of Defense, contracting 
     officers, and the Government-Industry Data Exchange Program 
     or a similar program designated by the Secretary of Defense.
       (4) Guidance on appropriate remedial actions in the case of 
     a supplier who has repeatedly failed to detect and avoid 
     counterfeit electronic parts and suspect counterfeit 
     electronic parts or otherwise failed to exercise due 
     diligence in the detection and avoidance of such parts, 
     including consideration of whether to suspend or debar a 
     supplier until such time as the supplier has effectively 
     addressed the issues that led to such failures.
       (e) Trafficking in Counterfeit Military Goods or 
     Services.--Section 2320 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Military goods or services.--
       ``(A) In general.--A person who commits an offense under 
     paragraph (1) shall be punished in accordance with 
     subparagraph (B) if--
       ``(i) the offense involved a good or service described in 
     paragraph (1) that if it malfunctioned, failed, or was 
     compromised, could reasonably be foreseen to cause--

       ``(I) serious bodily injury or death;
       ``(II) disclosure of classified information;
       ``(III) impairment of combat operations; or
       ``(IV) other significant harm to a member of the Armed 
     Forces or to national security; and

[[Page S7967]]

       ``(ii) the person had knowledge that the good or service is 
     falsely identified as meeting military standards or is 
     intended for use in a military or national security 
     application.
       ``(B) Penalties.--
       ``(i) Individual.--An individual who commits an offense 
     described in subparagraph (A) shall be fined not more than 
     $5,000,000, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
       ``(ii) Person other than an individual.--A person other 
     than an individual that commits an offense described in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be fined not more than $15,000,000.
       ``(C) Subsequent offenses.--
       ``(i) Individual.--An individual who commits an offense 
     described in subparagraph (A) after the individual is 
     convicted of an offense under subparagraph (A) shall be fined 
     not more than $15,000,000, imprisoned not more than 30 years, 
     or both.
       ``(ii) Person other than an individual.--A person other 
     than an individual that commits an offense described in 
     subparagraph (A) after the person is convicted of an offense 
     under subparagraph (A) shall be fined not more than 
     $30,000,000.''; and
       (2) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (C) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) the term `falsely identified as meeting military 
     standards' relating to a good or service means there is a 
     material misrepresentation that the good or service meets a 
     standard, requirement, or specification issued by the 
     Department of Defense, an Armed Force, or a reserve 
     component; and
       ``(6) the term `use in a military or national security 
     application' means the use of a good or service, 
     independently, in conjunction with, or as a component of 
     another good or service--
       ``(A) during the performance of the official duties of the 
     Armed Forces of the United States or the reserve components 
     of the Armed Forces; or
       ``(B) by the United States to perform or directly support--
       ``(i) combat operations; or
       ``(ii) critical national defense or national security 
     functions.''.
       (f) Sentencing Guidelines.--
       (1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``critical 
     infrastructure'' has the meaning given that term in 
     application note 13(A) of section 2B1.1 of the Federal 
     Sentencing Guidelines.
       (2) Directive.--The United States Sentencing Commission 
     shall review and, if appropriate, amend the Federal 
     Sentencing Guidelines and policy statements applicable to 
     persons convicted of an offense under section 2320(a) of 
     title 18, United States Code, to reflect the intent of 
     Congress that penalties for such offenses be increased for 
     defendants that sell infringing products to, or for the use 
     by or for, the Armed Forces or a Federal, State, or local law 
     enforcement agency or for use in critical infrastructure or 
     in national security applications.
       (3) Requirements.--In amending the Federal Sentencing 
     Guidelines and policy statements under paragraph (2), the 
     United States Sentencing Commission shall--
       (A) ensure that the guidelines and policy statements, 
     including section 2B5.3 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines 
     (and any successor thereto), reflect--
       (i) the serious nature of the offenses described in section 
     2320(a) of title 18, United States Code;
       (ii) the need for an effective deterrent and appropriate 
     punishment to prevent offenses under section 2320(a) of title 
     18, United States Code; and
       (iii) the effectiveness of incarceration in furthering the 
     objectives described in clauses (i) and (ii);
       (B) consider an appropriate offense level enhancement and 
     minimum offense level for offenses that involve a product 
     used to maintain or operate critical infrastructure, or used 
     by or for an entity of the Federal Government or a State or 
     local government in furtherance of the administration of 
     justice, national defense, or national security;
       (C) ensure reasonable consistency with other relevant 
     directives and guidelines and Federal statutes;
       (D) make any necessary conforming changes to the 
     guidelines; and
       (E) ensure that the guidelines relating to offenses under 
     section 2320(a) of title 18, United States Code, adequately 
     meet the purposes of sentencing, as described in section 
     3553(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code.
       (4) Emergency authority.--The United States Sentencing 
     Commission shall--
       (A) promulgate the guidelines, policy statements, or 
     amendments provided for in this Act as soon as practicable, 
     and in any event not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, in accordance with the procedure 
     set forth in section 21(a) of the Sentencing Act of 1987 (28 
     U.S.C. 994 note), as though the authority under that Act had 
     not expired; and
       (B) pursuant to the emergency authority provided under 
     subparagraph (A), make such conforming amendments to the 
     Federal Sentencing Guidelines as the Commission determines 
     necessary to achieve consistency with other guideline 
     provisions and applicable law.
       (g) Definitions.--
       (1) Counterfeit electronic part.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall define the term ``counterfeit electronic part'' for the 
     purposes of this section. Such definition shall include used 
     electronic parts that are represented as new.
       (2) Suspect counterfeit electronic part and electronic 
     part.--For the purposes of this section:
       (A) A part is a ``suspect counterfeit electronic part'' if 
     visual inspection, testing, or other information provide 
     reason to believe that the part may be a counterfeit part.
       (B) An ``electronic part'' means an integrated circuit, a 
     discrete electronic component (including but not limited to a 
     transistor, capacitor, resistor, or diode), or a circuit 
     assembly.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, with the acceptance of this unanimous 
consent request, the Levin-McCain amendment, as modified, has now been 
agreed to; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. So now before us is the Paul amendment No. 1064, with 30 
minutes of debate. I do not see Senator Paul in the Chamber.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Baucus be added as a cosponsor 
to our Levin-McCain amendment No. 1092.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1092, as Modified

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, until Senator Paul gets here to begin 
debate on his amendment, I would, very briefly, describe what we have 
described before, which is the anticounterfeiting amendment, which is 
so important to stop the flow of counterfeit parts into the Department 
of Defense supply chain.
  The amendment is going to do a number of things. It is going to 
require the Department of Defense and Department of Defense suppliers 
to purchase electronic parts from original equipment manufacturers and 
their authorized dealers or from trusted suppliers that meet 
established standards for detecting and avoiding counterfeit parts.
  It establishes requirements for notification, inspection, testing, 
and authentication of electronic parts that are not available from such 
suppliers.
  It requires Department of Defense officials and Department of Defense 
contractors that become aware of counterfeit parts in the supply chain 
to provide written notification to the DOD inspector general, the 
contracting officer, and the Government-Industry Data Exchange Program 
or similar program designated by the Secretary of Defense.
  It requires enhanced inspection of electronic components imported 
from countries that have been the source of counterfeit parts in the 
DOD supply chain--China being the one that is clearly the worst 
offender in this regard.
  It requires large DOD contractors to establish systems for detecting 
and avoiding counterfeit parts in their supply chains and authorizes 
reduction of contract payments to contractors that fail to develop 
adequate systems.
  It requires the Department of Defense to adopt policies and 
procedures for detecting and avoiding counterfeit parts in its own 
direct purchases and for assessing and acting upon reports of 
counterfeit parts from DOD officials and DOD contractors.
  It authorizes the suspension and debarment of contractors that 
repeatedly fail to detect and avoid counterfeit parts or otherwise fail 
to exercise due diligence in the detection and avoidance of counterfeit 
parts.
  The amendment also includes a bill Senator Whitehouse introduced that 
was passed out of the Judiciary Committee to toughen criminal sentences 
for counterfeiting military goods or services.
  Finally, it requires the Department of Defense to define the term 
``counterfeit part,'' which is a critical, long overdue step toward 
getting a handle on this problem.
  I wish to thank Senator McCain, who, with me, held a significant 
hearing in the area of counterfeit parts, demonstrating that what is 
going on is that electronic waste--which is shipped from the United 
States and the rest of the world, mainly to China--is then disassembled 
by hand, washed in dirty rivers, dried on city sidewalks, sanded down 
to remove part numbers and other marks that would indicate its quality 
or performance.
  We have millions, literally, that we have identified of used parts 
that have gotten into the Defense supply chain that are not supposed to 
be used parts,

[[Page S7968]]

that are supposed to be new parts. It is amazing how far the 
counterfeiters--and particularly in China--are willing to go.
  We have asked the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the GAO 
actually, to use a fake company to go online and buy electronic parts, 
and the GAO found suppliers that not only sold counterfeit parts--when 
the GAO sought legitimate parts--they found suppliers that were willing 
to sell them parts with nonexistent part numbers. All those sellers 
were in China.
  We had example after example of weapons systems that had counterfeit 
parts in them. They endanger our troops. They endanger our taxpayers. 
All too often the people who pay for the replacement of counterfeit 
parts are the taxpayers instead of the contractors. That is going to 
end under our bill. So all the weapons we identified--lasers that were 
used for targeting Hellfire missiles; display units that were used in 
the Air Force's aircraft, the C-27Js, C-130Js, C-17s, CH-46s used by 
the Marine Corps--those counterfeit parts have gotten into those 
systems. We are going to put an end to this with this legislation.
  I thank my good friend Senator McCain for all the work he and his 
staff and my staff put in on that hearing in preparing this amendment, 
which we have now adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Levin and the staff for 
the thorough job of investigation that was undertaken to identify the 
counterfeit electronic parts that are penetrating the Department of 
Defense supply chain.
  I thank Senator Whitehouse for his provisions which have been added 
to the bill from a bill he had introduced in the Judiciary Committee.
  At the hearing we had on November 8, the committee received 
additional evidence to supplement an already robust investigative 
record, and some very serious issues were raised, including the threat 
counterfeit electronic parts pose to the safety of our men and women in 
uniform, to our national security, and to our economy, how counterfeits 
increase the short- and long-term costs of defense systems, the lack of 
transparency in the Defense supply chain, and the U.S. relationship 
with the People's Republic of China.
  I see the Senator from Kentucky is on the floor. But I would just 
like to point out again and emphasize the points the chairman has made.
  The problem of counterfeit electronic parts in the Defense supply 
chain is more serious than most people realize. During its 
investigation, our committee uncovered over 1,800 incidents, totaling 
over 1 million parts of counterfeit electronic parts in the Defense 
supply chain. Suspect counterfeit electronic parts have been installed 
or delivered to the military for use on thermal weapons sites, on THAAD 
missile mission computers, and on military aircraft, including the C-
27J, C-17, C-130J, P-8A Poseidon, SH-60B, AH-64, and the CH-46.
  I do not claim this legislation will solve the problem of 
counterfeiting from China, the whole issue of intellectual property. 
Counterfeiting that goes on in other aspects of the world's economy and 
ours is one that is a very large issue. But at least this is an effort 
to make sure, as much as we can, that the men and women who serve in 
our military are not subject to operating systems that could literally 
endanger their lives--much less the incredible increase of the 
taxpayers' dollars.

  I thank the chairman again and his staff, and I can assure my 
colleagues this is an issue we will be following very closely in the 
days and weeks and months ahead.
  I note the presence of Senator Paul, so I ask for the regular order.


                           Amendment No. 1064

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 30 minutes of debate, equally 
divided, on amendment No. 1064.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator from Kentucky would just yield for 
30 seconds, not to be taken from his time, so I can answer a question 
that has been asked of me: What happened to the approximately 35 to 40 
amendments which we had cleared? Why were they not part of this 
unanimous consent request?
  The answer is because there are a few Senators, apparently, who do 
not object to the substance of the amendments but who have other goals 
they are, at the moment, insisting on. That puts in jeopardy the effort 
of literally dozens of our colleagues to achieve what is in these 
cleared amendments, and I hope those few Senators would relent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                           Amendment No. 1064

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise in support of bringing the Iraq war 
to a formal end. President Obama has ordered troops home by January 1. 
We should rejoice at the conclusion of the war. No matter whether one 
favored the Iraq war or not, there is a glimmer of hope for democracy 
to now exist in the Middle East in Iraq.
  War is a hellish business and never to be desired. As the famous POW 
and war hero John McCain once said: ``War is wretched beyond 
description, and only a fool or a fraud could sentimentalize its cruel 
reality.''
  This vote is more than symbolism. This vote is about the separation 
of powers. It is about whether Congress should have the power to 
declare war. The Constitution vested that power in Congress, and it was 
very important. Our Founding Fathers did not want all the power to 
gravitate to the Executive. They feared very much a King, and so they 
limited the power of the Executive.
  When Franklin walked out of the Constitutional Convention, a woman 
asked him: What have you brought us? Was it going to be a republic, a 
democracy, a monarchy?
  He said: A republic, if you can keep it.
  In order to keep a republic, we have to have checks and balances. But 
we have to obey the rule of law.
  Madison wrote:

       The Constitution supposes, what the History of all 
     Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of 
     power most interested in war, and most prone to it. The 
     Constitution has, therefore, with studied care, vested the 
     [power] to declare war in [Congress].

  When we authorize the war in Iraq, we give the President the power to 
go to war, and the Constitution gives the power to the President to 
execute the war. All the infinite decisions that are made in war--most 
of them are made by the executive branch. But the power to declare war 
is Congress's. This division was given to make there be a division of 
powers, a separation of powers, to allow there to be a reluctance to go 
to war.
  We have this vote now to try to reclaim the authority.
  If we do not reclaim the authority to declare war or to authorize 
war, it will mean our kids or our grandkids or our great-grandkids 
could be sent to a war in Iraq with no debate, with no vote of 
Congress. We have been at war for nearly 10 years in Iraq. We are 
coming home. And we should rejoice at the war's end. But we need to 
reclaim that authority. If we leave an open-ended authority out there 
that says to the President--or any President; not this particular 
President, it could be any President--if we leave that authority out 
there, we basically abdicate our duty, we abdicate the role of 
Congress. There are supposed to be checks and balances between Congress 
and the President.
  So what I am asking is that Congress today reclaim the authority to 
declare war and at the same time we celebrate that this is an end to 
something that no one should desire.
  As Senator McCain has pointed out, as many have pointed out, Dwight 
Eisenhower pointed out the same thing: If you want to know the hellish 
of war, talk to someone who has been to war.
  But that is why this power is too important to be given to one person 
and to be left in the hands of one person--a President of either party.
  So the vote today will be about reclaiming that authority, reclaiming 
the authority of Congress to declare war. I would recommend that we 
have a vote and that the vote today be in favor of deauthorizing the 
war in Iraq.
  It is not just I who have pointed this out. The first President of 
the United States wrote:

       The Constitution vests the power of declaring war in 
     Congress; therefore, no offensive expedition of importance 
     can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated 
     upon the subject and authorized such a measure.

  This has been recognized by Presidents from the beginning of the 
history

[[Page S7969]]

of our country. The problem is that if we do not give it up, that power 
is left out there, and it is a power lost to Congress.
  Frank Chodorov wrote:

       All wars come to an end, at least temporarily. But the 
     authority acquired by the states hangs on; political power 
     never abdicates.

  This is a time to reclaim that power. It is an important 
constitutional question. I hope those Senators will consider this 
seriously and consider a vote to reclaim the authority to declare war.
  I reserve the reminder of my time and temporarily yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to first of all thank the 
Senator from Kentucky for quoting me. It is always a very pleasant 
experience as long as it is something that one would admire. On several 
occasions, I have been quoted in ways that I wish I had observed what 
my old friend Congressman Morris Udall used to say is the politician's 
prayer: May the words that I utter today be tender and sweet because 
tomorrow I may have to eat them. So I want to thank the Senator from 
Kentucky for his kind words.
  I also want to praise the Senator from Kentucky, who is a person who 
has come here with a firm conviction that he not only has principles 
but he intends to act on those principles in as impactful a way as 
possible and represent the people of Kentucky in a very activist 
fashion. He has my admiration. However, I would rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  I would like to read from a letter that was sent to the chairman and 
to me from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary 
of Defense.

       This week, as you consider the National Defense 
     Authorization Act, the Department of Defense would like to 
     respond to your request for views on the amendment offered by 
     Senator Paul which would repeal the Authorization for the Use 
     of Military Force in Iraq. U.S. Forces are now in the final 
     stages of coming home by the end of 2011. We are moving to a 
     new phase in the relationship between our two countries and 
     equal partnership based on mutual interests and mutual 
     respect.
       While amendment No. 1064 echoes the President's policy, we 
     cannot support the amendment as drafted. Outright and 
     complete repeal of the AUMF-I, which is the Authorization for 
     the Use of Military Force in Iraq, withdraws all 
     Congressional support for any limited windup activities 
     normally associated with ending a war. Thank you very much 
     for your continued efforts.

  The Department of Defense sent over an unclassified response that was 
approved by several members of the Pentagon. It says: Although we are 
implementing the U.S.-Iraqi security agreement in full and pulling out 
all of our forces by the end of the year, we still have a limited 
number of DOD personnel under the Chief of Mission Authority to staff 
the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq. Because there may be elements 
that would choose this time of transition to attempt to do harm to 
these personnel, it is essential that the Department of Defense retain 
the authority and flexibility to respond to such threats. The AUMF-I 
provides these authorities. The administration has worked closely with 
Congress in circumstances where it has been necessary to rely on the 
AUMF, and it would continue to do so should the need arise.
  In other words, and unfortunately, Iraq remains a dangerous place. We 
will have the largest contingent of Americans as part of the embassy 
there as we withdraw our combat troops. Some 16,000 Americans will man 
our embassy and consulates in Iraq, and unfortunately there are great 
signs of instability in Iraq. Al-Sadr has said that any remaining 
American troops will be a target. The Iranians continue to encourage 
attacks on Americans. There are significant divisions within the 
country which are beginning to widen, such as Sunni-Shia, the area 
around Kirkuk, increasing Iranian influence in the country.
  I will refrain from addressing the deep concerns I had before the 
agreement to completely withdraw took place. I will leave that out of 
this discussion because I feel the decision that was clearly made not 
to keep a residual force in the country, which was made by this 
administration and which is the subject for debate on another day, has 
placed the remaining Americans in significant jeopardy. As I say, that 
is 16,000 Americans to carry out the postwar commitments we have made 
to Iraq to help them rebuild their country after many years of war and 
bloodshed.
  I certainly understand the aim of the Senator from Kentucky. The 
President campaigned for President of the United States committing to 
withdraw all of our troops from Iraq. He is now achieving that goal. 
But I think it would be very serious to revoke all authority that we 
might have in order to respond to possible unrest and disruption within 
the country that might require the presence, at least on some level or 
another, of American troops to safeguard those 16,000 Americans who 
will be remaining in Iraq when our troops withdraw. So I argue that the 
amendment be defeated.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I, too, will oppose the Paul amendment for 
the repeal of the authorization for the use of military force in Iraq 
for a number of reasons, but I think mainly there are just too many 
unknown, uncertain consequences of repealing this authority, including 
the need to protect our troops. I am unwilling to take this risk during 
the critical transition period and not knowing precisely what will 
happen after that transition either.
  By the way, I take this position as someone who opposed the use of 
military force in Iraq to begin with. Back in October 2002 when 
Congress voted on the authorization to use military force in Iraq, I 
did not support it. I thought it was a mistake to do that and offered 
an alternative resolution that would have authorized the use of force 
if the United Nations Security Council supported that use of force. So 
I take a position here opposing the repeal of the authorization 
although I opposed the authorization itself in the first instance. It 
is an unusual position to be in. I want to explain why it is that I 
oppose the repeal of this authorization.
  First, the drawdown appears to be on track to be completed by 
December 31, but there can always be unforeseen circumstances that 
could delay that date. There is no provision in this bill for the 
possibility of an extension or a modification of that date. I would be 
reluctant to see it modified or extended. I must say that I do not want 
to preclude the possibility by ending something in advance--ending an 
authorization in advance of circumstances arising that might require 
for days, weeks, months the extension or modification of the current 
decision to withdraw our forces by December 31.
  Second, we simply do not know the consequences of repealing the 
authorization. Let me give a few examples. What about ongoing lawsuits 
in U.S. courts arising from actions by U.S. personnel that were 
authorized under this authorization for the use of military force? 
Would repeal of the authorization for the use of force have an effect? 
It is unknown to me. I don't know how many lawsuits there are. But what 
is the impact on this? That is something which surely we should want to 
know.
  By the way, we authorized the use of force in the first gulf war. We 
did not repeal that authorization. Technically, that authorization 
continues. It has done no harm that I can see.
  Third, the Paul amendment raises issues for our detention authority 
in Iraq. This is not an abstract concern. Currently, the administration 
is in the process of deciding how to deal with one high-value detainee 
in U.S. custody whose name is Ali Mussa Daqduq. He is suspected of 
having organized a 2007 kidnapping in Iraq that resulted in the deaths 
of five U.S. servicemembers. He is also tied to Hezbollah.
  The United States is relying on the authority of the AUMF--the 
authorization for the use of military force in Iraq--to continue to 
detain Daqduq. U.S. officials are still in discussions with the 
Government of Iraq over the ultimate disposition of Daqduq, including 
possibly releasing him to U.S. custody either in Iraq or somewhere 
else.
  Repeal of the AUMF could limit the administration's options for 
dealing with Daqduq after January of 2012. Would it limit those 
options? We don't know.
  Should we pass something as dramatic as a repeal of an authorization 
at this time without knowing what the consequences are in the real 
world to our interests? I don't think we can

[[Page S7970]]

take that chance, so I would oppose the amendment of the Senator from 
Kentucky.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to rise in support of the 
statements made by Senators McCain and Levin.
  I do not have that good a feeling about Iraq, quite frankly. I am not 
very confident at all that the worst is behind us. I am hopeful that we 
can withdraw our troops and that nothing bad will happen in Iraq, but, 
as Senator Levin just described, the implications of repealing the 
authorization to use military force are wide, varied, and uncertain.
  What do you get by repealing this? You can go back home and say you 
did something that--I do not know what you get. I mean, I really do 
not. I do not know what we gain as a nation by taking the contingencies 
of using military force off the table as we try to wind down.
  I just don't see the upside, quite frankly. I know the reality of 
what our troops face and why the Department of Defense would want to 
continue to have this authorization until we get Iraq behind us. At the 
end of the day, 4,400 people plus have lost their lives, thousands have 
been wounded and maimed--not counting the Iraqis who have lost their 
lives and have been wounded and maimed trying to create order out of 
chaos.
  As we move forward as a body, I don't see the upside to those who are 
doing the fighting and who have to deal with complications of this 
long, protracted war by us repealing the authorization at a time when 
it may be necessary to have it in place. If there is any doubt in your 
mind about what Senators Levin and McCain say and what the Department 
of Defense says about the need for this to be continued, I ask you to 
give the benefit of the doubt to the DOD. You don't have to; I just 
think it is a wise thing to do because what we gain by repealing it--I 
am not sure what that is in any real sense.
  By having the authorization in place for a while longer, I understand 
how that could help those who are fighting in Iraq and the follow-on 
needs that come as we transition. I ask the body to be cautious, and if 
you have any doubt that Senator McCain's or Senator Levin's concerns 
are real, I think now is the time to defer to the Department of Defense 
and give them the tools they need to finish the operations in Iraq.
  I will close with this one thought. The vacuum created by the fact 
that we will not have any troops in 2012 can be filled in a very bad 
way if we don't watch it. The Kurd-Arab problem could wind up in open 
warfare. The Iranian influence in Iraq is growing as we speak. We do 
have troops and civilian personnel in the country, and we will have a 
lot next year. I think out of an abundance of caution we ought to leave 
the tools in place that the Department of Defense says they need to 
finish this out.
  I urge my colleagues to err on the side of giving the Department of 
Defense the authorization they need to protect those who will be left 
behind.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. It disappoints me that President Obama opposes a formal end 
to the Iraq war, but it doesn't surprise me. As a candidate, he was 
outspoken against the war and for ending the war: He will be bringing 
the troops home. But this vote in this debate is not necessarily just 
about bringing the troops home. This is a debate over power. The 
executive branch wants to keep the unlimited power to commit troops to 
war. This is about who holds the power.
  The Founding Fathers intended that Congress should hold the power. 
This vote is about whether we will continue to abdicate that power and 
give up that power to the Executive. That allows for no checks and 
balances. We need to have checks and balances. It is what our Founding 
Fathers intended.
  With regard to defending ourselves, there is authorization for the 
President to always defend the Nation using force. There is 
authorization for every embassy around the world to defend the embassy. 
That is why we have soldiers there. We have agreements with the host 
country that the host military is supposed to support the embassy. If 
that fails, we have our own soldiers. We have these agreements around 
the world. There is nothing that says we cannot use force. This says we 
are reclaiming the power to declare war, and we will not have another 
war with hundreds of thousands of troops without a debate. Should not 
the public and Congress debate it before we commit troops to war?
  This war is coming to a close. I suggest that we should be proud of 
it. I hope people will support this amendment.
  I yield to the Senator from Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Paul's 
amendment to revoke war authority. We have heard on the floor that the 
consequences of revoking authority are vague and uncertain. Indeed, my 
team has been seeking a reply from the Department of Defense as to 
whether there were any conditions we should be alerted to or whether 
this would create a problem. At the last minute, we appear to have a 
memo--which has not come to my office--that says there are possible 
complications.
  Well, let's be clear. The executive branch never wants to hand back 
authority it has been granted. It always wants to retain maximum 
flexibility. But as my colleague has pointed out, this is an issue of 
constitutional authority. We had a constitutional discussion about 
authorizing action in Iraq and, certainly contrary to my opinion, this 
body supported that action. But now the President is bringing this war 
to an end.
  Doesn't it make sense, then, that we end the authority that went with 
this war and call a formal end to this battle? The issue has been 
raised that there might be something that happens in the future. Isn't 
that true for every country on this planet, that something might happen 
in the future? Something might happen in Somalia or in Yemen or in any 
nation in the world. Indeed, under the War Powers Act, the President 
has the ability to respond immediately. He doesn't need to come to this 
body for 60 days. So there is extensive flexibility that would go with 
Iraq just as it goes with every other country, in addition to the 
authority that has been granted to pursue al-Qaida and associated 
forces around the world.
  When, if not now, should we revoke this authority? Do we say that 
once granted, at any point in the future the administration can go back 
to war without the authorization of this body? It is time for us to 
reclaim the authority of Congress. Should the circumstances arise that 
the President feels the need to go back into a war mode versus many of 
the other uses of force that are already authorized under other 
provisions, then he would have 60 days. He could come back to this body 
and say: These are the changed circumstances. Under the Constitution, 
will you grant the power to renew or create a new force of war in that 
country? Then we can hold that debate in a responsible manner.
  But this open-ended commitment under these circumstances doesn't make 
sense. Congress has yielded its authority under the Constitution far 
too often to the executive branch. So many times this body has failed 
to do its fair share under our constitutional framework.
  This amendment before us today makes sense in the context of a 
withdrawal of troops and provides plenty of flexibility to undertake 
any security issues that might arise in the future. For that reason, I 
urge my colleagues to support the Paul amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, is it appropriate to call for the yeas and 
nays at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
  Mr. PAUL. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PAUL. I will yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, under the previous order, I think we 
were going to debate both amendments and

[[Page S7971]]

vote in a few moments. That is what I understood.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. How long will the Senator take?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. All right.


                    Amendment No. 1115, as Modified

  Ms. LANDRIEU. The Senators have done such a good job managing this 
bill. I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment and to be 
paired with this important amendment that the Senators from Kentucky 
and Oregon have offered. I will explain it briefly because a longer 
explanation would not be necessary.
  This body is very familiar with the reauthorization of the SBIR 
Program. The reason I believe the chairman and ranking member allowed 
me to offer this amendment with Senator Snowe is twofold. One, it has a 
bearing on the Department of Defense in that the Department of Defense 
is the largest contributor to the SBIR and STTR programs, the two most 
important research and development programs for small business that the 
Federal Government runs and operates. The Senators know full well the 
importance for the Department of Defense and therefore extrapolate 
correctly the importance of this program for all of our agencies.
  We take a small portion of the research and development dollars for 
all Federal agencies and basically direct it to small business. There 
are some good reasons for that, which I will put in the Record. As 
written by one of the advocates supporting the program--and I will put 
this into the Record--she writes:

       The SBIR/STTR funding award process spawns competition 
     among high-tech businesses. Scientists and engineers propose 
     their best technological concepts to solve a problem of 
     national interest. The best of the best of these technical 
     concepts are selected for funding. Thus, this funding 
     mechanism assures that the thinking minds continuously work 
     on producing the most practical solutions to engineering 
     problems.

  Whether it is our soldiers in the field or our scientists at NASA or 
whether it is our scientists and engineers struggling to understand the 
oceans or better communication technology, they go to the SBIR and STTR 
programs and look for some of the cutting edge ideas. We invest in 
them, and many of those ideas go commercial for the benefit of 
everyone, taxpayers included.
  She goes on to write:

       Small businesses develop niche products that are not mass 
     produced overseas. Thus, it helps our employment situation 
     [right here at home]. The employees of a high-tech company 
     are highly educated professionals belonging to a high income 
     group who contribute substantially to the tax pool and the 
     economy.

  Finally, she says:

       Small businesses are job creators. We hear that large 
     companies are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash, yet 
     not investing in job creation. Small businesses often operate 
     on a very thin to no profit margin and hire staff on borrowed 
     money. . . . This is because growth is the mantra for small 
     businesses for survival.

  If they don't grow, they don't survive. This small business research 
program is so important. The reason I am here tonight asking my 
colleagues to vote on this amendment on the Defense bill is that it is 
relevant. It is also important. We are 5 years late. This program 
should have been authorized 5 years ago.
  I inherited this situation when I became chairman of the Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship Committee. As you know, I have worked 
diligently with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move this 
debate forward and to advance the ball. That is what we are going to do 
tonight. We are, hopefully, going to pass this with more than the 60 
votes necessary.
  This bill came out of the Small Business Committee on a vote of 17 to 
1. It was just broadly bipartisan in its appeal. It is sponsored by my 
ranking member, Senator Snowe, who has been one of the strongest 
advocates for small business in the Senate--not just for this year but 
for many years. She sponsored this bill along with Senators Shaheen, 
Brown, and Kerry. With Senator McCain and Senator Levin's help, along 
with the cosponsors of this amendment, I ask my colleagues to vote 
favorably for it tonight. Again, we are 5 years overdue. It is an 
important program to get authorized so that the folks operating our 
programs at all of the departments can have some confidence that the 
program is going to go on, that they can even do a better job than they 
have been doing, and we can get these investments out to small 
businesses that are game changers in America, creating new technology 
and, most importantly, creating the jobs that America needs right here 
at home.
  I don't see anyone else to speak on the amendment. I think that would 
probably be all the time that we need. I hope that is a signal that 
there is no opposition to the amendment. Perhaps we can do a voice vote 
or have a very strong vote for reauthorizing the small business 
research program. Again, that is so meritorious and so necessary for 
the investment of small business in America today.
  I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, while Senator Landrieu is here--
because she, I know, is going to be interested in this and is right on 
top of this--I want to assure her it was our intention with the 
previous order to have the Landrieu amendment No. 1115 modified with 
the changes that are at the desk, and so I now ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be modified with those changes, and that our 
previous order with respect to the vote in relation to the Landrieu 
amendment be modified as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1115), as modified, is as follows:

       At the end, add the following:

               DIVISION E--SBIR AND STTR REAUTHORIZATION

     SEC. 5001. SHORT TITLE.

       This division may be cited as the ``SBIR/STTR 
     Reauthorization Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 5002. DEFINITIONS.

       In this division--
       (1) the terms ``Administration'' and ``Administrator'' mean 
     the Small Business Administration and the Administrator 
     thereof, respectively;
       (2) the terms ``extramural budget'', ``Federal agency'', 
     ``Small Business Innovation Research Program'', ``SBIR'', 
     ``Small Business Technology Transfer Program'', and ``STTR'' 
     have the meanings given such terms in section 9 of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638); and
       (3) the term ``small business concern'' has the meaning 
     given that term under section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 632).

     SEC. 5003. REPEAL.

       Subtitle E of title VIII of this Act is amended by striking 
     section 885.

        TITLE LI--REAUTHORIZATION OF THE SBIR AND STTR PROGRAMS

     SEC. 5101. EXTENSION OF TERMINATION DATES.

       (a) SBIR.--Section 9(m) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 638(m)) is amended by striking ``2011'' and inserting 
     ``2019, except as provided in subsection (cc)''.
       (b) STTR.--Section 9(n)(1)(A) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 638(n)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``2011'' and 
     inserting ``2019''.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The Continuing 
     Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-36), as amended by 
     division D of the Consolidated and Further Continuing 
     Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-55), is amended by 
     striking section 123.

     SEC. 5102. STATUS OF THE OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY.

       Section 9(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(b)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (9); and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) to maintain an Office of Technology to carry out the 
     responsibilities of the Administration under this section, 
     which shall be--
       ``(A) headed by the Assistant Administrator for Technology, 
     who shall report directly to the Administrator; and
       ``(B) independent from the Office of Government Contracting 
     of the Administration and sufficiently staffed and funded to 
     comply with the oversight, reporting, and public database 
     responsibilities assigned to the Office of Technology by the 
     Administrator.''.

     SEC. 5103. SBIR ALLOCATION INCREASE.

       Section 9(f) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(f)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``Each'' and inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph 
     (2)(B), each'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end; 
     and
       (C) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) not less than 2.5 percent of such budget in fiscal 
     year 2013;
       ``(D) not less than 2.6 percent of such budget in fiscal 
     year 2014;

[[Page S7972]]

       ``(E) not less than 2.7 percent of such budget in fiscal 
     year 2015;
       ``(F) not less than 2.8 percent of such budget in fiscal 
     year 2016;
       ``(G) not less than 2.9 percent of such budget in fiscal 
     year 2017;
       ``(H) not less than 3.0 percent of such budget in fiscal 
     year 2018;
       ``(I) not less than 3.1 percent of such budget in fiscal 
     year 2019;
       ``(J) not less than 3.2 percent of such budget in fiscal 
     year 2020;
       ``(K) not less than 3.3 percent of such budget in fiscal 
     year 2021;
       ``(L) not less than 3.4 percent of such budget in fiscal 
     year 2022; and
       ``(M) not less than 3.5 percent of such budget in fiscal 
     year 2023 and each fiscal year thereafter,'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively, and adjusting the margins 
     accordingly;
       (B) by striking ``A Federal agency'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--A Federal agency''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Department of defense and department of energy.--For 
     the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, to 
     the greatest extent practicable, the percentage of the 
     extramural budget in excess of 2.5 percent required to be 
     expended with small business concerns under subparagraphs (D) 
     through (M) of paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) may not be used for new Phase I or Phase II awards; 
     and
       ``(ii) shall be used for activities that further the 
     readiness levels of technologies developed under Phase II 
     awards, including conducting testing and evaluation to 
     promote the transition of such technologies into commercial 
     or defense products, or systems furthering the mission needs 
     of the Department of Defense or the Department of Energy, as 
     the case may be.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection may 
     be construed to prohibit a Federal agency from expending with 
     small business concerns an amount of the extramural budget 
     for research or research and development of the Federal 
     agency that exceeds the amount required under paragraph 
     (1).''.

     SEC. 5104. STTR ALLOCATION INCREASE.

       Section 9(n)(1)(B) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     638(n)(1)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking ``thereafter.'' and 
     inserting ``through fiscal year 2012;'';
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) 0.4 percent for fiscal years 2013 and 2014;
       ``(iv) 0.5 percent for fiscal years 2015 and 2016; and
       ``(v) 0.6 percent for fiscal year 2017 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection may 
     be construed to prohibit a Federal agency from expending with 
     small business concerns an amount of the extramural budget 
     for research or research and development of the Federal 
     agency that exceeds the amount required under paragraph 
     (1).''.

     SEC. 5105. SBIR AND STTR AWARD LEVELS.

       (a) SBIR Adjustments.--Section 9(j)(2)(D) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(j)(2)(D)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$100,000'' and inserting ``$150,000''; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``$750,000'' and inserting ``$1,000,000''.
       (b) STTR Adjustments.--Section 9(p)(2)(B)(ix) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(p)(2)(B)(ix)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$100,000'' and inserting ``$150,000''; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``$750,000'' and inserting ``$1,000,000''.
       (c) Annual Adjustments.--Section 9 of the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 638) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (j)(2)(D), by striking ``once every 5 
     years to reflect economic adjustments and programmatic 
     considerations'' and inserting ``every year for inflation''; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (p)(2)(B)(ix), as amended by subsection 
     (b) of this section, by inserting ``(each of which the 
     Administrator shall adjust for inflation annually)'' after 
     ``$1,000,000,''.
       (d) Limitation on Size of Awards.--Section 9 of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(aa) Limitation on Size of Awards.--
       ``(1) Limitation.--No Federal agency may issue an award 
     under the SBIR program or the STTR program if the size of the 
     award exceeds the award guidelines established under this 
     section by more than 50 percent.
       ``(2) Maintenance of information.--Participating agencies 
     shall maintain information on awards exceeding the guidelines 
     established under this section, including--
       ``(A) the amount of each award;
       ``(B) a justification for exceeding the award amount;
       ``(C) the identity and location of each award recipient; 
     and
       ``(D) whether an award recipient has received any venture 
     capital investment and, if so, whether the recipient is 
     majority-owned by multiple venture capital operating 
     companies.
       ``(3) Reports.--The Administrator shall include the 
     information described in paragraph (2) in the annual report 
     of the Administrator to Congress.
       ``(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed to prevent a Federal agency from 
     supplementing an award under the SBIR program or the STTR 
     program using funds of the Federal agency that are not part 
     of the SBIR program or the STTR program of the Federal 
     agency.''.

     SEC. 5106. AGENCY AND PROGRAM FLEXIBILITY.

       Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638), as 
     amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(bb) Subsequent Phase II Awards.--
       ``(1) Agency flexibility.--A small business concern that 
     received an award from a Federal agency under this section 
     shall be eligible to receive a subsequent Phase II award from 
     another Federal agency, if the head of each relevant Federal 
     agency or the relevant component of the Federal agency makes 
     a written determination that the topics of the relevant 
     awards are the same and both agencies report the awards to 
     the Administrator for inclusion in the public database under 
     subsection (k).
       ``(2) SBIR and sttr program flexibility.--A small business 
     concern that received an award under this section under the 
     SBIR program or the STTR program may receive a subsequent 
     Phase II award in either the SBIR program or the STTR program 
     and the participating agency or agencies shall report the 
     awards to the Administrator for inclusion in the public 
     database under subsection (k).
       ``(3) Preventing duplicative awards.--Before making an 
     award under paragraph (1) or (2), the head of a Federal 
     agency shall verify that the project to be performed with the 
     award has not been funded under the SBIR program or STTR 
     program of another Federal agency.''.

     SEC. 5107. ELIMINATION OF PHASE II INVITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 9(e) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 638(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4)(B), by striking ``to further'' and 
     inserting: ``which shall not include any invitation, pre-
     screening, pre-selection, or down-selection process for 
     eligibility for the second phase, that will further''; and
       (2) in paragraph (6)(B), by striking ``to further develop 
     proposed ideas to'' and inserting ``which shall not include 
     any invitation, pre-screening, pre-selection, or down-
     selection process for eligibility for the second phase, that 
     will further develop proposals that''.

     SEC. 5108. PARTICIPATION BY FIRMS WITH SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT 
                   FROM MULTIPLE VENTURE CAPITAL OPERATING 
                   COMPANIES IN A PORTION OF THE SBIR PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 638), as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(cc) Participation of Small Business Concerns Majority-
     Owned by Venture Capital Operating Companies in the SBIR 
     Program.--
       ``(1) Authority.--Upon a written determination described in 
     paragraph (2) provided to the Administrator and to the 
     Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House of 
     Representatives not later than 30 days before the date on 
     which an award is made--
       ``(A) the Director of the National Institutes of Health, 
     the Secretary of Energy, and the Director of the National 
     Science Foundation may award not more than 25 percent of the 
     funds allocated for the SBIR program of the Federal agency to 
     small business concerns that are owned in majority part by 
     multiple venture capital operating companies through 
     competitive, merit-based procedures that are open to all 
     eligible small business concerns; and
       ``(B) the head of a Federal agency other than a Federal 
     agency described in subparagraph (A) that participates in the 
     SBIR program may award not more than 15 percent of the funds 
     allocated for the SBIR program of the Federal agency to small 
     business concerns that are owned in majority part by multiple 
     venture capital operating companies through competitive, 
     merit-based procedures that are open to all eligible small 
     business concerns.
       ``(2) Determination.--A written determination described in 
     this paragraph is a written determination by the head of a 
     Federal agency that explains how the use of the authority 
     under paragraph (1) will--
       ``(A) induce additional venture capital funding of small 
     business innovations;
       ``(B) substantially contribute to the mission of the 
     Federal agency;
       ``(C) demonstrate a need for public research; and
       ``(D) otherwise fulfill the capital needs of small business 
     concerns for additional financing for the SBIR project.
       ``(3) Registration.--A small business concern that is 
     majority-owned by multiple venture capital operating 
     companies and qualified for participation in the program 
     authorized under paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) register with the Administrator on the date that the 
     small business concern submits an application for an award 
     under the SBIR program; and
       ``(B) indicate in any SBIR proposal that the small business 
     concern is registered under subparagraph (A) as majority-
     owned by multiple venture capital operating companies.

[[Page S7973]]

       ``(4) Compliance.--
       ``(A) In general.--The head of a Federal agency that makes 
     an award under this subsection during a fiscal year shall 
     collect and submit to the Administrator data relating to the 
     number and dollar amount of Phase I awards, Phase II awards, 
     and any other category of awards by the Federal agency under 
     the SBIR program during that fiscal year.
       ``(B) Annual reporting.--The Administrator shall include as 
     part of each annual report by the Administration under 
     subsection (b)(7) any data submitted under subparagraph (A) 
     and a discussion of the compliance of each Federal agency 
     that makes an award under this subsection during the fiscal 
     year with the maximum percentages under paragraph (1).
       ``(5) Enforcement.--If a Federal agency awards more than 
     the percent of the funds allocated for the SBIR program of 
     the Federal agency authorized under paragraph (1) for a 
     purpose described in paragraph (1), the head of the Federal 
     agency shall transfer an amount equal to the amount awarded 
     in excess of the amount authorized under paragraph (1) to the 
     funds for general SBIR programs from the non-SBIR and non-
     STTR research and development funds of the Federal agency not 
     later than 180 days after the date on which the Federal 
     agency made the award that caused the total awarded under 
     paragraph (1) to be more than the amount authorized under 
     paragraph (1) for a purpose described in paragraph (1).
       ``(6) Final decisions on applications under the sbir 
     program.--
       ``(A) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `covered 
     small business concern' means a small business concern that--
       ``(i) was not majority-owned by multiple venture capital 
     operating companies on the date on which the small business 
     concern submitted an application in response to a 
     solicitation under the SBIR programs; and
       ``(ii) on the date of the award under the SBIR program is 
     majority-owned by multiple venture capital operating 
     companies.
       ``(B) In general.--If a Federal agency does not make an 
     award under a solicitation under the SBIR program before the 
     date that is 9 months after the date on which the period for 
     submitting applications under the solicitation ends--
       ``(i) a covered small business concern is eligible to 
     receive the award, without regard to whether the covered 
     small business concern meets the requirements for receiving 
     an award under the SBIR program for a small business concern 
     that is majority-owned by multiple venture capital operating 
     companies, if the covered small business concern meets all 
     other requirements for such an award; and
       ``(ii) the head of the Federal agency shall transfer an 
     amount equal to any amount awarded to a covered small 
     business concern under the solicitation to the funds for 
     general SBIR programs from the non-SBIR and non-STTR research 
     and development funds of the Federal agency, not later than 
     90 days after the date on which the Federal agency makes the 
     award.
       ``(7) Evaluation criteria.--A Federal agency may not use 
     investment of venture capital as a criterion for the award of 
     contracts under the SBIR program or STTR program.
       ``(8) Termination.--The authority under this subsection 
     shall terminate on September 30, 2016.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 3 of the 
     Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(aa) Venture Capital Operating Company.--In this Act, the 
     term `venture capital operating company' means an entity 
     described in clause (i), (v), or (vi) of section 
     121.103(b)(5) of title 13, Code of Federal Regulations (or 
     any successor thereto).''.
       (c) Rulemaking To Ensure That Firms That Are Majority-Owned 
     by Multiple Venture Capital Operating Companies Are Able To 
     Participate in a Portion of the SBIR Program.--
       (1) Statement of congressional intent.--It is the stated 
     intent of Congress that the Administrator should promulgate 
     regulations to carry out the authority under section 9(cc) of 
     the Small Business Act, as added by this section, that--
       (A) permit small business concerns that are majority-owned 
     by multiple venture capital operating companies to 
     participate in the SBIR program in accordance with section 
     9(cc) of the Small Business Act;
       (B) provide specific guidance for small business concerns 
     that are majority-owned by multiple venture capital operating 
     companies with regard to eligibility, participation, and 
     affiliation rules; and
       (C) preserve and maintain the integrity of the SBIR program 
     as a program for small business concerns in the United 
     States, prohibiting large businesses or large entities or 
     foreign-owned businesses or entities from participation in 
     the program established under section 9 of the Small Business 
     Act.
       (2) Rulemaking required.--
       (A) Proposed regulations.--Not later than 4 months after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall 
     issue proposed regulations to amend section 121.103 (relating 
     to determinations of affiliation applicable to the SBIR 
     program) and section 121.702 (relating to ownership and 
     control standards and size standards applicable to the SBIR 
     program) of title 13, Code of Federal Regulations, for firms 
     that are majority-owned by multiple venture capital operating 
     companies and participating in the SBIR program solely under 
     the authority under section 9(cc) of the Small Business Act, 
     as added by this section.
       (B) Final regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, and after providing notice of 
     and opportunity for comment on the proposed regulations 
     issued under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall issue 
     final or interim final regulations under this subsection.
       (3) Contents.--
       (A) In general.--The regulations issued under this 
     subsection shall permit the participation of applicants 
     majority-owned by multiple venture capital operating 
     companies in the SBIR program in accordance with section 
     9(cc) of the Small Business Act, as added by this section, 
     unless the Administrator determines--
       (i) in accordance with the size standards established under 
     subparagraph (B), that the applicant is--

       (I) a large business or large entity; or
       (II) majority-owned or controlled by a large business or 
     large entity; or

       (ii) in accordance with the criteria established under 
     subparagraph (C), that the applicant--

       (I) is a foreign business or a foreign entity or is not a 
     citizen of the United States or alien lawfully admitted for 
     permanent residence; or
       (II) is majority-owned or controlled by a foreign business, 
     foreign entity, or person who is not a citizen of the United 
     States or alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

       (B) Size standards.--Under the authority to establish size 
     standards under paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 3(a) of the 
     Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)), the Administrator 
     shall, in accordance with paragraph (1) of this subsection, 
     establish size standards for applicants seeking to 
     participate in the SBIR program solely under the authority 
     under section 9(cc) of the Small Business Act, as added by 
     this section.
       (C) Criteria for determining foreign ownership.--The 
     Administrator shall establish criteria for determining 
     whether an applicant meets the requirements under 
     subparagraph (A)(ii), and, in establishing the criteria, 
     shall consider whether the criteria should include--
       (i) whether the applicant is at least 51 percent owned or 
     controlled by citizens of the United States or domestic 
     venture capital operating companies;
       (ii) whether the applicant is domiciled in the United 
     States; and
       (iii) whether the applicant is a direct or indirect 
     subsidiary of a foreign-owned firm, including whether the 
     criteria should include that an applicant is a direct or 
     indirect subsidiary of a foreign-owned entity if--

       (I) any venture capital operating company that owns more 
     than 20 percent of the applicant is a direct or indirect 
     subsidiary of a foreign-owned entity; or
       (II) in the aggregate, entities that are direct or indirect 
     subsidiaries of foreign-owned entities own more than 49 
     percent of the applicant.

       (D) Criteria for determining affiliation.--The 
     Administrator shall establish criteria, in accordance with 
     paragraph (1), for determining whether an applicant is 
     affiliated with a venture capital operating company or any 
     other business that the venture capital operating company has 
     financed and, in establishing the criteria, shall specify 
     that--
       (i) if a venture capital operating company that is 
     determined to be affiliated with an applicant is a minority 
     investor in the applicant, the portfolio companies of the 
     venture capital operating company shall not be determined to 
     be affiliated with the applicant, unless--

       (I) the venture capital operating company owns a majority 
     of the portfolio company; or
       (II) the venture capital operating company holds a majority 
     of the seats on the board of directors of the portfolio 
     company;

       (ii) subject to clause (i), the Administrator retains the 
     authority to determine whether a venture capital operating 
     company is affiliated with an applicant, including 
     establishing other criteria;
       (iii) the Administrator may not determine that a portfolio 
     company of a venture capital operating company is affiliated 
     with an applicant based solely on one or more shared 
     investors; and
       (iv) subject to clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), the 
     Administrator retains the authority to determine whether a 
     portfolio company of a venture capital operating company is 
     affiliated with an applicant based on factors independent of 
     whether there is a shared investor, such as whether there are 
     contractual obligations between the portfolio company and the 
     applicant.
       (4) Enforcement.--If the Administrator does not issue final 
     or interim final regulations under this subsection on or 
     before the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator may not carry out any activities 
     under section 4(h) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     633(h)) (as continued in effect pursuant to the Act entitled 
     ``An Act to extend temporarily certain authorities of the 
     Small Business Administration'', approved October 10, 2006 
     (Public Law 109-316; 120 Stat. 1742)) during the period 
     beginning on the date that is 1 year and 1 day after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, and ending on the date on which the 
     final or interim final regulations are issued.
       (5) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``venture 
     capital operating company'' has the same meaning as in 
     section 3(aa) of

[[Page S7974]]

     the Small Business Act, as added by this section.
       (d) Assistance for Determining Affiliates.--
       (1) Clear explanation required.--Not later than 30 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator 
     shall post on the Web site of the Administration (with a 
     direct link displayed on the homepage of the Web site of the 
     Administration or the SBIR and STTR Web sites of the 
     Administration)--
       (A) a clear explanation of the SBIR and STTR affiliation 
     rules under part 121 of title 13, Code of Federal 
     Regulations; and
       (B) contact information for officers or employees of the 
     Administration who--
       (i) upon request, shall review an issue relating to the 
     rules described in subparagraph (A); and
       (ii) shall respond to a request under clause (i) not later 
     than 20 business days after the date on which the request is 
     received.
       (2) Inclusion of affiliation rules for certain small 
     business concerns.--On and after the date on which the final 
     regulations under subsection (c) are issued, the 
     Administrator shall post on the Web site of the 
     Administration information relating to the regulations, in 
     accordance with paragraph (1).

     SEC. 5109. SBIR AND STTR SPECIAL ACQUISITION PREFERENCE.

       Section 9(r) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(r)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Phase iii awards.--To the greatest extent 
     practicable, Federal agencies and Federal prime contractors 
     shall issue Phase III awards relating to technology, 
     including sole source awards, to the SBIR and STTR award 
     recipients that developed the technology.''.

     SEC. 5110. COLLABORATING WITH FEDERAL LABORATORIES AND 
                   RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTERS.

       Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638), as 
     amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(dd) Collaborating With Federal Laboratories and Research 
     and Development Centers.--
       ``(1) Authorization.--Subject to the limitations under this 
     section, the head of each participating Federal agency may 
     make SBIR and STTR awards to any eligible small business 
     concern that--
       ``(A) intends to enter into an agreement with a Federal 
     laboratory or federally funded research and development 
     center for portions of the activities to be performed under 
     that award; or
       ``(B) has entered into a cooperative research and 
     development agreement (as defined in section 12(d) of the 
     Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 
     3710a(d))) with a Federal laboratory.
       ``(2) Prohibition.--No Federal agency shall--
       ``(A) condition an SBIR or STTR award upon entering into 
     agreement with any Federal laboratory or any federally funded 
     laboratory or research and development center for any portion 
     of the activities to be performed under that award;
       ``(B) approve an agreement between a small business concern 
     receiving a SBIR or STTR award and a Federal laboratory or 
     federally funded laboratory or research and development 
     center, if the small business concern performs a lesser 
     portion of the activities to be performed under that award 
     than required by this section and by the SBIR Policy 
     Directive and the STTR Policy Directive of the Administrator; 
     or
       ``(C) approve an agreement that violates any provision, 
     including any data rights protections provision, of this 
     section or the SBIR and the STTR Policy Directives.
       ``(3) Implementation.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall 
     modify the SBIR Policy Directive and the STTR Policy 
     Directive issued under this section to ensure that small 
     business concerns--
       ``(A) have the flexibility to use the resources of the 
     Federal laboratories and federally funded research and 
     development centers; and
       ``(B) are not mandated to enter into agreement with any 
     Federal laboratory or any federally funded laboratory or 
     research and development center as a condition of an 
     award.''.

     SEC. 5111. NOTICE REQUIREMENT.

       (a) SBIR Program.--Section 9(g) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 638(g)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (10), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) provide timely notice to the Administrator of any 
     case or controversy before any Federal judicial or 
     administrative tribunal concerning the SBIR program of the 
     Federal agency; and''.
       (b) STTR Program.--Section 9(o) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 638(o)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (15);
       (2) in paragraph (16), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (16) as paragraph (15); and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(16) provide timely notice to the Administrator of any 
     case or controversy before any Federal judicial or 
     administrative tribunal concerning the STTR program of the 
     Federal agency.''.

     SEC. 5112. EXPRESS AUTHORITY FOR AN AGENCY TO AWARD 
                   SEQUENTIAL PHASE II AWARDS FOR SBIR OR STTR 
                   FUNDED PROJECTS.

       Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638), as 
     amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(ee) Additional Phase II SBIR and STTR Awards.--A small 
     business concern that receives a Phase II SBIR award or a 
     Phase II STTR award for a project remains eligible to receive 
     an additional Phase II SBIR award or Phase II STTR award for 
     that project.''.

         TITLE LII--OUTREACH AND COMMERCIALIZATION INITIATIVES

     SEC. 5201. RURAL AND STATE OUTREACH.

       (a) In General.--Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 638) is amended by inserting after subsection (r) the 
     following:
       ``(s) Federal and State Technology Partnership Program.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(A) Applicant.--The term `applicant' means an entity, 
     organization, or individual that submits a proposal for an 
     award or a cooperative agreement under this subsection.
       ``(B) FAST program.--The term `FAST program' means the 
     Federal and State Technology Partnership Program established 
     under this subsection.
       ``(C) Recipient.--The term `recipient' means a person that 
     receives an award or becomes party to a cooperative agreement 
     under this subsection.
       ``(D) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
       ``(E) Definitions relating to mentoring networks.--The 
     terms `business advice and counseling', `mentor', and 
     `mentoring network' have the meanings given those terms in 
     section 34(e).
       ``(2) Establishment of program.--The Administrator shall 
     establish a program to be known as the Federal and State 
     Technology Partnership Program, the purpose of which shall be 
     to strengthen the technological competitiveness of small 
     business concerns in the States.
       ``(3) Grants and cooperative agreements.--
       ``(A) Joint review.--In carrying out the FAST program, the 
     Administrator and the program managers for the SBIR program 
     and STTR program at the National Science Foundation, the 
     Department of Defense, and any other Federal agency 
     determined appropriate by the Administrator shall jointly 
     review proposals submitted by applicants and may make awards 
     or enter into cooperative agreements under this subsection 
     based on the factors for consideration set forth in 
     subparagraph (B), in order to enhance or develop in a State--
       ``(i) technology research and development by small business 
     concerns;
       ``(ii) technology transfer from university research to 
     technology-based small business concerns;
       ``(iii) technology deployment and diffusion benefitting 
     small business concerns;
       ``(iv) the technological capabilities of small business 
     concerns through the establishment or operation of consortia 
     comprised of entities, organizations, or individuals, 
     including--

       ``(I) State and local development agencies and entities;
       ``(II) representatives of technology-based small business 
     concerns;
       ``(III) industries and emerging companies;
       ``(IV) universities; and
       ``(V) small business development centers; and

       ``(v) outreach, financial support, and technical assistance 
     to technology-based small business concerns participating in 
     or interested in participating in an SBIR program or STTR 
     program, including initiatives--

       ``(I) to make grants or loans to companies to pay a portion 
     or all of the cost of developing SBIR or STTR proposals;
       ``(II) to establish or operate a Mentoring Network within 
     the FAST program to provide business advice and counseling 
     that will assist small business concerns that have been 
     identified by FAST program participants, program managers of 
     participating SBIR agencies, the Administration, or other 
     entities that are knowledgeable about the SBIR and STTR 
     programs as good candidates for the SBIR and STTR programs, 
     and that would benefit from mentoring, in accordance with 
     section 34;
       ``(III) to create or participate in a training program for 
     individuals providing SBIR or STTR outreach and assistance at 
     the State and local levels; and
       ``(IV) to encourage the commercialization of technology 
     developed through funding under the SBIR program or the STTR 
     program.

       ``(B) Selection considerations.--In making awards or 
     entering into cooperative agreements under this subsection, 
     the Administrator and the program managers referred to in 
     subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) may only consider proposals by applicants that intend 
     to use a portion of the Federal assistance provided under 
     this subsection to provide outreach, financial support, or 
     technical assistance to technology-based small business 
     concerns participating in or interested in participating in 
     the SBIR program or STTR program; and
       ``(ii) shall consider, at a minimum--

       ``(I) whether the applicant has demonstrated that the 
     assistance to be provided would address unmet needs of small 
     business concerns in the community, and whether it

[[Page S7975]]

     is important to use Federal funding for the proposed 
     activities;
       ``(II) whether the applicant has demonstrated that a need 
     exists to increase the number or success of small high-
     technology businesses in the State or an area of the State, 
     as measured by the number of Phase I and Phase II SBIR awards 
     that have historically been received by small business 
     concerns in the State or area of the State;
       ``(III) whether the projected costs of the proposed 
     activities are reasonable;
       ``(IV) whether the proposal integrates and coordinates the 
     proposed activities with other State and local programs 
     assisting small high-technology firms in the State;
       ``(V) the manner in which the applicant will measure the 
     results of the activities to be conducted; and
       ``(VI) whether the proposal addresses the needs of small 
     business concerns--

       ``(aa) owned and controlled by women;
       ``(bb) that are socially and economically disadvantaged 
     small business concerns (as defined in section 8(a)(4)(A));
       ``(cc) that are HUBZone small business concerns;
       ``(dd) located in areas that have historically not 
     participated in the SBIR and STTR programs;
       ``(ee) owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans;
       ``(ff) owned and controlled by Native Americans; and
       ``(gg) located in geographic areas with an unemployment 
     rate that exceeds the national unemployment rate, based on 
     the most recently available monthly publications of the 
     Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.
       ``(C) Proposal limit.--Not more than 1 proposal may be 
     submitted for inclusion in the FAST program under this 
     subsection to provide services in any one State in any 1 
     fiscal year.
       ``(D) Process.--Proposals and applications for assistance 
     under this subsection shall be in such form and subject to 
     such procedures as the Administrator shall establish. The 
     Administrator shall promulgate regulations establishing 
     standards for the consideration of proposals under 
     subparagraph (B), including standards regarding each of the 
     considerations identified in subparagraph (B)(ii).
       ``(4) Cooperation and coordination.--In carrying out the 
     FAST program, the Administrator shall cooperate and 
     coordinate with--
       ``(A) Federal agencies required by this section to have an 
     SBIR program; and
       ``(B) entities, organizations, and individuals actively 
     engaged in enhancing or developing the technological 
     capabilities of small business concerns, including--
       ``(i) State and local development agencies and entities;
       ``(ii) State committees established under the Experimental 
     Program to Stimulate Competitive Research of the National 
     Science Foundation (as established under section 113 of the 
     National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1988 (42 
     U.S.C. 1862g));
       ``(iii) State science and technology councils; and
       ``(iv) representatives of technology-based small business 
     concerns.
       ``(5) Administrative requirements.--
       ``(A) Competitive basis.--Awards and cooperative agreements 
     under this subsection shall be made or entered into, as 
     applicable, on a competitive basis.
       ``(B) Matching requirements.--
       ``(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of an 
     activity (other than a planning activity) carried out using 
     an award or under a cooperative agreement under this 
     subsection shall be--

       ``(I) except as provided in clause (iii), 35 cents for each 
     Federal dollar, in the case of a recipient that will serve 
     small business concerns located in 1 of the 18 States 
     receiving the fewest Phase I SBIR awards;
       ``(II) except as provided in clause (ii) or (iii), 1 dollar 
     for each Federal dollar, in the case of a recipient that will 
     serve small business concerns located in 1 of the 16 States 
     receiving the greatest number of Phase I SBIR awards; and
       ``(III) except as provided in clause (ii) or (iii), 50 
     cents for each Federal dollar, in the case of a recipient 
     that will serve small business concerns located in a State 
     that is not described in subclause (I) or (II) that is 
     receiving Phase I SBIR awards.

       ``(ii) Low-income areas.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of the activity carried out using an award or under a 
     cooperative agreement under this subsection shall be 35 cents 
     for each Federal dollar that will be directly allocated by a 
     recipient described in clause (i) to serve small business 
     concerns located in a qualified census tract, as that term is 
     defined in section 42(d)(5)(B)(ii)(I) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986. Federal dollars not so allocated by that 
     recipient shall be subject to the matching requirements of 
     clause (i).
       ``(iii) Rural areas.--

       ``(I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II), 
     the non-Federal share of the cost of the activity carried out 
     using an award or under a cooperative agreement under this 
     subsection shall be 35 cents for each Federal dollar that 
     will be directly allocated by a recipient described in clause 
     (i) to serve small business concerns located in a rural area.
       ``(II) Enhanced rural awards.--For a recipient located in a 
     rural area that is located in a State described in clause 
     (i)(I), the non-Federal share of the cost of the activity 
     carried out using an award or under a cooperative agreement 
     under this subsection shall be 15 cents for each Federal 
     dollar that will be directly allocated by a recipient 
     described in clause (i) to serve small business concerns 
     located in the rural area.
       ``(III) Definition of rural area.--In this clause, the term 
     `rural area' has the meaning given that term in section 
     1393(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

       ``(iv) Types of funding.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of an activity carried out by a recipient shall be comprised 
     of not less than 50 percent cash and not more than 50 percent 
     of indirect costs and in-kind contributions, except that no 
     such costs or contributions may be derived from funds from 
     any other Federal program.
       ``(v) Rankings.--For the first full fiscal year after the 
     date of enactment of the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 
     2011, and each fiscal year thereafter, based on the 
     statistics for the most recent full fiscal year for which the 
     Administrator has compiled statistics, the Administrator 
     shall reevaluate the ranking of each State for purposes of 
     clause (i).
       ``(C) Duration.--Awards may be made or cooperative 
     agreements entered into under this subsection for multiple 
     years, not to exceed 5 years in total.
       ``(6) Annual reports.--The Administrator shall submit an 
     annual report to the Committee on Small Business of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Science and the Committee on 
     Small Business of the House of Representatives regarding--
       ``(A) the number and amount of awards provided and 
     cooperative agreements entered into under the FAST program 
     during the preceding year;
       ``(B) a list of recipients under this subsection, including 
     their location and the activities being performed with the 
     awards made or under the cooperative agreements entered into; 
     and
       ``(C) the Mentoring Networks and the mentoring database, as 
     provided for under section 34, including--
       ``(i) the status of the inclusion of mentoring information 
     in the database required by subsection (k); and
       ``(ii) the status of the implementation and description of 
     the usage of the Mentoring Networks.
       ``(7) Program levels.--
       ``(A) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out the FAST program, including Mentoring Networks, 
     under this subsection and section 34, $15,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2011 through 2016.
       ``(B) Mentoring database.--Of the total amount made 
     available under subparagraph (A) for fiscal years 2011 
     through 2016, a reasonable amount, not to exceed a total of 
     $500,000, may be used by the Administration to carry out 
     section 34(d).
       ``(8) Termination.--The authority to carry out the FAST 
     program under this subsection shall terminate on September 
     30, 2016.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--The Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by striking section 34 (15 U.S.C. 657d);
       (2) by redesignating sections 35 through 43 as sections 34 
     through 42, respectively;
       (3) in section 9(k)(1)(D) (15 U.S.C. 638(k)(1)(D)), by 
     striking ``section 35(d)'' and inserting ``section 34(d)'';
       (4) in section 34 (15 U.S.C. 657e), as so redesignated--
       (A) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``section 
     34(c)(1)(E)(ii)'' and inserting ``section 
     9(s)(3)(A)(v)(II)'';
       (B) by striking ``section 34'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``section 9(s)''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Business advice and counseling.--The term `business 
     advice and counseling' means providing advice and assistance 
     on matters described in subsection (c)(2)(B) to small 
     business concerns to guide them through the SBIR and STTR 
     program process, from application to award and successful 
     completion of each phase of the program.
       ``(2) FAST program.--The term `FAST program' means the 
     Federal and State Technology Partnership Program established 
     under section 9(s).
       ``(3) Mentor.--The term `mentor' means an individual 
     described in subsection (c)(2).
       ``(4) Mentoring network.--The term `Mentoring Network' 
     means an association, organization, coalition, or other 
     entity (including an individual) that meets the requirements 
     of subsection (c).
       ``(5) Recipient.--The term `recipient' means a person that 
     receives an award or becomes party to a cooperative agreement 
     under this section.
       ``(6) SBIR program.--The term `SBIR program' has the same 
     meaning as in section 9(e)(4).
       ``(7) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
       ``(8) STTR program.--The term `STTR program' has the same 
     meaning as in section 9(e)(6).'';
       (5) in section 36(d) (15 U.S.C. 657i(d)), as so 
     redesignated, by striking ``section 43'' and inserting 
     ``section 42'';
       (6) in section 39(d) (15 U.S.C. 657l(d)), as so 
     redesignated, by striking ``section 43'' and inserting 
     ``section 42''; and
       (7) in section 40(b) (15 U.S.C. 657m(b)), as so 
     redesignated, by striking ``section 43'' and inserting 
     ``section 42''.

[[Page S7976]]

     SEC. 5202. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR AWARDEES.

       Section 9(q) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(q)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``or STTR program'' after ``SBIR 
     program''; and
       (B) by striking ``SBIR projects'' and inserting ``SBIR or 
     STTR projects'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``3 years'' and inserting 
     ``5 years''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by inserting ``or STTR'' after ``SBIR''; and
       (ii) by striking ``$4,000'' and inserting ``$5,000'';
       (B) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Phase ii.--A Federal agency described in paragraph 
     (1) may--
       ``(i) provide to the recipient of a Phase II SBIR or STTR 
     award, through a vendor selected under paragraph (2), the 
     services described in paragraph (1), in an amount equal to 
     not more than $5,000 per year; or
       ``(ii) authorize the recipient of a Phase II SBIR or STTR 
     award to purchase the services described in paragraph (1), in 
     an amount equal to not more than $5,000 per year, which shall 
     be in addition to the amount of the recipient's award.''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Flexibility.--In carrying out subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B), each Federal agency shall provide the allowable amounts 
     to a recipient that meets the eligibility requirements under 
     the applicable subparagraph, if the recipient requests to 
     seek technical assistance from an individual or entity other 
     than the vendor selected under paragraph (2) by the Federal 
     agency.
       ``(D) Limitation.--A Federal agency may not--
       ``(i) use the amounts authorized under subparagraph (A) or 
     (B) unless the vendor selected under paragraph (2) provides 
     the technical assistance to the recipient; or
       ``(ii) enter a contract with a vendor under paragraph (2) 
     under which the amount provided for technical assistance is 
     based on total number of Phase I or Phase II awards.''.

     SEC. 5203. COMMERCIALIZATION READINESS PROGRAM AT DEPARTMENT 
                   OF DEFENSE.

       (a) In General.--Section 9(y) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 638(y)) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Pilot'' and 
     inserting ``Readiness'';
       (2) by striking ``Pilot'' each place that term appears and 
     inserting ``Readiness'';
       (3) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``or Small Business Technology Transfer 
     Program'' after ``Small Business Innovation Research 
     Program''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``The authority to 
     create and administer a Commercialization Readiness Program 
     under this subsection may not be construed to eliminate or 
     replace any other SBIR program or STTR program that enhances 
     the insertion or transition of SBIR or STTR technologies, 
     including any such program in effect on the date of enactment 
     of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2006 (Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3136).'';
       (4) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or Small Business 
     Technology Transfer Program'' after ``Small Business 
     Innovation Research Program'';
       (5) by striking paragraphs (5) and (6); and
       (6) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) Insertion incentives.--For any contract with a value 
     of not less than $100,000,000, the Secretary of Defense is 
     authorized to--
       ``(A) establish goals for the transition of Phase III 
     technologies in subcontracting plans; and
       ``(B) require a prime contractor on such a contract to 
     report the number and dollar amount of contracts entered into 
     by that prime contractor for Phase III SBIR or STTR projects.
       ``(6) Goal for sbir and sttr technology insertion.--The 
     Secretary of Defense shall--
       ``(A) set a goal to increase the number of Phase II SBIR 
     contracts and the number of Phase II STTR contracts awarded 
     by that Secretary that lead to technology transition into 
     programs of record or fielded systems;
       ``(B) use incentives in effect on the date of enactment of 
     the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011, or create new 
     incentives, to encourage agency program managers and prime 
     contractors to meet the goal under subparagraph (A); and
       ``(C) include in the annual report to Congress the 
     percentage of contracts described in subparagraph (A) awarded 
     by that Secretary, and information on the ongoing status of 
     projects funded through the Commercialization Readiness 
     Program and efforts to transition these technologies into 
     programs of record or fielded systems.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 9(i)(1) of 
     the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(i)(1)) is amended by 
     inserting ``(including awards under subsection (y))'' after 
     ``the number of awards''.

     SEC. 5204. COMMERCIALIZATION READINESS PILOT PROGRAM FOR 
                   CIVILIAN AGENCIES.

       Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638), as 
     amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(ff) Pilot Program.--
       ``(1) Authorization.--The head of each covered Federal 
     agency may allocate not more than 10 percent of the funds 
     allocated to the SBIR program and the STTR program of the 
     covered Federal agency--
       ``(A) for awards for technology development, testing, and 
     evaluation of SBIR and STTR Phase II technologies; or
       ``(B) to support the progress of research or research and 
     development conducted under the SBIR or STTR programs to 
     Phase III.
       ``(2) Application by federal agency.--
       ``(A) In general.--A covered Federal agency may not 
     establish a pilot program unless the covered Federal agency 
     makes a written application to the Administrator, not later 
     than 90 days before to the first day of the fiscal year in 
     which the pilot program is to be established, that describes 
     a compelling reason that additional investment in SBIR or 
     STTR technologies is necessary, including unusually high 
     regulatory, systems integration, or other costs relating to 
     development or manufacturing of identifiable, highly 
     promising small business technologies or a class of such 
     technologies expected to substantially advance the mission of 
     the agency.
       ``(B) Determination.--The Administrator shall--
       ``(i) make a determination regarding an application 
     submitted under subparagraph (A) not later than 30 days 
     before the first day of the fiscal year for which the 
     application is submitted;
       ``(ii) publish the determination in the Federal Register; 
     and
       ``(iii) make a copy of the determination and any related 
     materials available to the Committee on Small Business and 
     Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small 
     Business of the House of Representatives.
       ``(3) Maximum amount of award.--The head of a covered 
     Federal agency may not make an award under a pilot program in 
     excess of 3 times the dollar amounts generally established 
     for Phase II awards under subsection (j)(2)(D) or 
     (p)(2)(B)(ix).
       ``(4) Registration.--Any applicant that receives an award 
     under a pilot program shall register with the Administrator 
     in a registry that is available to the public.
       ``(5) Report.--The head of each covered Federal agency 
     shall include in the annual report of the covered Federal 
     agency to the Administrator an analysis of the various 
     activities considered for inclusion in the pilot program of 
     the covered Federal agency and a statement of the reasons why 
     each activity considered was included or not included, as the 
     case may be.
       ``(6) Termination.--The authority to establish a pilot 
     program under this section expires at the end of fiscal year 
     2014.
       ``(7) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `covered Federal agency'--
       ``(i) means a Federal agency participating in the SBIR 
     program or the STTR program; and
       ``(ii) does not include the Department of Defense; and
       ``(B) the term `pilot program' means the program 
     established under paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 5205. ACCELERATING CURES.

       (a) In General.--The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et 
     seq.) is amended by inserting after section 42, as 
     redesignated by section 5201 of this Act, the following:

     ``SEC. 43. SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       ``(a) NIH Cures Pilot.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--An independent advisory board shall 
     be established at the National Academy of Sciences (in this 
     section referred to as the `advisory board') to conduct 
     periodic evaluations of the SBIR program (as that term is 
     defined in section 9) of each of the National Institutes of 
     Health (referred to in this section as the `NIH') institutes 
     and centers for the purpose of improving the management of 
     the SBIR program through data-driven assessment.
       ``(2) Membership.--
       ``(A) In general.--The advisory board shall consist of--
       ``(i) the Director of the NIH;
       ``(ii) the Director of the SBIR program of the NIH;
       ``(iii) senior NIH agency managers, selected by the 
     Director of NIH;
       ``(iv) industry experts, selected by the Council of the 
     National Academy of Sciences in consultation with the 
     Associate Administrator for Technology of the Administration 
     and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
     Policy; and
       ``(v) owners or operators of small business concerns that 
     have received an award under the SBIR program of the NIH, 
     selected by the Associate Administrator for Technology of the 
     Administration.
       ``(B) Number of members.--The total number of members 
     selected under clauses (iii), (iv), and (v) of subparagraph 
     (A) shall not exceed 10.
       ``(C) Equal representation.--The total number of members of 
     the advisory board selected under clauses (i), (ii), (iii), 
     and (iv) of subparagraph (A) shall be equal to the number of 
     members of the advisory board selected under subparagraph 
     (A)(v).
       ``(b) Addressing Data Gaps.--In order to enhance the 
     evidence-base guiding SBIR program decisions and changes, the 
     Director of the SBIR program of the NIH shall address the 
     gaps and deficiencies in the data collection concerns 
     identified in the 2007 report of the National Academy of 
     Science entitled `An Assessment of the Small Business 
     Innovation Research Program at the NIH'.
       ``(c) Pilot Program.--

[[Page S7977]]

       ``(1) In general.--The Director of the SBIR program of the 
     NIH may initiate a pilot program, under a formal mechanism 
     for designing, implementing, and evaluating pilot programs, 
     to spur innovation and to test new strategies that may 
     enhance the development of cures and therapies.
       ``(2) Considerations.--The Director of the SBIR program of 
     the NIH may consider conducting a pilot program to include 
     individuals with successful SBIR program experience in study 
     sections, hiring individuals with small business development 
     experience for staff positions, separating the commercial and 
     scientific review processes, and examining the impact of the 
     trend toward larger awards on the overall program.
       ``(d) Report to Congress.--The Director of the NIH shall 
     submit an annual report to Congress and the advisory board on 
     the activities of the SBIR program of the NIH under this 
     section.
       ``(e) SBIR Grants and Contracts.--
       ``(1) In general.--In awarding grants and contracts under 
     the SBIR program of the NIH each SBIR program manager shall 
     emphasize applications that identify products, processes, 
     technologies, and services that may enhance the development 
     of cures and therapies.
       ``(2) Examination of commercialization and other metrics.--
     The advisory board shall evaluate the implementation of the 
     requirement under paragraph (1) by examining increased 
     commercialization and other metrics, to be determined and 
     collected by the SBIR program of the NIH.
       ``(3) Phase i and ii.--To the greatest extent practicable, 
     the Director of the SBIR program of the NIH shall reduce the 
     time period between Phase I and Phase II funding of grants 
     and contracts under the SBIR program of the NIH to 90 days.
       ``(f) Limit.--Not more than a total of 1 percent of the 
     extramural budget (as defined in section 9 of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638)) of the NIH for research or 
     research and development may be used for the pilot program 
     under subsection (c) and to carry out subsection (e).''.
       (b) Prospective Repeal.--Effective 5 years after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     631 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by striking section 43, as added by subsection (a); and
       (2) by redesignating sections 44 and 45 as sections 43 and 
     44, respectively.

     SEC. 5206. FEDERAL AGENCY ENGAGEMENT WITH SBIR AND STTR 
                   AWARDEES THAT HAVE BEEN AWARDED MULTIPLE PHASE 
                   I AWARDS BUT HAVE NOT BEEN AWARDED PHASE II 
                   AWARDS.

       Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638), as 
     amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(gg) Requirements Relating to Federal Agency Engagement 
     With Certain Phase I SBIR and STTR Awardees.--
       ``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `covered 
     awardee' means a small business concern that--
       ``(A) has received multiple Phase I awards over multiple 
     years, as determined by the head of a Federal agency, under 
     the SBIR program or the STTR program of the Federal agency; 
     and
       ``(B) has not received a Phase II award--
       ``(i) under the SBIR program or STTR program, as the case 
     may be, of the Federal agency described in subparagraph (A); 
     or
       ``(ii) relating to a Phase I award described in 
     subparagraph (A) under the SBIR program or the STTR program 
     of another Federal agency.
       ``(2) Performance measures.--The head of each Federal 
     agency that participates in the SBIR program or the STTR 
     program shall develop performance measures for any covered 
     awardee relating to commercializing research or research and 
     development activities under the SBIR program or the STTR 
     program of the Federal agency.''.

     SEC. 5207. CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION OF ``PHASE III''.

       (a) Phase III Awards.--Section 9(e) of the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 638(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4)(C), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by inserting ``for work that derives from, extends, or 
     completes efforts made under prior funding agreements under 
     the SBIR program'' after ``phase'';
       (2) in paragraph (6)(C), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by inserting ``for work that derives from, extends, or 
     completes efforts made under prior funding agreements under 
     the STTR program'' after ``phase'';
       (3) in paragraph (8), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (4) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) the term `commercialization' means--
       ``(A) the process of developing products, processes, 
     technologies, or services; and
       ``(B) the production and delivery of products, processes, 
     technologies, or services for sale (whether by the 
     originating party or by others) to or use by the Federal 
     Government or commercial markets;''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--The Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 9 (15 U.S.C. 638)--
       (A) in subsection (e)--
       (i) in paragraph (4)(C)(ii), by striking ``scientific 
     review criteria'' and inserting ``merit-based selection 
     procedures'';
       (ii) in paragraph (9), by striking ``the second or the 
     third phase'' and inserting ``Phase II or Phase III''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(11) the term `Phase I' means--
       ``(A) with respect to the SBIR program, the first phase 
     described in paragraph (4)(A); and
       ``(B) with respect to the STTR program, the first phase 
     described in paragraph (6)(A);
       ``(12) the term `Phase II' means--
       ``(A) with respect to the SBIR program, the second phase 
     described in paragraph (4)(B); and
       ``(B) with respect to the STTR program, the second phase 
     described in paragraph (6)(B); and
       ``(13) the term `Phase III' means--
       ``(A) with respect to the SBIR program, the third phase 
     described in paragraph (4)(C); and
       ``(B) with respect to the STTR program, the third phase 
     described in paragraph (6)(C).'';
       (B) in subsection (j)--
       (i) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``phase two'' and 
     inserting ``Phase II'';
       (ii) in paragraph (2)--

       (I) in subparagraph (B)--

       (aa) by striking ``the third phase'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``Phase III''; and
       (bb) by striking ``the second phase'' and inserting ``Phase 
     II'';

       (II) in subparagraph (D)--

       (aa) by striking ``the first phase'' and inserting ``Phase 
     I''; and
       (bb) by striking ``the second phase'' and inserting ``Phase 
     II'';

       (III) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``the third phase'' 
     and inserting ``Phase III'';
       (IV) in subparagraph (G)--

       (aa) by striking ``the first phase'' and inserting ``Phase 
     I''; and
       (bb) by striking ``the second phase'' and inserting ``Phase 
     II''; and

       (V) in subparagraph (H)--

       (aa) by striking ``the first phase'' and inserting ``Phase 
     I'';
       (bb) by striking ``second phase'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Phase II''; and
       (cc) by striking ``third phase'' and inserting ``Phase 
     III''; and
       (iii) in paragraph (3)--

       (I) in subparagraph (A)--

       (aa) by striking ``the first phase (as described in 
     subsection (e)(4)(A))'' and inserting ``Phase I'';
       (bb) by striking ``the second phase (as described in 
     subsection (e)(4)(B))'' and inserting ``Phase II''; and
       (cc) by striking ``the third phase (as described in 
     subsection (e)(4)(C))'' and inserting ``Phase III''; and

       (II) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``second phase'' and 
     inserting ``Phase II'';

       (C) in subsection (k)--
       (i) by striking ``first phase'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Phase I''; and
       (ii) by striking ``second phase'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Phase II'';
       (D) in subsection (l)(2)--
       (i) by striking ``the first phase'' and inserting ``Phase 
     I''; and
       (ii) by striking ``the second phase'' and inserting ``Phase 
     II'';
       (E) in subsection (o)(13)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``second phase'' and 
     inserting ``Phase II''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``third phase'' and 
     inserting ``Phase III'';
       (F) in subsection (p)--
       (i) in paragraph (2)(B)--

       (I) in clause (vi)--

       (aa) by striking ``the second phase'' and inserting ``Phase 
     II''; and
       (bb) by striking ``the third phase'' and inserting ``Phase 
     III''; and

       (II) in clause (ix)--

       (aa) by striking ``the first phase'' and inserting ``Phase 
     I''; and
       (bb) by striking ``the second phase'' and inserting ``Phase 
     II''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (3)--

       (I) by striking ``the first phase (as described in 
     subsection (e)(6)(A))'' and inserting ``Phase I'';
       (II) by striking ``the second phase (as described in 
     subsection (e)(6)(B))'' and inserting ``Phase II''; and
       (III) by striking ``the third phase (as described in 
     subsection (e)(6)(A))'' and inserting ``Phase III'';

       (G) in subsection (q)(3)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``First 
     phase'' and inserting ``Phase i''; and
       (II) by striking ``first phase'' and inserting ``Phase I''; 
     and

       (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``Second 
     phase'' and inserting ``Phase ii''; and
       (II) by striking ``second phase'' and inserting ``Phase 
     II'';

       (H) in subsection (r)--
       (i) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Third Phase'' 
     and inserting ``Phase III'';
       (ii) in paragraph (1)--

       (I) in the first sentence--

       (aa) by striking ``for the second phase'' and inserting 
     ``for Phase II'';
       (bb) by striking ``third phase'' and inserting ``Phase 
     III''; and
       (cc) by striking ``second phase period'' and inserting 
     ``Phase II period''; and

       (II) in the second sentence--

       (aa) by striking ``second phase'' and inserting ``Phase 
     II''; and
       (bb) by striking ``third phase'' and inserting ``Phase 
     III''; and
       (iii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``third phase'' and 
     inserting ``Phase III''; and

[[Page S7978]]

       (I) in subsection (u)(2)(B), by striking ``the first 
     phase'' and inserting ``Phase I''; and
       (2) in section 34(c)(2)(B)(vii) (15 U.S.C. 
     657e(c)(2)(B)(vii)), as redesignated by section 5201 of this 
     Act, by striking ``third phase'' and inserting ``Phase III''.

     SEC. 5208. SHORTENED PERIOD FOR FINAL DECISIONS ON PROPOSALS 
                   AND APPLICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 638) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (g)(4)--
       (A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(4)'';
       (B) by adding ``and'' after the semicolon at the end; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) make a final decision on each proposal submitted 
     under the SBIR program--
       ``(i) not later than 90 days after the date on which the 
     solicitation closes; or
       ``(ii) if the Administrator authorizes an extension for a 
     solicitation, not later than 180 days after the date on which 
     the solicitation closes;''; and
       (2) in subsection (o)(4)--
       (A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(4)'';
       (B) by adding ``and'' after the semicolon at the end; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) make a final decision on each proposal submitted 
     under the STTR program--
       ``(i) not later than 90 days after the date on which the 
     solicitation closes; or
       ``(ii) if the Administrator authorizes an extension for a 
     solicitation, not later than 180 days after the date on which 
     the solicitation closes;''.
       (b) NIH Peer Review Process.--
       (1) In general.--Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 638), as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(hh) NIH Peer Review Process.--The Director of the 
     National Institutes of Health may make an award under the 
     SBIR program or the STTR program of the National Institutes 
     of Health if the application for the award has undergone 
     technical and scientific peer review under section 492 of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289a).''.
       (2) Technical and conforming amendments.--Section 105 of 
     the National Institutes of Health Reform Act of 2006 (42 
     U.S.C. 284n) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(3)--
       (i) by striking ``A grant'' and inserting ``Except as 
     provided in section 9(hh) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 638(hh)), a grant''; and
       (ii) by striking ``section 402(k)'' and all that follows 
     through ``Act)'' and inserting ``section 402(l) of such 
     Act''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(5)--
       (i) by striking ``A grant'' and inserting ``Except as 
     provided in section 9(hh) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 638(hh)), a grant''; and
       (ii) by striking ``section 402(k)'' and all that follows 
     through ``Act)'' and inserting ``section 402(l) of such 
     Act''.

                  TITLE LIII--OVERSIGHT AND EVALUATION

     SEC. 5301. STREAMLINING ANNUAL EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 9(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(b)), 
     as amended by section 5102 of this Act, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7)--
       (A) by striking ``STTR programs, including the data'' and 
     inserting the following: ``STTR programs, including--
       ``(A) the data'';
       (B) by striking ``(g)(10), (o)(9), and (o)(15), the 
     number'' and all that follows through ``under each of the 
     SBIR and STTR programs, and a description'' and inserting the 
     following: ``(g)(8) and (o)(9); and
       ``(B) the number of proposals received from, and the number 
     and total amount of awards to, HUBZone small business 
     concerns and firms with venture capital investment (including 
     those majority-owned by multiple venture capital operating 
     companies) under each of the SBIR and STTR programs;
       ``(C) a description of the extent to which each Federal 
     agency is increasing outreach and awards to firms owned and 
     controlled by women and social or economically disadvantaged 
     individuals under each of the SBIR and STTR programs;
       ``(D) general information about the implementation of, and 
     compliance with the allocation of funds required under, 
     subsection (cc) for firms owned in majority part by venture 
     capital operating companies and participating in the SBIR 
     program;
       ``(E) a detailed description of appeals of Phase III awards 
     and notices of noncompliance with the SBIR Policy Directive 
     and the STTR Policy Directive filed by the Administrator with 
     Federal agencies; and
       ``(F) a description''; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
       ``(8) to coordinate the implementation of electronic 
     databases at each of the Federal agencies participating in 
     the SBIR program or the STTR program, including the technical 
     ability of the participating agencies to electronically share 
     data;''.

     SEC. 5302. DATA COLLECTION FROM AGENCIES FOR SBIR.

       Section 9(g) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(g)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (10);
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (8) and (9) as paragraphs 
     (9) and (10), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
       ``(8) collect annually, and maintain in a common format in 
     accordance with the simplified reporting requirements under 
     subsection (v), such information from awardees as is 
     necessary to assess the SBIR program, including information 
     necessary to maintain the database described in subsection 
     (k), including--
       ``(A) whether an awardee--
       ``(i) has venture capital or is majority-owned by multiple 
     venture capital operating companies, and, if so--

       ``(I) the amount of venture capital that the awardee has 
     received as of the date of the award; and
       ``(II) the amount of additional capital that the awardee 
     has invested in the SBIR technology;

       ``(ii) has an investor that--

       ``(I) is an individual who is not a citizen of the United 
     States or a lawful permanent resident of the United States, 
     and if so, the name of any such individual; or
       ``(II) is a person that is not an individual and is not 
     organized under the laws of a State or the United States, and 
     if so the name of any such person;

       ``(iii) is owned by a woman or has a woman as a principal 
     investigator;
       ``(iv) is owned by a socially or economically disadvantaged 
     individual or has a socially or economically disadvantaged 
     individual as a principal investigator;
       ``(v) received assistance under the FAST program under 
     section 34, as in effect on the day before the date of 
     enactment of the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011, or 
     the outreach program under subsection (s);
       ``(vi) is a faculty member or a student of an institution 
     of higher education, as that term is defined in section 101 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001); or
       ``(vii) is located in a State described in subsection 
     (u)(3); and
       ``(B) a justification statement from the agency, if an 
     awardee receives an award in an amount that is more than the 
     award guidelines under this section;''.

     SEC. 5303. DATA COLLECTION FROM AGENCIES FOR STTR.

       Section 9(o) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(o)) 
     is amended by striking paragraph (9) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(9) collect annually, and maintain in a common format in 
     accordance with the simplified reporting requirements under 
     subsection (v), such information from applicants and awardees 
     as is necessary to assess the STTR program outputs and 
     outcomes, including information necessary to maintain the 
     database described in subsection (k), including--
       ``(A) whether an applicant or awardee--
       ``(i) has venture capital or is majority-owned by multiple 
     venture capital operating companies, and, if so--

       ``(I) the amount of venture capital that the applicant or 
     awardee has received as of the date of the application or 
     award, as applicable; and
       ``(II) the amount of additional capital that the applicant 
     or awardee has invested in the SBIR technology;

       ``(ii) has an investor that--

       ``(I) is an individual who is not a citizen of the United 
     States or a lawful permanent resident of the United States, 
     and if so, the name of any such individual; or
       ``(II) is a person that is not an individual and is not 
     organized under the laws of a State or the United States, and 
     if so the name of any such person;

       ``(iii) is owned by a woman or has a woman as a principal 
     investigator;
       ``(iv) is owned by a socially or economically disadvantaged 
     individual or has a socially or economically disadvantaged 
     individual as a principal investigator;
       ``(v) received assistance under the FAST program under 
     section 34 or the outreach program under subsection (s);
       ``(vi) is a faculty member or a student of an institution 
     of higher education, as that term is defined in section 101 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001); or
       ``(vii) is located in a State in which the total value of 
     contracts awarded to small business concerns under all STTR 
     programs is less than the total value of contracts awarded to 
     small business concerns in a majority of other States, as 
     determined by the Administrator in biennial fiscal years, 
     beginning with fiscal year 2008, based on the most recent 
     statistics compiled by the Administrator; and
       ``(B) if an awardee receives an award in an amount that is 
     more than the award guidelines under this section, a 
     statement from the agency that justifies the award amount;''.

     SEC. 5304. PUBLIC DATABASE.

       Section 9(k)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     638(k)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) for each small business concern that has received a 
     Phase I or Phase II SBIR or STTR award from a Federal agency, 
     whether the small business concern--
       ``(i) has venture capital and, if so, whether the small 
     business concern is registered as majority-owned by multiple 
     venture capital operating companies as required under 
     subsection (cc)(4);
       ``(ii) is owned by a woman or has a woman as a principal 
     investigator;
       ``(iii) is owned by a socially or economically 
     disadvantaged individual or has a socially or economically 
     disadvantaged individual as a principal investigator;
       ``(iv) received assistance under the FAST program under 
     section 34, as in effect on the day before the date of 
     enactment of the

[[Page S7979]]

     SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011, or the outreach 
     program under subsection (s); or
       ``(v) is owned by a faculty member or a student of an 
     institution of higher education, as that term is defined in 
     section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1001).''.

     SEC. 5305. GOVERNMENT DATABASE.

       Section 9(k) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(k)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``Not later'' and all that follows through ``Act of 2000'' 
     and inserting ``Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011'';
       (B) by striking subparagraph (C);
       (C) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively;
       (D) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as so 
     redesignated, the following:
       ``(A) contains, for each small business concern that 
     applies for, submits a proposal for, or receives an award 
     under Phase I or Phase II of the SBIR program or the STTR 
     program--
       ``(i) the name, size, and location, and an identifying 
     number assigned by the Administration of the small business 
     concern;
       ``(ii) an abstract of the project;
       ``(iii) the specific aims of the project;
       ``(iv) the number of employees of the small business 
     concern;
       ``(v) the names of key individuals that will carry out the 
     project;
       ``(vi) the percentage of effort each individual described 
     in clause (iv) will contribute to the project;
       ``(vii) whether the small business concern is majority-
     owned by multiple venture capital operating companies; and
       ``(viii) the Federal agency to which the application is 
     made, and contact information for the person or office within 
     the Federal agency that is responsible for reviewing 
     applications and making awards under the SBIR program or the 
     STTR program;'';
       (E) by redesignating subparagraphs (D), and (E) as 
     subparagraphs (E) and (F), respectively;
       (F) by inserting after subparagraph (C), as so 
     redesignated, the following:
       ``(D) includes, for each awardee--
       ``(i) the name, size, location, and any identifying number 
     assigned to the awardee by the Administrator;
       ``(ii) whether the awardee has venture capital, and, if 
     so--

       ``(I) the amount of venture capital as of the date of the 
     award;
       ``(II) the percentage of ownership of the awardee held by a 
     venture capital operating company, including whether the 
     awardee is majority-owned by multiple venture capital 
     operating companies; and
       ``(III) the amount of additional capital that the awardee 
     has invested in the SBIR technology, which information shall 
     be collected on an annual basis;

       ``(iii) the names and locations of any affiliates of the 
     awardee;
       ``(iv) the number of employees of the awardee;
       ``(v) the number of employees of the affiliates of the 
     awardee; and
       ``(vi) the names of, and the percentage of ownership of the 
     awardee held by--

       ``(I) any individual who is not a citizen of the United 
     States or a lawful permanent resident of the United States; 
     or
       ``(II) any person that is not an individual and is not 
     organized under the laws of a State or the United States;'';

       (G) in subparagraph (E), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``and'' at the end;
       (H) in subparagraph (F), as so redesignated, by striking 
     the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
       (I) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) includes a timely and accurate list of any individual 
     or small business concern that has participated in the SBIR 
     program or STTR program that has committed fraud, waste, or 
     abuse relating to the SBIR program or STTR program.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Government database.--Not later than 60 days after 
     the date established by a Federal agency for submitting 
     applications or proposals for a Phase I or Phase II award 
     under the SBIR program or STTR program, the head of the 
     Federal agency shall submit to the Administrator the data 
     required under paragraph (2) with respect to each small 
     business concern that applies or submits a proposal for the 
     Phase I or Phase II award.''.

     SEC. 5306. ACCURACY IN FUNDING BASE CALCULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every year thereafter until the 
     date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Comptroller General of the United States shall--
       (1) conduct a fiscal and management audit of the SBIR 
     program and the STTR program for the applicable period to--
       (A) determine whether Federal agencies comply with the 
     expenditure amount requirements under subsections (f)(1) and 
     (n)(1) of section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     638), as amended by this Act;
       (B) assess the extent of compliance with the requirements 
     of section 9(i)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     638(i)(2)) by Federal agencies participating in the SBIR 
     program or the STTR program and the Administration;
       (C) assess whether it would be more consistent and 
     effective to base the amount of the allocations under the 
     SBIR program and the STTR program on a percentage of the 
     research and development budget of a Federal agency, rather 
     than the extramural budget of the Federal agency; and
       (D) determine the portion of the extramural research or 
     research and development budget of a Federal agency that each 
     Federal agency spends for administrative purposes relating to 
     the SBIR program or STTR program, and for what specific 
     purposes, including the portion, if any, of such budget the 
     Federal agency spends for salaries and expenses, travel to 
     visit applicants, outreach events, marketing, and technical 
     assistance; and
       (2) submit a report to the Committee on Small Business and 
     Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small 
     Business of the House of Representatives regarding the audit 
     conducted under paragraph (1), including the assessments 
     required under subparagraphs (B) and (C), and the 
     determination made under subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1).
       (b) Definition of Applicable Period.--In this section, the 
     term ``applicable period'' means--
       (1) for the first report submitted under this section, the 
     period beginning on October 1, 2005, and ending on September 
     30 of the last full fiscal year before the date of enactment 
     of this Act for which information is available; and
       (2) for the second and each subsequent report submitted 
     under this section, the period--
       (A) beginning on October 1 of the first fiscal year after 
     the end of the most recent full fiscal year relating to which 
     a report under this section was submitted; and
       (B) ending on September 30 of the last full fiscal year 
     before the date of the report.

     SEC. 5307. CONTINUED EVALUATION BY THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF 
                   SCIENCES.

       Section 108 of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 
     2000 (15 U.S.C. 638 note) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Extensions and Enhancements of Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
     of enactment of the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011, 
     the head of each agency described in subsection (a), in 
     consultation with the Small Business Administration, shall 
     cooperatively enter into an agreement with the National 
     Academy of Sciences for the National Research Council to, not 
     later than 4 years after the date of enactment of the SBIR/
     STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011, and every 4 years 
     thereafter--
       ``(A) continue the most recent study under this section 
     relating to--
       ``(i) the issues described in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), 
     and (E) of subsection (a)(1); and
       ``(ii) the effectiveness of the government and public 
     databases described in section 9(k) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 638(k)) in reducing vulnerabilities of the SBIR 
     program and the STTR program to fraud, waste, and abuse, 
     particularly with respect to Federal agencies funding 
     duplicative proposals and business concerns falsifying 
     information in proposals;
       ``(B) make recommendations with respect to the issues 
     described in subparagraph (A)(ii) and subparagraphs (A), (D), 
     and (E) of subsection (a)(2); and
       ``(C) estimate, to the extent practicable, the number of 
     jobs created by the SBIR program or STTR program of the 
     agency.
       ``(2) Consultation.--An agreement under paragraph (1) shall 
     require the National Research Council to ensure there is 
     participation by and consultation with the small business 
     community, the Administration, and other interested parties 
     as described in subsection (b).
       ``(3) Reporting.--An agreement under paragraph (1) shall 
     require that not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011, and 
     every 4 years thereafter, the National Research Council shall 
     submit to the head of the agency entering into the agreement, 
     the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the 
     Senate, and the Committee on Small Business of the House of 
     Representatives a report regarding the study conducted under 
     paragraph (1) and containing the recommendations described in 
     paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 5308. TECHNOLOGY INSERTION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638), as 
     amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(ii) Phase III Reporting.--The annual SBIR or STTR report 
     to Congress by the Administration under subsection (b)(7) 
     shall include, for each Phase III award made by the Federal 
     agency--
       ``(1) the name of the agency or component of the agency or 
     the non-Federal source of capital making the Phase III award;
       ``(2) the name of the small business concern or individual 
     receiving the Phase III award; and
       ``(3) the dollar amount of the Phase III award.''.

     SEC. 5309. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study of the SBIR program to assess 
     whether--
       (1) Federal agencies comply with the data rights 
     protections for SBIR awardees and the

[[Page S7980]]

     technologies of SBIR awardees under section 9 of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638);
       (2) the laws and policy directives intended to clarify the 
     scope of data rights, including in prototypes and mentor-
     protege relationships and agreements with Federal 
     laboratories, are sufficient to protect SBIR awardees; and
       (3) there is an effective grievance tracking process for 
     SBIR awardees who have grievances against a Federal agency 
     regarding data rights and a process for resolving those 
     grievances.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House 
     of Representatives a report regarding the study conducted 
     under subsection (a).

     SEC. 5310. OBTAINING CONSENT FROM SBIR AND STTR APPLICANTS TO 
                   RELEASE CONTACT INFORMATION TO ECONOMIC 
                   DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS.

       Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638), as 
     amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(jj) Consent To Release Contact Information to 
     Organizations.--
       ``(1) Enabling concern to give consent.--Each Federal 
     agency required by this section to conduct an SBIR program or 
     an STTR program shall enable a small business concern that is 
     an SBIR applicant or an STTR applicant to indicate to the 
     Federal agency whether the Federal agency has the consent of 
     the concern to--
       ``(A) identify the concern to appropriate local and State-
     level economic development organizations as an SBIR applicant 
     or an STTR applicant; and
       ``(B) release the contact information of the concern to 
     such organizations.
       ``(2) Rules.--The Administrator shall establish rules to 
     implement this subsection. The rules shall include a 
     requirement that a Federal agency include in the SBIR and 
     STTR application a provision through which the applicant can 
     indicate consent for purposes of paragraph (1).''.

     SEC. 5311. PILOT TO ALLOW FUNDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, 
                   OVERSIGHT, AND CONTRACT PROCESSING COSTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 638), as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(kk) Assistance for Administrative, Oversight, and 
     Contract Processing Costs.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), for the 3 full 
     fiscal years beginning after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection, the Administrator shall allow each Federal agency 
     required to conduct an SBIR program to use not more than 3 
     percent of the funds allocated to the SBIR program of the 
     Federal agency for--
       ``(A) the administration of the SBIR program or the STTR 
     program of the Federal agency;
       ``(B) the provision of outreach and technical assistance 
     relating to the SBIR program or STTR program of the Federal 
     agency, including technical assistance site visits and 
     personnel interviews;
       ``(C) the implementation of commercialization and outreach 
     initiatives that were not in effect on the date of enactment 
     of this subsection;
       ``(D) carrying out the program under subsection (y);
       ``(E) activities relating to oversight and congressional 
     reporting, including the waste, fraud, and abuse prevention 
     activities described in section 313(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the SBIR/
     STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011;
       ``(F) targeted reviews of recipients of awards under the 
     SBIR program or STTR program of the Federal agency that the 
     head of the Federal agency determines are at high risk for 
     fraud, waste, or abuse, to ensure compliance with 
     requirements of the SBIR program or STTR program, 
     respectively;
       ``(G) the implementation of oversight and quality control 
     measures, including verification of reports and invoices and 
     cost reviews;
       ``(H) carrying out subsection (cc);
       ``(I) carrying out subsection (ff);
       ``(J) contract processing costs relating to the SBIR 
     program or STTR program of the Federal agency; and
       ``(K) funding for additional personnel and assistance with 
     application reviews.
       ``(2) Performance criteria.--A Federal agency may not use 
     funds as authorized under paragraph (1) until after the 
     effective date of performance criteria, which the 
     Administrator shall establish, to measure any benefits of 
     using funds as authorized under paragraph (1) and to assess 
     continuation of the authority under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Rules.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall issue 
     rules to carry out this subsection.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) In general.--Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 638) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (f)(2)(A), as so designated by section 
     5103(2) of this Act, by striking ``shall not'' and all that 
     follows through ``make available for the purpose'' and 
     inserting ``shall not make available for the purpose''; and
       (B) in subsection (y), as amended by section 203--
       (i) by striking paragraph (4);
       (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs 
     (4) and (5), respectively.
       (2) Transitional rule.--Notwithstanding the amendments made 
     by paragraph (1), subsection (f)(2)(A) and (y)(4) of section 
     9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638), as in effect on 
     the day before the date of enactment of this Act, shall 
     continue to apply to each Federal agency until the effective 
     date of the performance criteria established by the 
     Administrator under subsection (kk)(2) of section 9 of the 
     Small Business Act, as added by subsection (a).
       (3) Prospective repeal.--Effective on the first day of the 
     fourth full fiscal year following the date of enactment of 
     this Act, section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     638), as amended by paragraph (1) of this section, is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (f)(2)(A), by striking ``shall not make 
     available for the purpose'' and inserting the following: 
     ``shall not--
       ``(i) use any of its SBIR budget established pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) for the purpose of funding administrative costs 
     of the program, including costs associated with salaries and 
     expenses; or
       ``(ii) make available for the purpose''; and
       (B) in subsection (y)--
       (i) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs 
     (5) and (6), respectively; and
       (ii) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) Funding.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary of Defense and each 
     Secretary of a military department may use not more than an 
     amount equal to 1 percent of the funds available to the 
     Department of Defense or the military department pursuant to 
     the Small Business Innovation Research Program for payment of 
     expenses incurred to administer the Commercialization Pilot 
     Program under this subsection.
       ``(B) Limitations.--The funds described in subparagraph 
     (A)--
       ``(i) shall not be subject to the limitations on the use of 
     funds in subsection (f)(2); and
       ``(ii) shall not be used to make Phase III awards.''.

     SEC. 5312. GAO STUDY WITH RESPECT TO VENTURE CAPITAL 
                   OPERATING COMPANY INVOLVEMENT.

       Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, and every 3 years thereafter, the Comptroller General of 
     the United States shall--
       (1) conduct a study of the impact of requirements relating 
     to venture capital operating company involvement under 
     section 9(cc) of the Small Business Act, as added by section 
     5108 of this Act; and
       (2) submit to Congress a report regarding the study 
     conducted under paragraph (1).

     SEC. 5313. REDUCING VULNERABILITY OF SBIR AND STTR PROGRAMS 
                   TO FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE.

       (a) Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Prevention.--
       (1) Guidelines for fraud, waste, and abuse prevention.--
       (A) Amendments required.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall amend 
     the SBIR Policy Directive and the STTR Policy Directive to 
     include measures to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in the 
     SBIR program and the STTR program.
       (B) Content of amendments.--The amendments required under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include--
       (i) definitions or descriptions of fraud, waste, and abuse;
       (ii) a requirement that the Inspectors General of each 
     Federal agency that participates in the SBIR program or the 
     STTR program cooperate to--

       (I) establish fraud detection indicators;
       (II) review regulations and operating procedures of the 
     Federal agencies;
       (III) coordinate information sharing between the Federal 
     agencies; and
       (IV) improve the education and training of, and outreach 
     to--

       (aa) administrators of the SBIR program and the STTR 
     program of each Federal agency;
       (bb) applicants to the SBIR program or the STTR program; 
     and
       (cc) recipients of awards under the SBIR program or the 
     STTR program;
       (iii) guidelines for the monitoring and oversight of 
     applicants to and recipients of awards under the SBIR program 
     or the STTR program; and
       (iv) a requirement that each Federal agency that 
     participates in the SBIR program or STTR program include the 
     telephone number of the hotline established under paragraph 
     (2)--

       (I) on the Web site of the Federal agency; and
       (II) in any solicitation or notice of funding opportunity 
     issued by the Federal agency for the SBIR program or the STTR 
     program.

       (2) Fraud, waste, and abuse prevention hotline.--
       (A) Hotline established.--The Administrator shall establish 
     a telephone hotline that allows individuals to report fraud, 
     waste, and abuse in the SBIR program or STTR program.
       (B) Publication.--The Administrator shall include the 
     telephone number for the hotline established under 
     subparagraph (A) on the Web site of the Administration.
       (b) Study and Report.--
       (1) Study.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 3 years thereafter, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall--
       (A) conduct a study that evaluates--

[[Page S7981]]

       (i) the implementation by each Federal agency that 
     participates in the SBIR program or the STTR program of the 
     amendments to the SBIR Policy Directive and the STTR Policy 
     Directive made pursuant to subsection (a);
       (ii) the effectiveness of the management information system 
     of each Federal agency that participates in the SBIR program 
     or STTR program in identifying duplicative SBIR and STTR 
     projects;
       (iii) the effectiveness of the risk management strategies 
     of each Federal agency that participates in the SBIR program 
     or STTR program in identifying areas of the SBIR program or 
     the STTR program that are at high risk for fraud;
       (iv) technological tools that may be used to detect 
     patterns of behavior that may indicate fraud by applicants to 
     the SBIR program or the STTR program;
       (v) the success of each Federal agency that participates in 
     the SBIR program or STTR program in reducing fraud, waste, 
     and abuse in the SBIR program or the STTR program of the 
     Federal agency; and
       (vi) the extent to which the Inspector General of each 
     Federal agency that participates in the SBIR program or STTR 
     program effectively conducts investigations of individuals 
     alleged to have submitted false claims or violated Federal 
     law relating to fraud, conflicts of interest, bribery, 
     gratuity, or other misconduct; and
       (B) submit to the Committee on Small Business and 
     Entrepreneurship of the Senate, the Committee on Small 
     Business of the House of Representatives, and the head of 
     each Federal agency that participates in the SBIR program or 
     STTR program a report on the results of the study conducted 
     under subparagraph (A).

     SEC. 5314. INTERAGENCY POLICY COMMITTEE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Director of the Office of Science 
     and Technology Policy (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Director''), in conjunction with the Administrator, shall 
     establish an Interagency SBIR/STTR Policy Committee (in this 
     section referred to as the ``Committee'') comprised of 1 
     representative from each Federal agency with an SBIR program 
     or an STTR program and 1 representative of the Office of 
     Management and Budget.
       (b) Cochairpersons.--The Director and the Administrator 
     shall serve as cochairpersons of the Committee.
       (c) Duties.--The Committee shall review, and make policy 
     recommendations on ways to improve the effectiveness and 
     efficiency of, the SBIR program and the STTR program, 
     including--
       (1) reviewing the effectiveness of the public and 
     government databases described in section 9(k) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(k));
       (2) identifying--
       (A) best practices for commercialization assistance by 
     Federal agencies that have significant potential to be 
     employed by other Federal agencies; and
       (B) proposals by Federal agencies for initiatives to 
     address challenges for small business concerns in obtaining 
     funding after a Phase II award ends and before 
     commercialization; and
       (3) developing and incorporating a standard evaluation 
     framework to enable systematic assessment of the SBIR program 
     and STTR program, including through improved tracking of 
     awards and outcomes and development of performance measures 
     for the SBIR program and STTR program of each Federal agency.
       (d) Reports.--The Committee shall submit to the Committee 
     on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Science and Technology and the Committee on 
     Small Business of the House of Representatives--
       (1) a report on the review by and recommendations of the 
     Committee under subsection (c)(1) not later than 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act;
       (2) a report on the review by and recommendations of the 
     Committee under subsection (c)(2) not later than 18 months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (3) a report on the review by and recommendations of the 
     Committee under subsection (c)(3) not later than 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5315. SIMPLIFIED PAPERWORK REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 9(v) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(v)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Simplified 
     Reporting Requirements'' and inserting ``Reducing Paperwork 
     and Compliance Burden'';
       (2) by striking ``The Administrator'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Standardization of reporting requirements.--The 
     Administrator''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Simplification of application and award process.--Not 
     later than one year after the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph, and after a period of public comment, the 
     Administrator shall issue regulations or guidelines, taking 
     into consideration the unique needs of each Federal agency, 
     to ensure that each Federal agency required to carry out an 
     SBIR program or STTR program simplifies and standardizes the 
     program proposal, selection, contracting, compliance, and 
     audit procedures for the SBIR program or STTR program of the 
     Federal agency (including procedures relating to overhead 
     rates for applicants and documentation requirements) to 
     reduce the paperwork and regulatory compliance burden on 
     small business concerns applying to and participating in the 
     SBIR program or STTR program.''.

                      TITLE LIV--POLICY DIRECTIVES

     SEC. 5401. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO THE SBIR AND THE STTR 
                   POLICY DIRECTIVES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall promulgate 
     amendments to the SBIR Policy Directive and the STTR Policy 
     Directive to conform such directives to this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act.
       (b) Publishing SBIR Policy Directive and the STTR Policy 
     Directive in the Federal Register.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator 
     shall publish the amended SBIR Policy Directive and the 
     amended STTR Policy Directive in the Federal Register.

                       TITLE LV--OTHER PROVISIONS

     SEC. 5501. RESEARCH TOPICS AND PROGRAM DIVERSIFICATION.

       (a) SBIR Program.--Section 9(g) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 638(g)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``broad research topics and to topics that further 1 or more 
     critical technologies'' and inserting ``applications to the 
     Federal agency for support of projects relating to 
     nanotechnology, rare diseases, security, energy, 
     transportation, or improving the security and quality of the 
     water supply of the United States, and the efficiency of 
     water delivery systems and usage patterns in the United 
     States (including the territories of the United States) 
     through the use of technology (to the extent that the 
     projects relate to the mission of the Federal agency), broad 
     research topics, and topics that further 1 or more critical 
     technologies or research priorities'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) the National Academy of Sciences, in the final report 
     issued by the `America's Energy Future: Technology 
     Opportunities, Risks, and Tradeoffs' project, and in any 
     subsequent report by the National Academy of Sciences on 
     sustainability, energy, or alternative fuels;
       ``(D) the National Institutes of Health, in the annual 
     report on the rare diseases research activities of the 
     National Institutes of Health for fiscal year 2005, and in 
     any subsequent report by the National Institutes of Health on 
     rare diseases research activities;
       ``(E) the National Academy of Sciences, in the final report 
     issued by the `Transit Research and Development: Federal Role 
     in the National Program' project and the report entitled 
     `Transportation Research, Development and Technology 
     Strategic Plan (2006-2010)' issued by the Research and 
     Innovative Technology Administration of the Department of 
     Transportation, and in any subsequent report issued by the 
     National Academy of Sciences or the Department of 
     Transportation on transportation and infrastructure; or
       ``(F) the national nanotechnology strategic plan required 
     under section 2(c)(4) of the 21st Century Nanotechnology 
     Research and Development Act (15 U.S.C. 7501(c)(4)) and in 
     any report issued by the National Science and Technology 
     Council Committee on Technology that focuses on areas of 
     nanotechnology identified in such plan;''; and
       (2) by adding after paragraph (12), as added by section 
     5111(a) of this Act, the following:
       ``(13) encourage applications under the SBIR program (to 
     the extent that the projects relate to the mission of the 
     Federal agency)--
       ``(A) from small business concerns in geographic areas 
     underrepresented in the SBIR program or located in rural 
     areas (as defined in section 1393(a)(2) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986);
       ``(B) small business concerns owned and controlled by 
     women;
       ``(C) small business concerns owned and controlled by 
     veterans;
       ``(D) small business concerns owned and controlled by 
     Native Americans; and
       ``(E) small business concerns located in a geographic area 
     with an unemployment rates that exceed the national 
     unemployment rate, based on the most recently available 
     monthly publications of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the 
     Department of Labor.''.
       (b) STTR Program.--Section 9(o) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 638(o)), as amended by section 5111(b) of this 
     Act, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``broad research topics and to topics that further 1 or more 
     critical technologies'' and inserting ``applications to the 
     Federal agency for support of projects relating to 
     nanotechnology, security, energy, rare diseases, 
     transportation, or improving the security and quality of the 
     water supply of the United States (to the extent that the 
     projects relate to the mission of the Federal agency), broad 
     research topics, and topics that further 1 or more critical 
     technologies or research priorities'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) the National Academy of Sciences, in the final report 
     issued by the `America's Energy Future: Technology 
     Opportunities, Risks, and Tradeoffs' project, and in any 
     subsequent report by the National Academy of

[[Page S7982]]

     Sciences on sustainability, energy, or alternative fuels;
       ``(D) the National Institutes of Health, in the annual 
     report on the rare diseases research activities of the 
     National Institutes of Health for fiscal year 2005, and in 
     any subsequent report by the National Institutes of Health on 
     rare diseases research activities;
       ``(E) the National Academy of Sciences, in the final report 
     issued by the `Transit Research and Development: Federal Role 
     in the National Program' project and the report entitled 
     `Transportation Research, Development and Technology 
     Strategic Plan (2006-2010)' issued by the Research and 
     Innovative Technology Administration of the Department of 
     Transportation, and in any subsequent report issued by the 
     National Academy of Sciences or the Department of 
     Transportation on transportation and infrastructure; or
       ``(F) the national nanotechnology strategic plan required 
     under section 2(c)(4) of the 21st Century Nanotechnology 
     Research and Development Act (15 U.S.C. 7501(c)(4)) and in 
     any report issued by the National Science and Technology 
     Council Committee on Technology that focuses on areas of 
     nanotechnology identified in such plan;'';
       (2) in paragraph (15), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (3) in paragraph (16), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(17) encourage applications under the STTR program (to 
     the extent that the projects relate to the mission of the 
     Federal agency)--
       ``(A) from small business concerns in geographic areas 
     underrepresented in the STTR program or located in rural 
     areas (as defined in section 1393(a)(2) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986);
       ``(B) small business concerns owned and controlled by 
     women;
       ``(C) small business concerns owned and controlled by 
     veterans;
       ``(D) small business concerns owned and controlled by 
     Native Americans; and
       ``(E) small business concerns located in a geographic area 
     with an unemployment rates that exceed the national 
     unemployment rate, based on the most recently available 
     monthly publications of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the 
     Department of Labor.''.
       (c) Research and Development Focus.--Section 9(x) of the 
     Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(x)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).

     SEC. 5502. REPORT ON SBIR AND STTR PROGRAM GOALS.

       Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638), as 
     amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(ll) Annual Report on SBIR and STTR Program Goals.--
       ``(1) Development of metrics.--The head of each Federal 
     agency required to participate in the SBIR program or the 
     STTR program shall develop metrics to evaluate the 
     effectiveness, and the benefit to the people of the United 
     States, of the SBIR program and the STTR program of the 
     Federal agency that--
       ``(A) are science-based and statistically driven;
       ``(B) reflect the mission of the Federal agency; and
       ``(C) include factors relating to the economic impact of 
     the programs.
       ``(2) Evaluation.--The head of each Federal agency 
     described in paragraph (1) shall conduct an annual evaluation 
     using the metrics developed under paragraph (1) of--
       ``(A) the SBIR program and the STTR program of the Federal 
     agency; and
       ``(B) the benefits to the people of the United States of 
     the SBIR program and the STTR program of the Federal agency.
       ``(3) Report.--
       ``(A) In general.--The head of each Federal agency 
     described in paragraph (1) shall submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress and the Administrator an annual report 
     describing in detail the results of an evaluation conducted 
     under paragraph (2).
       ``(B) Public availability of report.--The head of each 
     Federal agency described in paragraph (1) shall make each 
     report submitted under subparagraph (A) available to the 
     public online.
       ``(C) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `appropriate 
     committees of Congress' means--
       ``(i) the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 
     of the Senate; and
       ``(ii) the Committee on Small Business and the Committee on 
     Science and Technology of the House of Representatives.''.

     SEC. 5503. COMPETITIVE SELECTION PROCEDURES FOR SBIR AND STTR 
                   PROGRAMS.

       Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638), as 
     amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(mm) Competitive Selection Procedures for SBIR and STTR 
     Programs.--All funds awarded, appropriated, or otherwise made 
     available in accordance with subsection (f) or (n) must be 
     awarded pursuant to competitive and merit-based selection 
     procedures.''.


  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, while I have the floor, and while Senator 
Landrieu is here, let me add my voice of thanks and gratitude to 
Senator Landrieu for the energy she shows as chair of our Small 
Business Committee. I am honored to be a member of that committee and 
to sit at her side. I know how long and hard she has worked on this 
SBIR Program, how many years we have fought hard for this program, with 
her as our leader.
  The same thing is true with the technology program--the Small 
Business Technology Transfer Program--which is part of this amendment. 
This bill is going to help 30 million small businesses to invest in 
technology research to help grow their businesses, spur innovation, and 
create jobs. Small business technology firms that receive SBIR funds 
have produced 38 percent of America's patents--13 times more than large 
businesses--and employ 40 percent of America's scientists and 
engineers, and the Defense Department is the biggest user of these 
programs. So this is very appropriate on this bill, and we are very 
grateful for the determination of Senator Landrieu and her cosponsors.
  If I am not already a cosponsor of the amendment, I would ask 
unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this has made it possible for us to be here 
tonight, and I wanted to say that while Senator Landrieu was on the 
floor and to express what I think is, if not the unanimous, certainly 
the near unanimous gratitude of this body, because I expect this will 
have an overwhelming vote.
  By the way, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent also that our 
Presiding Officer, Senator Casey, be added as a cosponsor to our 
counterfeit parts amendment, No. 1092. It took us too many weeks to do 
this, but as I see the Presiding Officer in the chair, I am making up 
for lost time and asking unanimous consent that he be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1064

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to amendment 
No. 1064 offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich) and 
the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 30, nays 67, as follows:
  The result was announced--yeas 30, nays 67, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 211 Leg.]

                                YEAS--30

     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Heller
     Klobuchar
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Paul
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Snowe
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Wyden

                                NAYS--67

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Begich
     Murkowski
     Shaheen
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). On this vote the yeas are 30; the 
nays are 67. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the 
adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.

[[Page S7983]]

  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. This will be the last vote of this evening. Tomorrow we 
will have a vote around 11 a.m. on cloture on this bill, and we will 
work with the managers to see how they are going to work through the 
germane amendments.


                    Amendments No. 1115, as modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided on the Landrieu amendment.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, thank you very much. We will only take a 
minute. I would like to yield the majority of my time to the ranking 
member who has worked so hard on this bill.
  I would like to thank the cosponsors and thank all of my colleagues 
for supporting a very balanced extension of the SBIR Program. This is 5 
years overdue, and I yield the remainder of my time to the ranking 
member from the State of Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Small Business 
Committee, Chairman Landrieu, for her leadership, and I commend her for 
that.
  I thank all of the Members of the Senate for supporting these two 
vital programs. We had much debate on these programs back in March for 
5 weeks. There has been broad bipartisan support. They are vital job 
creators and innovators. They have provided more than 25 percent of the 
innovations that have occurred over this last decade and are certainly 
vital to the Defense Department as we are setting aside existing 
Federal research dollars for small business firms.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which is nearly 
identical to legislation that passed the Senate unanimously last 
December and which passed our Committee by a vote of 18 to 1 in March 
of this year.
  It is critical that we focus like a laser on job creation, and 
encourage an environment in which America's small businesses--our 
Nation's job generators--can once again flourish. We know that small 
businesses will lead us out of our economic morass. They employ more 
than half of all private sector employees and have created 64 percent 
of the net new jobs over the past 15 years. Ninety percent of that job 
creation is concentrated in four to five percent of all companies, 
commonly known as ``gazelles,'' or high-impact firms. The SBIR Program 
is designed to assist exactly these types of companies.
  Together, these vital job creation programs have provided small firms 
with over $28 billion during their lifespans. They have been front and 
center in improving our Nation's capacity to innovate. According to a 
report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, SBIR-
backed firms have been responsible for roughly 25 percent of the 
Nation's most crucial innovations over the past decade plus--``a 
powerful indication that the SBIR Program has become a key force in the 
innovation economy of the United States.'' And the SBIR Program has 
played a critical role in providing the Department of Defense--our 
nation's largest SBIR agency--with the technology and components it 
requires. From night vision goggle simulators, to sensors which provide 
intelligence about battlefield events like anti-aircraft artillery and 
rocket launches to our brave men and women in the field, technologies 
borne from a small infusion of SBIR funding have helped make our 
military more efficient, cost-effective, and safer.
  Simply put, these programs have helped America's entrepreneurs create 
businesses, jobs, and innovations for a wide range of applications in 
our daily lives. Regrettably, SBIR has been subject to 14 short-term 
extensions since it was slated to expire in September 2008, and STTR 
has been a part of 11 of those since September 2009. This uncertainty 
is of concern to both program managers, who are never sure if they will 
have the funding for small business awardees, and to the small business 
applicants themselves.
  Furthermore, our amendment would reauthorize these programs for 8 
years--which has been done twice before for SBIR in 1992 and 2000, the 
last two reauthorizations. A long-term reauthorization of SBIR and STTR 
is critical to the effectiveness of these initiatives. Simply stated, 
an SBIR or STTR recipient's lifecycle in the program is longer than 2 
years. A Phase I award lasts for 6 months, while a Phase II lasts for 2 
years. This does not take into account the time required for agencies 
to issue solicitations and companies to apply for awards, including 
between Phases I and II, as well as a company's time in Phase III 
commercializing its product or technology. Short-term reauthorizations 
dissuade promising small businesses from applying to the programs, and 
makes agencies hesitant to fund projects when they are uncertain for 
which they will have follow-on funding in the future.
  The 2-year extension that some members have been discussing would 
jeopardize the compromise reached in this legislation and remove the 
certainty the bill provides. In particular, it has the ability to 
unravel the ``venture capital'' compromise, which was negotiated for 
nearly 6 years between Members of Congress, the small business 
community, and the Biotechnology Industry Organization, BIO. This 
compromise--which allows firms majority owned by multiple venture 
capital operating companies to be eligible for up to 25 percent of SBIR 
funds at the National Institutes of Health, National Science 
Foundation, and Department of Energy, and up to 15 percent of the funds 
at remaining agencies--includes the backing of a number of critical 
organizations, like BIO, the National Venture Capital Association, 
NVCA, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Small Business 
Association.
  A 2-year authorization would force us to relitigate this issue 
immediately, before we have the ability to analyze how the compromise 
is working. Indeed, our legislation requires the Government 
Accountability Office to review the impact of the venture capital 
compromise on the programs 3 years after the bill is enacted, and every 
3 years thereafter. We need time to understand how well this change is 
working before reconsidering it.
  Furthermore, it would put at risk some of the key provisions in our 
bill--most noticeably the allocation increases for SBIR from 2.5 to 3.5 
percent over 10 years, and for STTR from 0.3 to 0.6 percent over 5 
years. Because these allocations are spread out over several years, and 
not immediate, they could be stunted by a short-term reauthorization, 
prohibiting small businesses from accessing critical funding to help 
develop their promising technologies.
  I would note that as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has noted in 
support of our legislation, ``[e]ven though this important program for 
small business has a proven track record of success, its full potential 
has been held hostage by a series of short-term reauthorizations which 
has created uncertainty for SBIR program managers and limitations for 
potential small business grant recipients.'' It is high time for us to 
unleash the potential of these critical firms by ensuring that these 
initiatives have the requisite stability that they have been lacking in 
recent years due to Congressional inaction.
  In its October Interim Report, the President's Council on Jobs and 
Competitiveness urged Congress to ``. . . permanently affirm and fully 
authorize Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business 
Technology Transfer (STTR) funding for the long term, rather than for 
short-term re-authorizations.'' It is long beyond time for us to pass a 
comprehensive, long-term reauthorization of these critical programs. 
Our amendment provides us with this opportunity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, since there is bipartisan support, why do we 
need a rollcall vote? Do we have to have a rollcall vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent agreement requires 60 
votes.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that order be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1115), as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, if it is in order, I would like to speak on 
the bill. Last evening we passed the Leahy-Graham amendment, which 
would, by law,

[[Page S7984]]

make the head of the National Guard Bureau a member of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff. As we go forward in our deliberations with respect to this 
bill, particularly the conference committee----
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Please take your 
conversations from the well.
  The Senator from Rhode Island is once again recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank you, and I thank the Senator from 
Delaware.
  As I have indicated, I would like to make some comments about how I 
think we can improve and clarify the legislation that was adopted last 
evening by unanimous consent. But, first, let me begin by recognizing, 
obviously, the extraordinary contributions of the men and women of our 
National Guard. I speak from the experience of just a few weeks ago 
having visited members of the 43rd Military Police Brigade of the Rhode 
Island National Guard who have the responsibility for the detention 
facility in Bagram, Afghanistan. Under the able leadership of BG 
Charles Petrarca, they are doing an extraordinary job.
  I also was able to talk with some of the members of our Air National 
Guard, the 143rd Airlift Wing. This is the finest C-130-J wing in the 
entire U.S. Air Force--National Guard or Active or Reserve, in my 
estimate. They are doing remarkable work. They are doing remarkable 
work. In fact, we could not continue the operations in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, or our homeland security obligations, without the men and 
women of the National Guard.

  I wish to also just say coincidentally that I had the great 
opportunity to sit down with my Adjutant General Kevin McBride. General 
McBride and his staff are extraordinarily effective professionals. I 
first got the chance to see him literally in action when he commanded 
the 43rd Military Police Brigade in Iraq, where they also had detention 
responsibilities.
  So we are talking about now a component of our military forces that 
are professionals, superbly qualified, complete patriots, and dedicated 
to the success of the mission and the success of this Nation. There is 
the saying ``One Army'', as there is ``One Air Force,'' and it truly 
is. I can recall serving on Active Duty when there was at least a 
perception of disparity between Reserve, National Guard, and Active-
Duty forces. That perception no longer exists. The reality is that 
these are superb professionals doing their job. So I think that is the 
starting point to consider this legislation.
  What I would like to suggest in terms of an improvement to the 
legislation is clarifying the role and responsibility of the Chief of 
the National Guard Bureau as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If 
he has statutory responsibilities, those responsibilities should be 
specified.
  As General McKinley, who is the current Chief of the National Guard 
Bureau and a superb professional, pointed out at the committee hearing:
  The Chief of the National Guard Bureau still does not have an 
institutional position from which [he] can advise the President, the 
NSC, the Homeland Security Council, and Congress on non-federalized 
National Guard forces that are critical to homeland defense and civil 
support missions.
  If this is the purpose of appointing and confirming the Chief of the 
National Guard Bureau as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that 
purpose should be laid out. If that is the role he or she is expected 
to play--to provide advice to the Chairman and advice to the President 
on the non-federalized National Guard forces critical to homeland 
defense and civil support missions--it should be spelled out. I hope it 
is spelled out as we go forward with the process of conferencing this 
legislation.
  He went on to say:

       Adding the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to the JCS, 
     in my opinion, would ensure that in the post-9/11 security 
     environment the National Guard's non-federalized role in 
     homeland defense and civil support missions will be fully 
     represented in all JCS deliberations.

  I think this is very important. Let me suggest why--because one of 
the essentials of any military organization is unity of command. The 
National Guard Bureau has two separate services which it represents: 
the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. We do not want, 
particularly at the level of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to confuse who 
speaks for the services--who speaks for the Army, who speaks for the 
Air Force. I think in order to do this--to preserve the unity of 
command, to make it very clear that at the deliberations of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force speaks for the Air 
Force and the Chief of Staff of the Army speaks for the Army--we have 
to make it clear what the Chief of the National Guard Bureau is 
speaking to.
  I hope as we go forward we can make it very clear as General McKinley 
made it very clear in his testimony that his perspective, his point of 
view, his position on the Joint Chiefs is related, as he said 
repeatedly, to those non-federalized functions of the National Guard, 
particularly with respect to homeland security and civil support 
missions. I think this would enhance and clarify the role of the Chief 
of the National Guard Bureau, and I also think it would avoid even the 
appearance of a lack of unity of command within the services.
  I think these are important points. These points can be and should be 
approached in the conference. I hope that at the end of the day, when 
the President is prepared to sign this bill--and there may be other 
improvements to this legislation--that this particular aspect of the 
legislation is incorporated.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask permission to speak for 20 minutes in morning 
business, but it will probably be less than that.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I won't, 
I have two unanimous consent requests that will take just a couple of 
moments.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, go ahead.


                           Amendment No. 1174

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect 
to amendment No. 1174.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.


                Amendments Nos. 1260 and 1262 Withdrawn

  Mr. LEVIN. Secondly, there are two colloquies between myself and 
Senator Sherrod Brown. At the end of these colloquies, in both cases, 
Senator Brown withdraws the amendments referred to in the colloquies, 
amendments Nos. 1260 and 1262.
  So I ask unanimous consent that those two amendments he then 
withdraws at the end of the colloquies in fact be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1260

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I rise to discuss my amendment No. 1260 with the 
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. This amendment would 
strike section 846 of the bill, which would establish a new exception 
to the requirement to purchase specialty metals that are produced in 
the United States.
  Over the last several months, a number of concerns have been raised 
about this provision. In particular:
  The provision is not needed, because domestic titanium is cost-
competitive with foreign titanium and the cost of titanium has not been 
a major cost driver in DOD weapon systems.
  No specific case has been raised in which U.S. companies have lost 
contracts or manufacturing jobs as a result of a price difference 
between U.S. and foreign titanium.
  If the new exception in section 846 were abused, it could undermine 
the preference for domestic titanium and result in the loss of U.S. 
jobs.
  Administering the new exception could create significant burdens on 
both defense contractors and the Department of Defense; and the 
Department's existing authority to make Domestic Non-Availability 
Determinations (DNADs) already gives it the flexibility it would need 
to address a significant price differential, should it arise at some 
point in the future.
  Is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee aware of these 
concerns?
  Mr. LEVIN. I am aware of the concerns raised by the Senator from 
Ohio, and I assure him that I will give careful consideration to those 
concerns as

[[Page S7985]]

we go to conference with the House of Representatives on this 
provision.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I appreciate the Senator's assurance, and I 
withdraw the amendment on that basis.


                           Amendment No. 1262

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I rise to discuss my amendment No. 1262 regarding 
the definition of specialty metals produced in the United States.
  Under section 2533b of title 10, U.S. Code, specialty metals included 
in weapon systems purchased by DOD must be produced in the United 
States. This requirement has been in place for more than 30 years and 
for most of that time, the Department interpreted the requirement to 
apply to metals that are ``melted'' in the United States.
  After Congress re-codified the requirement in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, however, DOD decided that a 
metal is produced in the United States if any part of the production 
process takes place in this country. That includes finishing processes 
such as rolling, heat treatment, quenching, or tempering. This is a 
substantial change to the definition that has a direct impact on 
domestic production and American jobs, which I know the ,Chairman has 
defended throughout his career.
  My amendment would restore the long-standing definition of what it 
means for a metal to be ``produced'' in this country--that it must be 
``melted'' here.
  Is the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee familiar with this 
issue?
  Mr. LEVIN. I am aware of the issue, and of the concerns raised by the 
Senator from Ohio about this definition. Section 823 of the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 directed the 
Secretary of Defense to review the definition of the term ``produced'' 
and to ensure that it complies with the requirements of law and is 
consistent with congressional intent.
  It is my understanding that this review is currently ongoing. I 
believe that we should have the informed input of the Department of 
Defense before we act on this issue. For that reason, I believe that 
the amendment is premature. However, the review required by section 823 
is already several weeks overdue. I understand that DOD is not always 
able to meet our reporting deadlines, but this is an issue on which we 
need DOD's input and we need it soon. I assure the Senator from Ohio 
that we will carefully review the findings of the DOD review and 
revisit the issue in light of those findings, if necessary. If the 
Department fails to meet its statutory duty to address this issue, we 
will take that into consideration as well.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I appreciate the Senator's assurance, and I 
withdraw the amendment on that basis.


                           Amendment No. 1419

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, amendment No. 1419 would correct an 
unintended staff error in the new Division D funding tables that the 
Senate Armed Services Committee voted to adopt Tuesday, November 15, 
2011. This error unintentionally reduced the President's budget request 
for the line 154, RDTE AF, JSTARS account by $33 million. This 
amendment would correct this error and restore the RDTE AF JSTARS 
account back to the level requested in the President's budget request 
and approved in the June 22, 2011, SASC-passed version of the National 
Defense Authorization Act. Both the majority and minority staff 
directors have acknowledged that this was an unintended staff error and 
have requested that this be corrected by restoring full funding of the 
RDTE AF JSTARS account to $121,610,000. Chairman Levin and I agree.


                                  EELV

  Mr. President, as I mentioned when the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2012 was first brought up on the floor, I wanted to 
focus on, in the course to the Senate's consideration of this bill, the 
issue of military space procurement. There can be no doubt that how the 
Department of Defense procures satellites and space-related capability 
has gotten unacceptably out of control.
  In the impending environment of fiscal austerity, the situation has 
become nothing less than severe.
  One need not look further than the Space-Based Infrared System High, 
SBIRS-HIGH, program as a good example of how bad things have gotten. 
This program has been a problem since its inception in 1996. In fact, 5 
years into the program--in 2001--an independent review cited the 
program as ``too immature to enter the system design and development 
phase'' and observed that the program was based on faulty and overly 
optimistic assumptions with respect to, among others things, 
``management stability and the level of understanding of 
requirements.'' The independent review also highlighted a breakdown in 
execution and management resulting from those overly optimistic 
assumptions and unclear requirements that essentially ``overwhelmed'' 
government and contractor management.
  That was 2001, when it was determined that total program cost growth 
could exceed $2 billion, a 70 percent increase in cost. And, here we 
are today, 10 years later, and the system still has not achieved its 
objectives. In fact, it was just launched--for the first time--
recently, on May 7, 2011.
  Originally estimated to cost $2.4 billion, it is now expected to cost 
nearly $16 billion, roughly 7 times the original estimate. With SBIRS' 
having been launched finally, we will see if it has overcome its 
continuing software issues and delivers its improved ballistic missile-
monitoring capability as promised. I am, however, not optimistic: the 
satellite was launched even though the flight system software was not 
ready, and the ground control software needed to exploit the 
satellite's full capabilities is still lagging.
  It is worth bearing in mind that the Government Accountability 
Office's latest March 9, 2011, report on major defense acquisition 
programs notes that SBIRS has the odious distinction of breaching the 
``Nunn-McCurdy'' law on cost growth a record four times--the most of 
any major weapons program. It's a hall-of-famer.
  By the way, the DOD just recently reported to Congress that the next 
pair of these satellites, built by Lockheed Martin, could cost $438 
million more than previously estimated and could be delivered a year 
late. Unacceptable.
  SBIRS is, however, not the only space program that has been facing 
these types of problems. Over the past decade, most--I repeat, most--of 
the DOD's space programs have been over cost and behind schedule. Their 
delays have in fact been so significant that we now face potential gaps 
in capabilities in vital areas dependent on space procurement such as 
weather monitoring and ultra-high frequency communications.
  After years of spiraling costs and under the specter of diminishing 
budgets, the Air Force now says it wants to buy space assets in bulk to 
save money. Only in Washington could programs with the kind of history 
of mismanagement and unparalleled cost-growth and schedule-delays we 
have seen in large military satellite and launch programs--which in the 
most egregious cases have yet to see a single day of operational 
performance or demonstrate intended capability--be proposed for 
economic savings by buying its related components in bulk.
  Until the Air Force overhauls how it buys its biggest and most 
expensive military space assets--more than simply doubling down on bad 
bets--these kinds of programs will continue to be painful case studies 
of how problematic our overall system for acquiring major weapons 
remains.
  One program that I chose to focus on in particular in this bill is 
the Air Force's Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, EELV, program. On 
this program, I have filed two amendments, which have either already 
been adopted or are awaiting adoption without opposition.
  My first amendment would require the EELV program to report to 
Congress and to the Office of the Secretary of Defense on how it is 
doing in terms of cost, schedule and performance as if it were 
designated as a major defense acquisition program, MDAP, not in 
sustainment.
  This sounds pretty simple, but why this amendment is in fact 
necessary is striking.
  In 2006, the unit cost of the EELV program, which provides the DOD 
and other government agencies the launch capability to get large 
satellites into orbit, breached the cost thresholds under the Nunn-
McCurdy law. Under that law, the Department is required to

[[Page S7986]]

report to Congress if there is a significant or critical increase in 
unit cost over the program's baseline cost.
  In this case, EELV's unit costs unexpectedly grew because of a change 
in the acquisition strategy warranted by a decrease in the demand for 
EELV launches. And, that was due to, among other things, satellite 
program development delays and cancellations.
  But rather than restructure the program to make sure that it provides 
launch capability affordably; rebaseline its unit cost estimate to a 
more realistic number; and certify, after careful deliberation and an 
analysis of alternatives, that the program must continue--all of which 
is required under Nunn-McCurdy--something else happened.
  In 2007, the program was basically taken out of the defense 
acquisition management system, otherwise known as the ``milestone 
system,'' and put in ``sustainment.'' The decision to do so 
significantly reduced EELV's reporting requirements to the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense and to Congress, particularly on the program's 
cost and status. And, that limited both the OSD and Congress' ability 
to oversee the program going forward.
  Ordinarily, such a decision is made when a program has completed its 
development and production phases. But, this wasn't the case for EELV. 
Even to this day, the program faces maturity issues based on the fact 
that the DOD has yet to launch all EELV variants in sufficient numbers 
to ensure design and production maturity.
  According to the Government Accountability Office in 2008, the 
decision to put EELV on sustainment may have been influenced by other 
factors, namely, avoiding the imminent Nunn-McCurdy unit cost breach.
  One thing is clear: this decision should never have been made.
  And, Congress' and the OSD's oversight of this large program has been 
hampered ever since.
  Against this backdrop, my amendment would require that the DOD either 
move the program back to a major defense acquisition program (MDAP) not 
in sustainment or otherwise have the program provide, as appropriate, 
Congress or the OSD updates of the program's cost and status using the 
criteria set forth for other MDAPs.
  This, frankly, should have been done years ago.
  My second amendment is required because of more recent developments 
in the EELV program. That amendment would require the Air Force to 
explain, by a time certain, exactly how its new EELV acquisition 
strategy for the balance of rocket cores beyond its immediate purchase 
implements each of GAO's recommendations in its recent report on the 
program.
  Unsurprisingly, the increasing cost of launching satellites into 
space has become a major problem. And, with defense dollars likely to 
decline for as far as the eye can see, driving down the cost of space 
launch is tough because, with regard to ``EELV''-class rockets, only 
one company provides the U.S. government with the ``heavy'' launch 
capability it needs--the United Launch Alliance, ULA, comprised of 
former competitors Lockheed Martin and Boeing.
  There can be no doubt that, at the end of the day, only competition 
can meaningfully drive down costs. As GAO recently noted, competition 
for space launch missions provides the government with an unprecedented 
opportunity to control costs under the EELV program. I strongly agree. 
Largely because of the lack of competition and the DOD's reliance on a 
monopoly incumbent provider, by some estimates, EELV costs may increase 
by more than 50 percent over the next 5 years. This is neither 
desirable nor affordable.
  But, in an effort to procure heavy-launch capability affordably, the 
Air Force, which serves as the Executive Agent for space at the DOD, 
originally came up with a strategy to sole-source from ULA as much as 
eight boosters over 5 years. This so-called ``Block-40 strategy'' 
would, however, have effectively locked-up the government into a large 
block purchase with ULA and foreclosed the possibility of competition 
over time.
  Thankfully, GAO looked into this acquisition strategy. And, its 
report, which came out just a few weeks ago, was scathing. In it, GAO 
found that, despite statements by the Air Force to the contrary, the 
Air Force's Block-40 strategy was unsupported by the necessary data and 
analysis--most notably, certified cost and pricing data, analysis on 
the health of the industrial base and the cost-effectiveness of mission 
assurance.
  This amendment would require the Air Force to explain when it submits 
its budget next year how it implemented each of GAO's recommendations. 
Those recommendations include, among other things, independently 
assessing the health of the U.S. launch industrial base and reassessing 
the proposed block buy contract quantity and length.
  On October 21, 2011, I brought this issue to Secretary Panetta's 
attention, with Chairman Levin. While we only recently received a 
response, which I would like to be made part of this record, the 
question as to whether GAO's recommendations have been and will be 
complied with remains open. So, notwithstanding the letter, this 
amendment remains ripe and necessary.
  Once again, I believe both of these provisions have been or will be 
adopted into the bill without opposition. And, I thank my colleagues 
for their cooperation. The area of how the Department of Defense 
procures space assets and capabilities is something we all have to 
focus on more than we have been. Particularly in these times of fiscal 
hardship and austerity, looking the other way and hoping for the best 
is an option we cannot afford.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I referred be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            Department of Defense,


                                   Secretary of the Air Force,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for your October 21, 2011, 
     letter regarding the recently completed Government 
     Accountability Office (GAO) report on the Evolved Expendable 
     Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. In your letter, you asked the 
     Department to pause ``all activities in furtherance of . . . 
     negotiations with United Launch Alliance (ULA) for follow-on 
     EELV launches'' and ``all activities intended to finalize the 
     Air Force's Block 40 acquisition strategy'' until the 
     Department has: 1 ``completed a full review of the concerns 
     raised by GAO'' in its recent report; and (2) ``taken 
     appropriate steps to ensure that prices are fair and 
     reasonable, including obtaining cost and pricing data, and 
     complying with other applicable requirements of the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation.'' Secretary Panetta asked me to reply 
     in my capacity as the Department's Executive Agent for Space.
       The Department and the Air Force have thoroughly reviewed 
     the GAO report--including early drafts and the final report--
     and we agree additional data is needed before executing an 
     EELV contract for FY 2013-2017. The Air Force EELV 
     acquisition strategy is fundamentally based on gathering more 
     and better information before pursuing any specific contract. 
     The strategy is part of a series of steps the Air Force is 
     taking to control cost growth in the EELV program, including 
     efforts to facilitate opportunities for proven launch 
     providers to compete for EELV-class launches. The Air Force 
     and the Department see competition as a critical element of 
     our long term efforts to reduce launch costs.
       The GAO completed their audit prior to most of the work on 
     the revised EELV acquisition strategy. Consequently, some of 
     the concerns highlighted have been addressed. For example, in 
     March 2011, when the drafting of the GAO report was nearly 
     complete, the Air Force created a new executive position, the 
     Program Executive Officer for Space Launch (PEO/SL). The PEO/
     SL was established to enhance executive management of the 
     EELV program, with the near-term focus of driving down costs 
     and spearheading the effort to craft a new EELV acquisition 
     strategy. The new PEO has led several efforts to implement 
     specific cost reduction efforts based on a detailed Should 
     Cost Review that I directed as Secretary of the Air Force. 
     The PEO has also taken steps to gain additional knowledge to 
     inform the acquisition strategy, including independent cost 
     estimates for the large cost drivers for launch. These 
     efforts and the data they yielded are the key building blocks 
     for the EELV acquisition strategy. The United Launch Alliance 
     supplier survey data described and questioned in the GAO 
     report was made available to review teams examining the EELV 
     program, but was not relied upon in the PEO's development of 
     the acquisition strategy.
       The Air Force EELV acquisition strategy entails an 
     evaluation of an economic order quantity of EELV booster 
     cores, but there is no commitment to a specific contract 
     quantity or duration. Instead, the first phase of the 
     strategy will require the incumbent contractor to provide 
     their best price offers on a quantity range of six to ten 
     booster cores per

[[Page S7987]]

     year over contract periods ranging from three to five years. 
     This data will allow the Air Force to balance the rate and 
     commitment decision with our fundamental priorities: 
     operational requirements, price, budget, and enabling 
     competition.
       The Air Force will not pursue any negotiations with ULA 
     until they have submitted the cost and price data we need, 
     and ULA's submissions will be audited as they would in any 
     contracting process. The citations in the GAO report to 
     Defense Contracting Audit Agency standards for sufficient 
     cost and price information refer to prices associated with 
     some subcontractor ULA orders that were placed in a 
     commercial environment and thus did not require certified 
     cost and pricing data. For the FY 2013-2017 proposal, the 
     prime contractor will be required to certify the data 
     submitted is current, accurate, and complete.
       With the recently released New Entrant Certification 
     Strategy, the Air Force, NASA, and the NRO are working to 
     facilitate the certification of new entrants who want to 
     compete for EELV-class missions. By examining a range of 
     contract options and terms for EELV procurement, and by 
     examining progress from new entrants in the coming months, 
     the Air Force will be well-positioned to identify the best 
     balance of these priorities and the best value for the 
     taxpayer. Only at that point, with additional information in 
     hand, will the Air Force move to negotiate a new contract.
       Thank you again for your letter and your continued support 
     of national security space. I look forward to continuing to 
     work in partnership with you to maintain assured access to 
     space for the Nation. A similar letter has been sent to the 
     Chairman of your committee.
           Sincerely,
                                                Michael B. Donley,
                                    DoD Executive Agent for Space.

  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

                          ____________________