[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 150 (Wednesday, November 28, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6995-S7031]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by
title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3254) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2013 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.
Amendment No. 2985
Mr. REID. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Udall of Colorado, I
call up amendment No. 2985.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Udall of
Colorado, for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Shaheen, and Mr.
Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 2985.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To strike section 313, relating to a limitation on the
availability of funds for the procurement of alternative fuel)
Strike section 313.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I want to describe to the Senate what we
just did. It is a little different from what we sometimes do around
here, which is we have long threats of filibusters on motions to
proceed; then, we, finally, often or sometimes reach unanimous consent
agreements to proceed. What we did here--and it was very deliberate--
was to proceed by motion, not by unanimous consent, to this bill so
that if persons were going to filibuster the motion to proceed, they
were then going to have to come to the floor and debate it--not just
simply threaten to filibuster the motion to proceed, but they would
have to come and actually debate it. Because I believe that is the
correct way for us to operate.
Motions to proceed, I believe, have been abused. The threats to
filibuster those motions have been allowed to be successful. One way we
can overcome what has been a bad habit of allowing threats to
filibuster motions to proceed to succeed is to basically tell those
folks, our colleagues, that if they want to filibuster a motion to
proceed--in this case, the Defense authorization bill--they are going
to have to come over and filibuster.
This is something which is significant. It may sound like a nuance to
many. I think it probably would to most outside this body and our
staffs as to what I am saying. But it is important to those of us who
are trying hard to get this body to be more functional that we use the
existing rules--and I am all in favor of rules changes, by the way--but
that we use in the meantime the existing rules to get this body more
functional than it is right now. And one of those existing rules is the
one we just used, which is to proceed by a motion to proceed, and then
to indicate, as our leader just did, there appears to be no one who
wishes to be recognized to debate it, and then for the Chair to put the
question, the Presiding Officer to then put the question to the body:
All those in favor of the motion say ``aye,'' all those opposed say
``nay.'' The ayes have it, and now we are on the bill.
So, Madam President, I have a long opening statement. I will,
however, with the assistance here of my friend, Senator McCain, also
make the following statement. There is no cloture motion which is filed
or pending. We hope we can adopt this bill without a cloture motion. We
are hopeful that people who have amendments will bring them over. We
will try to dispose of them, either by saying we could agree to them or
we cannot agree and putting them in line for debate; but proceeding in
a way that if folks, colleagues, have amendments, they bring over those
amendments and let us try to work those amendments through this process
without having to go through cloture and without having to set aside
pending amendments in order to make other amendments pending.
If we can proceed without a cloture motion, we are not going to have
to use that process of setting aside pending amendments, making other
amendments pending, because if we can avoid a cloture motion, we are
not going to have a postcloture period where that pendency of
amendments becomes relevant. If we are not going to need to go to a
cloture, then it is not relevant that an amendment is made pending
because the bill is open to amendment. That is what we are hoping to
do.
We are willing to stay here late hours. Senator McCain and I have
spent a lot of time talking about this--we spent a lot of time getting
this bill to the floor, by the way; and it came out of our committee
unanimously--but we spent a lot of time talking about how do we get
this bill done in 3 days because that is what we told the majority
leader we think we can do. By the way, that is all the time we are
going to have. The majority leader has made it clear we do not have
more than 3 days.
We want colleagues, Senators, who have amendments to bring those
amendments to us. We will try, if we cannot resolve them, to put them
in packages. If they need to be debated and voted on, that is fine.
That is what we are here for. We are going to then try to line up those
amendments so that we will go back and forth to the extent we can
between Democrats and Republicans offering amendments and voting on
those amendments.
So, therefore, I intend to object, in the absence of a cloture motion
being filed, to laying aside amendments because, again, in the absence
of a cloture motion pending, there is no need to do that and it
confuses and complicates the life of the managers of this bill. So I
want to make that clear to our colleagues.
I wonder if Senator McCain might have a comment on that.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, could I say, I thank my dear and old
friend from Michigan. I was recollecting that he and I have now worked
together for over a quarter of a century. But far more important than
that, this legislation and how we handle it, I say to all my
colleagues, can be a model for how this body should do business: Take
up a piece of legislation, have amendments and debate, and move
forward. If that requires long hours, and even occasionally a Friday or
even more, then I think our colleagues should be prepared to do that.
We are not sent here for a 3-day workweek. We are sent here to do the
people's business.
I am not proud, Madam President--and I will not point fingers at
anybody--it was judged by historians the last session of Congress was
the least productive since 1947. Now, maybe Senator Levin and I were
around in 1947, but we do not remember exactly what happened in those
days. But the fact is that when we are looking at basically continuous
gridlock, day after day, week after week, month after month, then we
have to change the way we do business.
Hanging over all this, I say to my friends on this side of the aisle,
is a change in the rules, which could cause what we used to call the
nuclear option, which we were able to avoid some years ago when this
sort of same thing was contemplated on the confirmation process of
judges.
So we are now proceeding, I say to my friend from Michigan, without a
motion to proceed, without a cloture vote, without the normal
parliamentary back and forth that takes up 2 or 3 days of every week
here, and we want people to come to the floor, have amendments--as
there is one pending from the Senator from Colorado--we debate it
openly and honestly, we have votes on it, and we move forward. If it
requires quite a while--because we are talking about this Nation's
security, the National Defense Authorization
[[Page S6996]]
Act--then we should be willing to spend those hours on it.
So it seems to me, if we can do what the distinguished chairman and I
contemplate; that is, that we move forward with the amendments, we have
open and honest debate--we will work with any of our Members to try to
make sure their issues and their amendments get the consideration they
deserve. But we also may have to put in long hours in order to do so.
There is no reason to use a parliamentary mechanism to keep us from
addressing this Nation's national security. The lives of the men and
women who are serving are dependent upon the work we are doing, and for
someone--individual Members of this body--to hold up the whole process
because of his or her specific issue is not appropriate treatment of
this issue.
I urge all my colleagues to cooperate. I believe we can show the
entire country that we are capable of moving forward and addressing the
issues in a measured, mature, and productive fashion, which is what the
American people are demanding of us. I do not need to remind my
colleagues of our approval ratings. But there is ample reason for that
disapproval because we have not moved forward and done the people's
business.
Again, I urge all my colleagues to show the kind of forbearance and
the kind of maturity that is necessary in order to complete this
legislation.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my friend from
Michigan, Chairman Levin, for his leadership in writing this year's
Defense authorization bill. We have worked together for many years now,
and the chairman has set a high standard of cooperation and
bipartisanship that befits the esteemed history of the Senate Armed
Services Committee.
I am pleased that we will finally have the opportunity to discuss and
debate this crucial piece of bipartisan legislation, which has been on
the Senate's calendar for almost 6 months. My colleagues and I have
come to the Senate floor numerous times during those months to ask the
majority leader to call up the Defense authorization bill. While I had
hoped to get started on this bill much earlier, I do appreciate the
majority leader's offer to bring up the bill with an open process for
dealing with amendments. Unfortunately, here we are, with only a few
weeks left in this Congress, just beginning debate on one of the most
critical pieces of legislation the Congress annually considers. So I
ask my colleagues' cooperation in offering relevant amendments with
limited time for debate, so that we may afford all Senators an
opportunity to address their ideas and concerns with respect to
national defense.
Because of the delay in bringing up this bill, we are considering the
Defense authorization bill under the imminent threat of budget
sequestration mandated by last year's Budget Control Act. Pentagon
leadership has repeatedly warned that these automatic, across-the-board
cuts to defense spending, totaling almost half a trillion dollars over
the next decade, would devastate the Department's ability to provide
for the Nation's defense. Sequestration would undermine the readiness
of the armed services; dramatically reduce our ability to project power
and defend our interests at a time when the world is becoming more
dangerous; jeopardize the livelihood of civilian and uniformed
personnel alike; and bring with it the likelihood of hundreds of
thousands of layoffs. Furthermore, the way in which these cuts would be
applied will likely require that thousands of contracts be terminated
and renegotiated at a huge cost to the taxpayer.
It is unconscionable that the President has not come to the Congress
with a proposal to avoid the devastation of sequestration, not only on
our national security but on our economic security as well. It has been
over a year since the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, or
supercommittee, admitted defeat, and the President has shown no
leadership and offered no solutions to the impending sequestration.
Many of us in this body have been meeting and discussing potential
alternatives to sequestration. Sequestration will take effect on
January 2, just a short time from now. We need leadership to avoid this
disaster and to address the spending and revenue issues that have
brought our Nation to the fiscal cliff.
The Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act contains many
``must pass'' authorizations, including a pay raise for our men and
women in the Armed Forces, bonuses, health care, and quality of life
programs that are essential to the readiness of our Armed Forces and
the well-being of their families. The bill helps to address the needs
of wounded service members and their families. Military construction
and family housing projects cannot proceed without the specific
authorizations contained in this bill.
This bill also includes important authorities that support our
national security objectives around the world, including an extension
of the Afghan Security Forces Fund, a program instrumental to our
efforts to build the capacity of the Afghan Army and Police. It also
extends the CERP program which provides commanders on the ground with
the ability to fund small-scale humanitarian projects that directly
benefit the Afghan people, as well as the Coalition Support Funds
program which reimburses cooperating nations supporting the effort in
Afghanistan. The bill also contains a provision mandating an
independent assessment of the size, structure, and capability
requirements of the Afghanistan National Security Forces necessary to
provide enduring security for their country so it does not revert to a
safe haven for international terrorism.
In the area of military compensation, according to the Congressional
Budget Office, the President's request for fiscal year 2013 for pay and
benefits of current and retired members of the military represents more
than one-quarter of DOD's total base budget request. In light of this,
the bill would establish a Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission to review these benefits and recommend any
future changes necessary to ensure both quality of life and sustainable
benefits for those who serve.
In the area of acquisition and contracting, the bill includes
provisions that would improve how the Department buys weapons systems
and other goods and services by prohibiting the use of cost-type
contracts for the production of major weapon systems; requiring the
Department to revise its ``profit policy'' to make sure that it
effectively incentivizes contractors to control costs; requiring that
the Department notify Congress of potential termination liability on
contracts for major weapon systems; and calling on the Department to
improve its guidance on how it procures capability in response to
``joint emergent operational needs''.
Several provisions in the bill continue the committee's strong
oversight of troubled programs. The bill fences 50 percent of the
funding for the second Ford-class aircraft carrier until the Navy
submits a report on how it will control its construction costs, while
the accompanying Senate report directs the Navy to recertify the
current $8.1 billion cost cap on CVN-79. Other provisions
enhance oversight of, and transparency into, the Navy's Littoral Combat
Ship Mission Packages; subject how the Air Force maintains and
modernizes F-22A aircraft to greater oversight; and continue strong
oversight of the F-35 program.
This year's bill also contains important initiatives intended to
ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars by codifying the 2014
goal for the Department of Defense to achieve an auditable statement of
budgetary resources; requiring the implementation of recommendations
provided by the GAO to eliminate duplicative programs and functions;
imposing additional protections for DOD whistleblowers; and requiring a
detailed cost estimate and personnel plan for the new Defense
Clandestine Service.
Another important provision would require the commander of U.S. Cyber
Command to provide a strategy for the development and deployment of
offensive cyber capabilities to serve as deterrents to, and for
response in the event of, a cyberattack. I believe strongly that cyber
warfare will be the key battlefield of the 21st century, and I am
concerned about our ability to fight and win in this new domain without
a robust offensive capability. Crafting a comprehensive, well-defined
strategy, required under this provision and others, should also spur
U.S. Cyber Command to identify critical personnel
[[Page S6997]]
requirements for offensive cyber missions, which are presently
understaffed.
Again this year, the committee restricted further construction on
Guam related to the realignment of U.S. Marines in the Pacific theater
until Congress has a clear understanding of the costs and strategic
implications of the proposed force realignments on our strong allies in
the region. The bill also contains no funding for the Office of
Economic Adjustment activities on Guam, and it requires future requests
for the construction of public facilities and infrastructure be
specifically authorized by law, thereby eliminating another potential
source of earmarks.
In addition, this bill would impose restrictions on DOD expenditures
to develop a commercial biofuels industry. I strongly support continued
Defense Department research in energy technologies that reduce fuel
demand for our weapons systems and save lives on the battlefield. But I
do not condone siphoning defense funds from those critical efforts to
pay $27 per gallon for biofuels or $170 million to use as venture
capital for the construction of a commercial biofuels refinery. This is
not a core defense need and should be left to the private sector, or to
the Department of Energy, which received over $4 billion last year for
energy research and development for related programs. The committee's
action corrects this misplacement of priorities.
Even without the massive budget cuts that will occur if sequestration
is not averted, the President last year proposed $487 billion in
defense budget cuts by fiscal year 2021. The total funding authorized
in this bill reflects the President's reduced defense budget plan.
However, within that total funding, the Armed Services Committee cut an
additional $3.3 billion from programs requested by the Department of
Defense to fund congressional special interest items. I am concerned
that, in light of the budget realities facing the Pentagon and the
Nation, at a time when our military is being asked to make drastic cuts
in personnel, some of our colleagues continue to divert resources from
vital military requirements to fund unnecessary and unrequested
projects.
Some argue that the Department of Defense does not have a monopoly on
good ideas. While true, the committee has an obligation to ensure that
funding added to new programs results in tangible value to our national
security and our military personnel. Terms like ``Committee
initiative,'' as used in this bill, do not effectively disguise
additions to the budget that are earmarks by any other name. Two
perennial additions that highlight the problem of unrequested
authorizations are the Industrial Base Innovation Fund, IBIF, and the
Defense Rapid Innovation Program, DRIP, which together are earmarked
for $230 million in this bill. These funds were not requested by the
Department of Defense and as a result, the Department has struggled to
put them on contract and manage the money for any useful purpose.
Serious threats face our Nation, most recently evidenced by the
deaths of four brave Americans in Benghazi, and our Armed Forces are
still engaged in operations in Afghanistan and deployed around the
world. At the same time, our Nation is facing a severe fiscal crisis
which is only weeks away, due to the unwillingness or inability of the
President and Congress to agree on a solution to the current tax-and-
spending stalemate.
And once again, Congress has failed to enact either an authorization
or appropriations bill for the Department of Defense almost 2 months
into the fiscal year. We have failed to provide the Department with a
baseline to plan for sequestration, if it is ultimately not averted.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to swiftly approve this legislation so
that a Defense authorization bill can be enacted before the end of the
year.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I thank my good friend from Arizona for
those comments.
Madam President, on behalf of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I
am pleased to bring S. 3254, the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 2013, to the Senate floor. The Armed Services Committee
approved the bill by a unanimous, 26-0 vote, making this the 51st
consecutive year that our committee has reported a defense
authorization act. Every previous bill has been enacted into law.
This year's bill would authorize $631.4 billion for national defense
programs--the same amount as the President's budget request and $31
billion less than the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2012. U.S.
forces are drawing down in Afghanistan and are no longer deployed in
Iraq. However, real threats to our national security remain and our
forces are deployed throughout the globe. I am pleased that this bill
provides our men and women in uniform the funding and support that they
need as they engage in continued combat in Afghanistan, work to track
down al-Qaida and associated forces in the Arabian Peninsula and North
Africa, and perform other military missions around the world.
First and foremost, this bill continues the increases in compensation
and quality of life that our service men and women and their families
deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing military
operations around the world. For example, the bill authorizes a 1.7
percent across-the-board pay raise for all military personnel, extends
over 30 types of bonuses and special pays aimed at encouraging
enlistment, reenlistment, and continued service by active-duty and
reserve military personnel, and authorizes increases to several of
these bonuses; does not accept Department of Defense proposals that
would have increased the cost of medical care for service members and
their families by establishing enrollment fees for TRICARE Standard and
TRICARE for Life, and increasing TRICARE deductibles and the annual
catastrophic cap; authorizes $30 million in supplemental impact aid and
related education programs for the children of service members, and
adjusts the impact aid formula to alleviate delays in impact aid funds;
requires the Secretary of Defense to provide recommendations for
statutory or regulatory changes to further increase career and service
opportunities for women in the armed forces; and strengthens
protections on consumer credit for members of the armed forces.
The bill includes funding needed to provide our troops the equipment
and support that they need in Afghanistan, while preparing the way for
a transition of responsibility to Afghan forces. For example, the bill
funds the President's request for $88 billion for overseas contingency
operations; fully funds the President's request for $5.7 billion to
train and equip the Afghan National Army and Afghan Police--growing the
capabilities of these security forces so those forces can continue the
transition to taking the security lead throughout Afghanistan by 2014;
reauthorizes the use of DOD funds to support a program to reintegrate
insurgent fighters into Afghan society at the requested level of $35.0
million; reauthorizes the Commanders' Emergency Response Program in
Afghanistan with a reduction in the Administration's request, given
reductions to U.S. force levels in Afghanistan; reauthorizes the
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund at a reduced level and restricts the
availability of the authorized funds until the Secretary of Defense
submits information on how new projects will be sustained following
completion; and requires an independent assessment of the size and
structure requirements of the Afghanistan National Security Forces
necessary to ensure that Afghan forces are capable of providing
security for their own country after 2014.
The bill also contains a number of provisions that will help improve
the management of the Department of Defense and other federal agencies.
For example, the bill enhances protections for contractor employees who
blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse on DOD contracts; restricts
the use of ``pass-through'' contracts by requiring that at least 50
percent of the work on any service contract be performed by the prime
contractor or by a subcontractor identified in the contract; lowers the
cap on contractor salaries and compensation that is allowable for DOD
reimbursement from $750,000 to $230,700; prohibits the use of cost-type
contracts for the production of major weapon systems, with limited
exceptions; and adds $59 million to enable the DOD IG to provide more
effective oversight and help identify waste,
[[Page S6998]]
fraud, and abuse in DOD programs, especially in the area of
procurement.
There are a number of controversial issues that are not addressed in
this bill.
First, the sole detainee-related provision in this bill is a one-year
extension of existing language addressing certifications for transfers
of GITMO detainees and the construction of facilities inside the United
States to house GITMO detainees. I understand that some of my
colleagues would like to revisit issues we addressed last year
regarding the authority to detain individuals apprehended in the course
of our ongoing fight with al-Qaida, the Taliban, and associated forces,
and they have that right, but those issues are not addressed in the
bill reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Second, the bill does not authorize new rounds of base closures, as
requested by the administration. In fact, the bill includes a one-year
moratorium on implementing any realignment that would result in a
military installation falling under the threshold for closure without
going through the BRAC process. The Department of Defense has achieved
savings through previous BRAC rounds, but there are other options--
including further reductions to our overseas basing structure--that
should be considered to achieve savings before Congress authorizes a
new round of base closures inside the United States.
Third, in accordance with the policy that the Armed Services
Committee has adopted over the last two years, the bill does not
contain any earmarks, as defined in rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of
the Senate. I continue to believe that we it is wrong for us to give up
the power of the purse given to Congress in the Constitution. I don't
believe that the executive branch has a monopoly on good ideas; in
fact, I think that we are often more receptive to creative, new ideas
that can lead to advances in the national defense than the defense
bureaucracy is. Nonetheless, there are no earmarks in this bill.
Finally, I would like to discuss four issues in the bill that are of
particular importance to the Department of Defense and the Nation.
First, the budget proposal included a plan by the Air Force to retire
or realign various aviation units, resulting in a 4.8 percent reduction
to the Air National Guard, compared to a reduction of only 1.2 percent
to the active duty Air Force. The Air Force provided no convincing
justification for the imbalance in these cuts. Some of the proposed
cuts in National Guard force structure were accompanied by proposed
increases in active duty force structure for the same aircraft. The
rationale provided for other cuts was inconsistent with statements that
the Air Force made as recently as two years ago about the capability of
its aircraft. In fact, the Air Force was unable even to provide the
committee with consistent numbers documenting the impact of the
proposed cuts on affected locations.
The bill before us rejects the Air Force plan and fully restores $1.4
billion in fiscal year 2013 funding for the force structure that the
Air Force proposed to cut--without increasing the overall top-line of
the defense budget. While we understand that the Air Force has to make
tough choices in its budget, major changes in Air Force structure are
too important to be made without the support of objective analysis. For
this reason, the committee bill would delay the actions proposed by the
Air Force and instead establish a national commission to provide an
objective analysis of how the structure of the Air Force should be
modified to best fulfill current and anticipated mission requirements
in a manner consistent with available resources. It is our expectation
that this analysis will provide a far more sound and defensible basis
for future force structure decisions.
Second, the bill establishes a Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission to review elements of military compensation
and retirement benefits with the objective of modernizing these
systems, ensuring the long-term viability and sustainability of All-
Volunteer force, and enabling a high quality of life for military
families. In proposing such a commission, the Department of Defense
took note of significant changes in the demographics of the national
workforce and private sector retirement plans, concerns about the
extent to which military compensation is deferred and the vesting of
benefits is delayed, and the continuing fiscal pressures on the nation.
As recommended by the Department, the provision in our bill provides
for expedited legislative consideration of the commission's
recommendations--including an up-or-down vote on those recommendations
without amendment. Our legislation would ensure that proposed changes
do not break faith with the current force by expressly requiring that
the commission's recommendations grandfather all members serving in the
armed forces as of the date of enactment of the provision.
Third, the bill includes a provision requiring the Department of
Defense to develop and implement a plan to reduce the size of its
workforce of civilian employees and contractor employees by an amount
commensurate with the 5 percent reduction in military end-strength
planned through fiscal year 2017. This provision recognizes the reality
that a reduction in military end-strength and force structure should be
accompanied by a comparable reduction in supporting elements.
In recent years, we have come to understand the critical role played
by the acquisition workforce--and the risk that we could lose billions
of dollars in failed acquisition programs by trying save millions of
dollars in ill-advised cuts to that workforce. But it is not just the
acquisition workforce that plays a critical role in ensuring that our
military is prepared to meet current and future challenges. DOD's
civilian workforce also includes 45,000 nurses, pharmacists, and other
medical professionals; 86,000 personnel in cybersecurity, information
assurance and related fields; 15,000 personnel in science and
technology; and 6,000 personnel in intelligence functions. Our civilian
employee workforce plays a critical role in ensuring that our troops
get the supplies that they need, that they receive the pay that they
earn, that their bases are safe and well-maintained, and that their
children receive the education that they deserve. Without this
workforce, we would not be able to build, test, and maintain the weapon
systems we need to face today's challenges, and we would not be able to
conduct the research and development we need to keep our technological
edge into the future.
In the current budget environment, however, no area of the Department
of Defense can be off limits as we look for savings. I am well aware
that the Department has already developed plans to reduce its civilian
employee workforce by two to three percent over a 5-year period, and is
achieving additional savings through an ongoing pay freeze for its
civilian employees. However, these efficiencies initiatives were
developed before the current budget crunch and fall short of the 5
percent reduction planned for military end strength. The cuts imposed
on the Department's contractor employee workforce have been
significantly less deep. The provision in our bill should ensure that
savings achieved in the Department's civilian personnel workforce and
contractor employee workforce are brought in line with the savings
achieved through the newer, deeper cuts to military end strength. It is
our expectation that the Department will utilize a deliberative, needs-
based planning process to achieve this objective.
Finally, the bill includes a number of provisions on energy
conservation, energy research, and alternative fuels. The Department of
Defense is the single largest consumer of energy in the United States,
spending close to $20 billion a year on purchases of fuel and
electricity. I am pleased that the bill authorizes $150 million for the
Energy Conservation Investment Program and $200 million for the
research of innovative technologies, including technologies that will
enhance energy security and independence, through the Rapid Innovation
Program. In the long run, these 12 investments should result in
substantial savings in fuel costs, reduce logistics requirements for
military operations, and enhance our energy security.
The bill also contains two provisions--each adopted on a razor-thin
13-12 vote--restricting the Department's continued investment in
alternative
[[Page S6999]]
fuels. The first provision prohibits the use of fiscal year 2013 funds
for the production or purchase of an alternative fuel if the cost
exceeds the cost of traditional fossil fuels available for the same
use. The second provision prohibits the Department from entering into a
contract to plan, design, or construct a biofuels refinery or any other
facility or infrastructure used to refine biofuels, unless specifically
authorized by law. These provisions may result in short-term savings,
but they will impose significant long-term costs by undermining the
Department's efforts to diversify its fuel supplies and enhance its
energy independence and security. It is my expectation that we will
revisit these provisions as we debate this bill on the Senate floor.
As of today, we have roughly 1.4 million U.S. soldiers, sailors,
airmen and marines serving on active duty--with tens of thousands
engaged in combat in Afghanistan and stationed in other regional
hotspots around the globe. While there are issues on which Members may
disagree, we all know that we must provide our troops the support they
need. Senate action on the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 will improve the quality of life of our men and women
in uniform and their families. It will give them the tools that they
need to remain the most effective fighting force in the world. Most
important of all, it will send an important message that we, as a
Nation, stand behind them and appreciate their service.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this vital
legislation.
Amendment No. 2985
Senator Udall's amendment is now pending, and I am wondering whether
there is a time agreement yet on this amendment and, if not, whether we
can work on a time agreement.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Pursuant to Senator Levin's question about a
time agreement, I ask unanimous consent that the majority side have 30
minutes to speak to my amendment and the Republican side have 15
minutes to speak to my amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I ask unanimous consent to speak to my
amendment for 10, 12, maybe 15 minutes. I know Senator Inhofe would
like to speak. Then I have additional speakers on our side.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I rise today in support of
the Department of Defense and our men and women in uniform who stand
watch around the clock around the world to protect us from a truly
staggering range of threats. As I have alluded, I rise specifically to
speak to my amendment No. 2985, which I have introduced in concert with
our military officials and leadership.
As a proud member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have
designed this amendment to support the Department of Defense and their
efforts to pursue alternative fuels and energy investments. Senators
Murray, Shaheen, Bingaman, Hagan, Kerry, Begich, and Tom Udall have
joined me in cosponsoring this legislation.
We, as Senators and as Americans, frequently acknowledge the courage
and the sacrifice of our troops. But I would also point out that they
are incredibly smart, insightful, and forward thinking. In order to
keep ahead of current enemies and future threats, our military leaders
must be students of history. They have to understand the past in order
to predict the future. They have to be ready to face challenges from
the air, sea, and land, and now increasingly from the cyber domain.
They must prepare to defend our Nation from hostile nation States such
as Iran and from terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida.
In order to do all of this, they must have the best technology in the
world. We must also provide them with the flexibility to adapt to an
ever-changing landscape and the resources they need to research,
develop, and employ new technologies. That is our solemn commitment,
and I would offer our solemn responsibility, to those who fight on our
behalf. They have placed themselves between us and harm's way. In
return, we promise to invest in the technology, training, and resources
they need to stay safe.
For me and many of our colleagues that includes encouraging,
supporting, requiring, actually, the DOD to invest in energy sources
and fuel technologies that reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Ultimately, section 313 of the Defense authorization bill before us
today would severely limit the ability of the Department of Defense to
use alternative fuels.
Given the threats facing our Nation today and in the future, that is
not acceptable. I want to point out the Department of Defense strongly
opposes the constricting provisions in the current Defense
authorization bill for that reason and for a number of other reasons. I
want to quote what the Office of the Secretary of Defense says about
section 313.
The OSD says that 313 is ``detrimental to DOD's long-term energy
security;'' that it is ``overly broad,'' ``ambiguous,'' and it
``restricts the flexibility of military commanders.'' Those are the
DOD's words about this section. I want to point out I strongly agree
with those words. Therefore, I have offered this very simple amendment
that would remove this limiting provision from the bill. I firmly
believe that removing section 313 of the Defense authorization bill is
in the best interests of our military and our country. Let me tell you
why.
In the carrying out of the work of our Nation, the Department of
Defense consumes approximately 330,000 barrels of oil every single day.
That works out to 120 million barrels of oil per year. That is a truly
staggering number. This year, given those numbers, the military has
already spent $15 billion on fuel. Because of rising global oil prices
that is about $2.5 billion more than they forecast, and the year is not
even over yet. We have another month to go.
Those rising costs in dollars and operational capability are
staggering. Think of it this way: For every 25-cent increase in the
price per gallon of oil, the military's fuel bill increases by $1
billion. So then what happens? In order to make up for that shortfall,
the DOD then has to pull money from the operations and maintenance
accounts, which means that rising fuel costs result in less training,
deferred maintenance, and reduced operational capability.
Let me be clear. The current language that was added to this bill by
some of my colleagues tells the Defense Department they cannot pursue
energy security and instead must rely on an energy source that is
quickly eating away at their capabilities and effectiveness. That means
our people are less prepared when they go into harm's way, and they are
less ready to fight when it matters most. For me, and I hope for the
majority of my colleagues, that is far too steep a price.
That is why the DOD is investing in technology to increase fuel
efficiency, promote conservation, and to find alternatives to foreign
oil. General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has
said simply but powerfully: Saving energy saves lives. It should tell
us something that in an era of reduced DOD budgets our senior leaders
remain fully committed to this effort. We should support them in these
commonsense approaches. That is why the DOD is funding research and
development for new fuels that can be made from biological feed stocks.
And these are fuels that can be literally grown here and refined here,
right in our own country, right at home.
This R&D effort I am alluding to is part of a proud legacy of
military research programs that have benefited our entire country
through many decades. So what I am saying is even under the threat of
sequestration, investments in new energy technology and alternative
fuels remain a top priority for our military leadership. For those who
would say we cannot afford to spend money on alternative fuels, our
uniformed senior leaders tell us otherwise and, in fact, suggest that
we cannot afford not to make these investments.
Let me share another way of looking at this. The investment is tiny
when we compare it to the potential payoff. For less than .03 percent
of the defense budget, our military is building a foundation for a new
domestic energy
[[Page S7000]]
source that could save billions of dollars and keep more of the money
we do spend on fuel right here at home.
We spend about $300 billion a year on overseas sources of oil--$300
billion. If we could keep one-twentieth of a percent of that money at
home we would pay for this program. Let me put it in perspective
another way.
For about half of what we spend on military bands each year, we could
be establishing a domestic energy industry. For less than the cost of a
single F-35, we could diversify our energy portfolio and drive down
costs. We would be taking billions of dollars out of the hands of
terrorists and reducing the risk to our military personnel.
So in that context, what is the problem? Well, the proponents for
cutting off these investments in alternative fuels argue that the
Defense Department should not be involved in the development of new
energy sources. I think it has already become clear, but I want to say
it again: I could not disagree more. These biofuels, when we produce
them, cannot be used as leverage against us. These refineries cannot be
overrun by Nigerian rebels or blockaded by Iranian gun boats.
Energy security is national security. This is exactly the kind of
investment our military should be making. In fact, military R&D has
sustained the enormous technological advantage that we have maintained
over our adversaries historically. Our willingness to invest in the
future has kept us safe. So my colleagues say the DOD should not be
spending money on energy development. I would respectfully remind them
we have always spent money on energy development, and it has made us
safer.
If that view had prevailed in years passed, we would not have a
nuclear-powered Navy. Without military investment in emerging
technologies, we would not have jet engines, microchips, microwave
ovens, radar, or GPS navigation. Ensuring our energy security ought to
be a national priority. Our reliance on foreign oil is a threat to our
security and our economy. Our reliance on foreign oil harms our economy
and our national security. Now we have the chance to do something about
it.
This is a national problem. That is why DOD has partnered with the
Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, and private industry
to find a solution. That is exactly how our government is supposed to
work.
If we believe the DOD has a vested interest in having reliable
sources of fuel and energy, then we should agree they have a role to
play in ensuring that new fuels we have to develop meet their needs.
Now, as with any technology, the cost of alternative fuels starts
high, but they are coming down steadily. As we all know, the price of
oil continues to climb and, equally important, is subject to those
sudden spikes due to unpredictable global events. My colleagues who are
opposed to the DOD energy programs would have us believe that
alternative fuel prices are unaffordable. But let me share some facts.
In 2009 the Navy paid about $66 per gallon for biofuels used for
research. But that price decreased over a 3-year period by 61 percent.
During that same period, oil prices rose by about 120 percent. Today,
right now, drop-in biofuels for cars and jet aircraft are available for
around $4 per gallon. These costs will continue to drop if we keep
making smart investments in smart technologies.
These are the facts, but even if we disagree with those points, there
is another important factor I hope we will consider. Section 313 of the
Defense authorization bill harms military missions and technologies
that are being used right now to find and destroy our enemies.
Let me explain. The Office of the Secretary of Defense has said the
language is so broad and so poorly defined that it would prohibit the
DOD from purchasing any nonpetroleum fuel that costs more than
traditional fuels. So we have to ask, what does that mean?
Let me give a couple of examples. That would include the solid oxide
fuels used in rockets and missiles. That would include coal-to-liquid
fuels. That includes alternative fuels purchased overseas where there
are no petroleum-based fuels available, like in South Africa and in
countries that have mandatory alternative fuel blends. It restricts
fuel blends to a 50-50 ratio, even if that is not the best or the most
practical mix.
So the outcome of that would be if the DOD wanted to use a more
efficient or cost-effective mix of traditional fuel to biofuel, they
would not be able to do so. So I believe section 313 of the bill we are
debating will send the wrong political message as well. It will make
investors wary of the U.S. Government's commitment to weaning ourselves
off foreign oil. It would help keep us reliant on foreign oil. Let me
list the countries: Russia, Venezuela, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, I have not
even mentioned Iran.
It is poorly drafted and damaging to our security. Instead, we have
an opportunity today to help our military and our country. This is how
we move forward. This is not about an environmental agenda or some kind
of a green conspiracy. It is about doing the right thing, supporting
our military brass, establishing a stronger national security and
energy security posture in the years ahead.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to strike section 313.
As I conclude, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Gillibrand and Tom
Udall be added as cosponsors to my amendment No. 2985 to S. 3254.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator
from New Hampshire has a time issue and she would like to have 5
minutes before my time will begin. That is acceptable.
I yield 5 minutes to my friend from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate my
colleague's graciousness in allowing me to speak first.
I rise today in support of Senator Udall and his amendment, which
would restore the Department of Defenses' ability to invest in advanced
biofuels. I don't think we should be tying the hands of our military as
they attempt to manage a significant national security threat our
energy dependence.
As our Nation has become more technology dependent, our energy use
has increased dramatically. Businesses and families are more conscious
than ever of how they use energy and its costs. Our military is no
different.
Advanced technology has not only reshaped our economy, it has also
changed how we think about defense. No matter how you look at it, as
long as we are dependent on other nations for our energy, we have a
fundamental strategic vulnerability. Fortunately, for the first time
since the oil crisis in 1979 our military is making real progress
addressing it. I hope we will get out of their way.
Over the past ten years the Department of Defense has invested
significant time and resources into improving our nation's energy
security.
Energy security is not some sort of feel-good, pie in the sky, goal
that would be nice to have. Energy security is imperative to the
success of today's military, and it becomes more critical with each
passing generation.
As our Current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dempsey has said:
Without improving our energy security, we are not merely standing still
as a military and as a Nation, we are falling behind.
Let's be clear: Energy security is national security. Our military
leadership understands this. Our Sailors, Soldiers, Airmen and Marines
understand this. Other countries including some of our strongest
competitors also understand this. And we ignore this fact at our own
peril.
As is often the case when our military commits itself to a new
mission, particularly when you add a little friendly inter-service
competition, we are seeing dramatic results. For example, new solar
arrays and mini smart grids have allowed Marines at Forward Operating
Base Jackson, in Helmand province, Afghanistan to cut their fuel use
from 20 gallons to 2.5 gallons per day. More efficient cargo management
and routing are projected to save Air Mobility Command half a billion
dollars over the next decade. By reducing
[[Page S7001]]
drag, new stern flaps are expected to save the Navy almost $500,000
annually per ship in fuel costs.
I saw the Navy's new stern flaps in person earlier this year during
an Energy Subcommittee hearing I chaired aboard the USS Kearsarge. The
purpose of the hearing was to highlight the significant advancements
the Navy continues to make in both energy efficiency and harnessing
new, renewable energy resources. One of those important, home-grown
energy resources is biofuels.
Biofuels offer reliable, domestic energy, capable of powering our
most advanced military equipment. The Navy recently demonstrated the
capabilities of advanced biofuels during a massive exercise that
featured a Carrier Strike Group powered exclusively on renewable
energy, highlighted by a F-18 traveling at twice the speed of sound and
a ship traveling at 50 knots.
Despite biofuels' impressive performance record and their potential
strategic impact, we continue to hear two arguments against further
investment by the Department of Defense.
The first is that energy investments should be handled by the
Department of Energy and not the Department of Defense.
Energy security is going to require an all-of-government approach,
and that is the direction we are currently going with the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Energy playing a fundamental role on
the biofuels initiative. In addition, as the largest fuel consumer in
the world today--and by far the largest in the U.S. Government--the
Department of Defense has a special role to play in this effort.
Moreover, because of our dependence, we continually send our men and
women in uniform into harm's way to maintain our access. In the past
year alone, the Arab spring, conflict in Libya, and the threat of
Iranian mining of the Strait of Hormuz have all demonstrated the
challenges of assuring continuous access to overseas oil.
Not only is access to oil difficult to maintain, instability in the
global price of oil continues to plague our economy and our defense
budget as well. Every $1 dollar increase in the price of oil per barrel
costs DOD $130 million. Last year alone, the Department was forced to
shuffle $1.3 billion from other accounts to cover increased fuel costs.
The second criticism we often hear is that biofuels are too
expensive.
It is true that advanced biofuels are not yet in full production and
cannot compete with an oil market that is over 100 years old. However,
in the last two years alone, DOD investment has caused the price to
drop dramatically. Moreover, biofuels are more immune from the price-
shocks that are increasingly consuming our defense budget.
In addition, as many of you know, there are significant costs to
traditional foreign sources of energy--unseen at the gas pump--
associated with protecting our shipping lanes and oil supplies. For
over 60 years, we have been patrolling the Persian Gulf. These costs
for oil remain underappreciated.
The fact is, throughout its history, our military has played a
leading role in energy innovation and development. From wind, to coal,
to oil, to nuclear power, their ability to exploit new forms of energy
has been key to our Nation's technological edge and combat
effectiveness. As Admiral Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, has
noted, ``efforts to reduce the Navy's dependence on fossil fuels and
outdated energy technologies is in the finest traditions of military
scientific leadership.''
For our military the issue of energy security and investment in
biofuels is simple: dependence on foreign oil is a strategic
vulnerability, creates problematic fluctuations in the defense budget,
and puts our men and women in uniform at unnecessary risk.
We need to make sure our military leaders are able to continue their
historic tradition of identifying long-term challenges and seeking
innovative ways to solve them. Energy use is no different and nothing--
including the Congress--should get in the way. We can't allow the
debate over the military's energy use to become a proxy for other
ideological debates around energy. We should let our military do what
it does best. We should let them lead.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I hear all the time from my good friend
who is involved in this. In this rare case it is true. The Senator from
Colorado and I are very close friends, and he and I disagree on this
issue. I think it is important for us to understand where this came
from. Senator McCain and I are responsible for section 313, and I think
when people understand what it is, all of these arguments I have heard
against it, none of them holds weight. What we are trying to do is
experiment in green energy at the expense of our ability to defend
America, and our readiness. Our military is deployed in more locations
around the world at a greater rate than was ever the case during the
Cold War. I sometimes say, I look wistfully back on the days of the
Cold War. Back then we had an enemy we could define. It was an enemy
who was predictable. That is not the case anymore, and after almost two
decades fighting and all of these contingencies worldwide, including
four major regional conflicts with a force structure that is 40 percent
smaller and equipment that is decades older than the military readiness
during its decline, this is what we are faced with right now. All of
this is coming at a time when the Obama administration has cut the
defense budget, projecting over the 10-year period, by some $487
billion. If the Obama sequestration becomes a reality, that would be $1
trillion over this period of time coming out of our defense budget.
Even the Secretary of Defense, President Obama's Secretary of
Defense, said that would be devastating. He used the word
``devastating.'' But if that were not enough, the Obama administration
continues to force the military to spend greater proportions of its
already depleted funds on an expensive green energy agenda, to include
the purchase of biofuels for operational use and construction of
commercial biofuel refineries.
I fully support the development and the use of alternative fuels,
including biofuels, but not at the expense of the military. Secretary
Mabus's primary focus must be or should be on the readiness of the
Navy, not on propping up the biofuel industry.
By the way, I have to remind everyone we have a bureaucracy called
the Department of Energy. They are the ones who are supposed to be
doing all of this experimentation we talked about. Our Navy, according
to the Chief of Naval Operations, ADM Jon Greenert, will see a 15-
percent increase in the number of ships set to deploy, with the number
of ships and attack boats deployed at any time rising from 93 today to
107 by 2016. This increased deployment rate will impact sailors and
marines as well as the required maintenance of ships and aircraft.
President Obama talked about pivoting to Asia from the Middle East
and some of the concentrations. This is going to create another very
serious problem. When every defense cut dollar degrades our military
readiness, why should we want our Navy to pay four times the amount
than almost any other fuel, or in some cases 100 times the amount? With
a military budget that continues to decrease, where is the Navy going
to get additional funding to pay its biofuel bill?
What is the Navy willing to give up in order to pay this bill? What
is DOD willing to give up in order to pay the higher fuel bills? They
have been talking about this on the other side. However, the higher
fuel bills are not what this section 313 is all about. We discussed
this in the committee. I fully support the efforts that make it
affordable are mixed in, but biofuels still face challenges in
technologies that remain imprudent. Again, we have a Department of
Energy that is supposed to be doing this.
This is a 2011 RAND report, which says:
There is no direct benefit to the Department of Defense and
the services from using alternative fuels rather than
petroleum-derived fuels. In short, the military is best
served by efforts directed at using energy more efficiently
in weapon systems and at military installations.
That is a 2011 RAND Commission direct quote.
Despite the recent assertions by biofuel lobbyists that the two
biofuel provisions in S. 3254, the National Defense Authorization Act
for fiscal year
[[Page S7002]]
2013, do not restrict the Department of Defense from purchasing
alternative fuels, including biofuels, section 313 allows the continued
use of the Department of Defense funding for biofuels for testing but
precludes them from using the funds authorized for readiness and
training. That is what this is all about, readiness.
Section 313 contained in the bill is intended to restore fiscal
responsibility and accountability for defense spending at a time when
our Nation simply cannot afford to waste taxpayers' funds on
speculative green initiatives such as Solyndra and dozens of other
companies that are foundering or bankrupt despite billions of
government investment, as they call it.
A recent DOD report revealed that the biofuels program will amount to
an extra $1.8 billion a year in fuel costs to the Navy alone. That is
just the Navy, not the Air Force, not the rest of them. This ludicrous
pricetag is not surprising.
Through congressional oversight efforts, we found that in 2009--now
listen to this, this is significant--the Navy paid an outrageous $424 a
gallon for 20,000 gallons of renewable diesel. In December of 2011, the
Navy purchased 450,000 gallons of biofuels for $12 million, equaling
about $27 a gallon. That is $27 a gallon we are talking about in our
defense budget when we are paying for something that should cost $3,
maybe $4 a gallon.
The Navy is not the only service being subjected to this greening
agenda. Last month the Air Force bought 11,000 gallons of alcohol to
jet fuel at $59 a gallon, twice as much per gallon as what the Navy was
forced to spend. So we are talking about amounts such as $400, $450,
and $29 a gallon for fuel just to experiment, and this is something the
Department of Energy should be doing if anyone is going to be doing it.
DOD has been forced to drastically cut its personnel, the number of
brigade combat teams, ships, fighters, and airlift, and it has had to
eliminate or postpone critical military modernization programs. Now
thanks to President Obama's defense budget cuts, DOD can't afford to do
business as usual. Yet they are being coerced to spend $27 a gallon.
Secretary Panetta has warned repeatedly that President Obama's deep
cuts will have a devastating effect to our economy. He used the word
``devastating'' when he talked about what was going to happen if he is
successful in the next step, which would be the sequestration.
Knowing this, how could anyone support including another $1.8 billion
from an already stretched budget? President Obama's climate chief,
Heather Zichal, defended the green fleet by arguing that even a dollar
rise in gasoline prices would cost DOD $30 million. I think my good
friend, the Senator from Colorado, said essentially the same thing. I
agree with it. If every $1 of rise in gas prices costs $30 million, a
$27 increase in fuel costs due to the forced use of biofuels would add
up to about $660 million. So that argument falls completely flat.
Realizing that the economic angle is a political loser, the Obama
administration has tried to say that it is about national security in
getting off of foreign oil. That is where I want to get.
I spent several years as chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee and several years as the ranking member. All during that
time, people were saying the one thing we all agree on is we need to be
off of foreign oil. We need not to be dependent upon the Middle East.
Yet right now we know no one is going to refute this fact, no one in
this room, no one today or in the future, that when we had the USGS
reports and the other reports saying that we now are in a different
position than we have been before. People are saying of the resources
and the reserves in fossil fuels--and I am talking about ``oil and
gas''--we are No. 1 in the world now. We didn't used to be. Two years
ago we couldn't have said that. Right now we are. We have the
opportunity, and we can look at the opportunity, in terms of our
reserves that are usable, of being totally self-sufficient.
The other thing that is so disturbing, when people talk about they
don't want to be dependent on the Middle East, therefore we have to
spend billions of defense dollars to experiment on biofuels when, in
fact, we could be completely self-sufficient, all we have to do is do
what every other nation in the world does, and what is that? Every
other nation in the world depletes it. They go after their own
resources. We have recoverable reserves in gas and oil to take care of
this country for the next 50 and 90 years, respectively, and yet we are
trying to use this as an argument to go and spend this money on
experimental biofuels. I think that part of the argument has to be
exposed for what it is. It is a phony argument.
You know, we look, we see, and people ask from around the world, they
say why is it that your country, the United States--in my position on
this committee I have been asked this many times--why is it that you
are the only country that won't exploit its own resources, and I say,
well, it is a political thing.
Right now if you want to do something about becoming energy totally
sufficient--I asked the other day, because the President keeps saying,
well, you know, you are wrong because if we were to develop all of our
public lands and be able to get the resources off of that, it would
take 10 years for that to reach the pump--I actually called up a man
named Harold Hamm. He has testified before our committees up here in
Washington several times. I said, let me ask you a question. I am going
to be on a TV show and they are going to ask me, if this administration
would lift all of the restrictions we have on public lands how long
would it take for the first barrel of oil that would come from that to
reach the pumps? Otherwise, you go through the refining process and all
of that, because we have heard this administration say it would take 10
years. Well, in fact, it would take--his answer was--and I said: Be
careful, Harold Hamm, because I am going to use your name on nationwide
TV. He said: Yes, I have thought about this. It would take 70 days. Not
10 years but 70 days.
So we are talking about sufficiency that we could have just in this
country in a matter of days, not in a matter of years. And I only bring
that up--and I know people don't think it should be part of this
debate, but it is because they are using the argument that we have to
use billions of defense dollars in experimenting with biofuels to wean
us off fossil fuels when, in fact, we are doing that now. And we have a
Department of Energy that is responsible for actually carrying that
out. The argument completely falls on its face.
It was the U.S. Geological Survey report that revealed that America
has 26 percent of the world's recoverable conventional oil reserves--
which is more than we are using, so we could become independent--and
almost 30 percent of the world's technically recoverable conventional
gas resources. So with all these things in mind, the Congressional
Research Service agrees and the USGS agrees we could become
independent. So it all comes together.
This isn't happening in a vacuum. We have a good bill here, and we
need to get it done in the short period of time given us by the
leadership. I think we can do it. I agree with the chairman of the
committee that we can get this done. But this one amendment is one that
would, probably more than any other amendment, take away our ability to
spend this money on readiness--on readiness for the experimental
program on green energy.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder
of the time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m.
today the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Udall amendment No.
2985; further, that there be no second-degree amendment in order to the
amendment prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to commend Chairman Levin, who has
brought his usual thoughtful approach to these issues, and to thank him
for his help specifically in two areas in which I have been interested.
I also see my friend Senator McCain. He and I have worked often on
these and other matters, and I thank him for his wise counsel as well.
[[Page S7003]]
Mr. President, as I indicated, I am going to talk briefly on two
amendments in which I have a special interest. The first is the
amendment of Senator Udall to strike section 313 of the bill.
As a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
I have followed closely the proposition that the Department of Defense
is the single largest user of energy in the United States, with annual
fuel expenditures in excess of $16 billion. This is an extraordinary
thirst the Department of Defense has for energy. It creates a host of
issues for the Pentagon, and fluctuations in global energy prices can
have dramatic effects on defense spending. For every $10 increase in a
barrel of oil, it costs the American military annually an extra $1.3
billion.
Recognizing the potential instability DOD's current energy needs can
cause, military experts from across the various branches of the armed
services have begun looking at ways to cut energy use and find energy
alternatives. I continue to hear all of this discussion about how this
is somehow a ``green agenda,'' that it is a subversive plot and that it
is being forced upon a resistant Pentagon. I would like to take a
minute or two to say that I don't think anything could be further from
the truth, and I wish to describe for a moment why I feel that way.
First, those who oppose defense energy initiatives often argue that
in today's fiscal environment, the country can't afford to waste money
on energy programs when it is necessary to provide for our Nation's
security. I don't believe it is an either/or proposition because my
view is that an investment in energy efficiency and energy self-
sufficiency is hugely important to protecting our country's national
security in a dangerous time.
I have heard some argue that military research, development, and
testing of alternatives to oil-based fuels is a ``misplacement of
priorities,'' but this argument is based largely on the proposition
that biofuels currently cost more per gallon than petroleum. But the
reality is that the makers of biofuels have not reached full-scale
production, and the Department of Defense contracts include research
and development costs. So any attempt at a gallon-to-gallon analysis of
biofuels versus petroleum is really what I would call an apples-to-
oranges comparison. The fact is that DOD investments in biofuels
development have resulted in a cost-per-gallon reduction--a cost-per-
gallon reduction of 94 percent in just the last 3 years.
Bloomberg New Energy Finance analysts predict that some aviation
biofuels will be cost-competitive with standard jet fuel by 2018, given
the continuation of current rates of development. So in about 5 years,
the American biofuels industry could produce fuel for our military
aircraft and vehicles at a cost equal to that of foreign oil.
The Truman National Security Project recently held a press call with
retired generals, and one in particular was quoted as saying the
following:
Moving away from oil . . . ensures we remain the most
capable and effective fighting force on the planet. . . . And
this is what this is all about. This is not about politics or
saving polar bears. It is about being effective as a fighting
force.
Those are not my words but the words of an important retired general.
So that is what this boils down to, in my view--having the most
effective fighting force and being in a position to save the lives of
our servicemembers.
I know there is going to be a fair amount of discussion throughout
the debate on this bill about this issue, but I continue to believe
that energy efficiency and energy self-sufficiency increase our
national security. I hope my colleagues will support the Pentagon's
alternative energy efforts and vote for Udall amendment No. 2985.
Briefly, I wish to turn my attention to the other amendment I have,
and I again thank Chairman Levin and Senator McCain for giving me this
opportunity to speak.
This morning the Associated Press reported that Iraq war contractor
Kellogg Brown & Root has sued the Federal Government to pay the $85
million in damages KBR owes soldiers sickened because of KBR's
negligence.
This case started in 2003 when members of the Oregon National Guard
were assigned to provide security for contractors from KBR in Iraq at
the Qarmat Ali water treatment facility. These soldiers and others were
exposed to dangerous levels of chemicals, including sodium dichromate,
which contains hexavalent chromium, one of the most carcinogenic
chemicals on Earth.
A group of the exposed soldiers sued KBR based on the evidence
indicating KBR managers were aware of the presence of the dangerous
chemicals but failed to warn the soldiers working in and around the
plant. A jury recently agreed that KBR was negligent and awarded the
soldiers $85 million in damages, and more of the affected soldiers also
have lawsuits pending, so the damage awards, in my view, are likely to
increase significantly.
However, a recently declassified indemnification provision in the
contract between KBR and the U.S. military for work in Iraq passed all
financial liability for misconduct from KBR to U.S. taxpayers, even in
cases of--and I want to emphasize this--willful misconduct by KBR.
These provisions also provided for unlimited reimbursement of legal
costs incurred by KBR. In effect, the company--KBR--was handed a blank
check drawn on the American taxpayer, and yesterday the company went to
court to cash that check.
My amendment would prevent DOD from putting the American taxpayer on
the hook for the negligence of contractors without notifying Congress.
Our soldiers know when they sign up that they are putting their lives
on the line, but they expect their commanders and the contractors
working beside them to not expose them to unnecessary risk.
Both the DOD inspector general and a jury have confirmed what Oregon
soldiers and I and other members of the Oregon congressional delegation
have been saying for years--that KBR failed to protect our soldiers
from a known threat. We can't know if the fact that KBR had basically a
get-out-of-jail-free card caused them to be negligent, but what we do
know is we shouldn't let this happen again.
My amendment was debated as part of the last DOD authorization bill,
and my understanding is that it was actually acceptable to both sides,
but we weren't able to get it into the final bill. I hope now,
especially in light of today's news right over the wire services this
morning, we can agree to include this amendment before more of our
brave men and women in uniform are harmed by the actions of negligent
contractors who then try to pass the buck to American taxpayers.
I again thank Chairman Levin and his staff for their leadership, and
I look forward to working with them, particularly on this amendment
here this afternoon.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the Udall
amendment, of which I am very pleased to be a cosponsor. I want to
start, though, by thanking our terrific chairman, who we are so proud
is from Michigan, and the distinguished ranking member for all their
hard work in putting together what is incredibly important to support
our troops and what they need, for their families' needs, and giving us
tools for a strong defense.
Part of having a strong defense is making sure we give the military
the flexibility they need and deserve to use the fuels that make sense
for them and not tie their hands for any reason. As we go forward, we
know there are opportunities to both save lives and dollars by using a
variety of fuels. This amendment, by striking language that stops the
military from having that flexibility, is very important.
We all know our dependence on oil has serious costs in terms of
dollars but, more importantly, in terms of lives. One in every 50
convoys results in a U.S. casualty. We lose an American life from every
50 convoys. Since 2003 more than 3,000 troops have been killed in those
attacks. Most of the time, military leaders will tell us: We are moving
troops and moving fuel to be able to support the troops. So we need to
give the military opportunities, whether it is from new kinds of
hydrogen fuel cells or biofuels or advanced batteries.
There is a tremendous amount of work that is happening in Michigan
through TACOM and TARDEC, which
[[Page S7004]]
are the arms of the Army that are doing the very important research and
development of new technologies, and they have now developed advanced
battery technology they are using in the field that will save money and
lives. So these are important things to be doing as we move forward to
the future, and the Udall amendment would guarantee we can continue to
do that.
The Navy estimates that they spend about $84 billion--$84 billion--
every year protecting oil supplies. Think about that--not being able to
do what we need to do on the front lines in terms of defense but just
protecting the oil supplies, shipping lanes, and commercial vessels in
the Persian Gulf region alone.
Again, this amendment would save lives, save money, and it would
allow the Department of Defense to move forward on these new
technologies, such as hydrogen, E85, and biofuel blends for flex-fuel
vehicles such as the ones we are building in Michigan. These new
technologies are our future. They are our future in jobs, and they
certainly are our future as it relates to saving dollars and getting us
off foreign oil and, as I said before, are so important to our military
and to all of us in saving American lives.
The operational benefits of using different kinds of fuel are
enormous. We have research going on in Michigan right now around
advanced batteries. I was pleased to be there at the launch of the
first advanced-battery Jeeps going into the field, allowing those
convoys of trucks to be brought down to a much smaller level and thus
stopping the endangerment over the years of thousands of our troops.
Shorter supply lines means more flexibility for our men and women in
uniform and less danger for them on the front lines.
I strongly support the Udall amendment. I am pleased to be a
cosponsor. This will give our military the flexibility they need to
accomplish their mission. Why in the world would we want to limit the
flexibility of our military as they move forward to the next generation
of new technologies to save dollars and lives?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
Senators Hagan, Kerry, Begich, and Franken be added as cosponsors of my
amendment No. 2985.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I believe we are reaching the
end of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All Democratic time has expired.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I would add just a couple final remarks.
I think we have heard a compelling reason to remove section 313 from
the National Defense Authorization Act. National security is energy
security and vice versa. Let's stand with our military leadership,
let's stand with our NCOs, and let's stand with our enlisted personnel
and ensure that the military can continue to invest in this important
area of energy security which will save lives, create economic
opportunity, and make sure we can project force abroad and protect the
values we hold so dear.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment at 2:00 p.m. We have
a tentative agreement.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, it is not a tentative agreement; there is
a unanimous consent order that we are going to vote at 2 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to
support this amendment at 2 p.m.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I inquire of the Chair, what are we
waiting for?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. To get on the amendment offered by the Senator
from Colorado.
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the amendment introduced by
Senator Udall of Colorado. The purpose of this amendment is to strike
section 313 from the National Defense Authorization Act that would
place undue restrictions on Department of Defense's alternative energy
investments. This provision, during our committee mark-up, passed by
the closest of margins by a 13-12 vote.
Section 313 aims to block the Department from purchasing or producing
alternative fuels if the cost exceeds that of traditional fossil fuels.
This would force key decisions regarding energy security to be made
exclusively on the basis of cost, without regard for the mission,
military capability, or circumstance.
Maybe the intent of section 313 to kill the alternative fuel project
currently being conducted under the authority of the Defense Production
Act, Title III. However, the impact this provision would have on our
military operators, creates a real strategic vulnerability to our men
and women on the ground, which reach far beyond biofuels. For example,
if the Department wanted to deploy a hydrogen-fueled unmanned aerial
vehicle that could operate for an extended duration in a combat zone,
this amendment would prevent that since the cost of hydrogen fuel may
be higher than a traditional fossil fuel. Or if the Department wanted
to generate fuel or energy at tactical locations, including waste-to-
energy technology, which the DOD is exploring today, section 313 would
again prevent that. Section 313 may also prevent the Department from
purchasing non-traditional fossil fuels, such as E85 or B20 biofuel
blends, for flex fuel vehicles. Potentially, any fuel which is not a
``traditional fossil fuel'' could be affected.
Mr. President, the sponsors of section 313 have focused on current
high costs associated with the production of alternative fuels.
However, Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, has already testified before
the Armed Services Committee that the Navy will not purchase any
alternative fuel for operational purposes until they are cost-
competitive with traditional fossil fuels. It's as simple as that. The
Department is positioning itself to take advantage of drop-in
alternative fuels when they are cost competitive with traditional
fossil fuels. This is a prudent insurance policy that requires
investments today, which section 313 would prevent.
For years now, the Department has been subjected to significant
spikes in the global price of oil, which has created huge bills to pay,
leaving less funding for training exercises, flying hours, steaming
days, and other negative impacts to readiness. The Department estimates
that for every 25 cent increase in the prices of a gallon of oil, it
costs the DOD an additional $1 billion to cover the costs, whether it
is a result of foreign actions or natural disasters such as Hurricane
Katrina. The advancement of a reliable, domestic energy source such as
biofuel would provide us with a safeguard against such unpredictable
expenses. In my view, global price volatility is a burden the
Department should not be subjected to, particularly if it can be
avoided by establishing a viable domestic alternative. Yet section 313
appears designed to ensure that the DOD remains entirely dependent upon
traditional fossil fuels.
Admittedly, the current price for alternative fuel is high. For
example, the Navy purchased biofuel this past July for demonstration
purposes at approximately $16 per gallon. Yet small batches of any new
technology are expensive, as that is the very nature of research and
development. With time to develop a domestic alternative fuel market,
the costs of alternative fuels will continue to drop, as the price has
already been cut in half since 2009. Furthermore, our military has a
rich history of innovation. Investments in technology such as global
positioning services, microchips, and the Internet have each carried
with them significant up-front costs, but have ultimately paid sizeable
dividends far beyond their initial military usage.
The Navy has a notable and effective track record in the arena of
alternative fuel development, going back to when the Navy first
switched from sails to steam and coal in the 1850s. Once again from
coal to oil around the time of World War I, and in the 1950s from oil
to nuclear propulsion for aircraft carriers and submarines. And each
period has had its complement of critics. Yet think of where we would
be today without that long-term eye toward innovation and military
capability.
In section 313 there is yet another practical problem in its
exception clause, which allows the Department to continue engine or
fleet certification of 50/50 fuel blends. That is far too narrow
[[Page S7005]]
to cover the wide-ranging array of research and development activities
conducted by the Department. In the future, it may be determined that
the proper ratio for a weapons platform requires a blend of 60/40, or
70/30. Limiting the DOD to only 50/50 blends would put an entirely
arbitrary restriction upon the Department, and is simply not wise.
Mr. President, the DOD and Secretary Mabus have told us that the
development of a domestic capability to produce cost-competitive
advanced drop-in biofuels at a commercial scale is important to our
long-term national security. It is a core defense need. We were also
reminded of our strategic vulnerability to fossil fuels and the need to
improve our energy security in the last iteration of the 2010
Quadrennial Defense Review. There are valid questions concerning how
much a gallon of biofuel will cost in the long run compared to a
traditional fossil fuel. Last year alone, the DOD purchased billions of
gallons of fuel at a cost of $15.3 billion to conduct worldwide
military operations. And we now pay 225 percent more for fossil fuel
than we did just 10 years ago. And 12 percent of our gross domestic
product goes to fuel for automobiles. By striking section 313, we allow
the DOD the freedom to pursue a domestic production capability and it
is a smart long-term investment.
Keeping section 313 would hinder efforts currently underway to
curtail our reliance on foreign oil by fostering a domestic biofuel
capacity. Those in opposition to the Department's alternative energy
investments have argued that the cost of these initiatives is too high.
They claim that the money would be better spent on other priorities
within the DOD. Mr. President, these arguments are shortsighted. The
Department has told us that investment in alternative fuels represents
less than 4 percent of the Department's total planned investment in
operational energy initiatives over the next 5 years, and less than 0.6
percent of what the Department spent on fuel last year. Our military
leaders have stated time and again that it is in our national security
interest to make these strategic investments, that there is a concrete
need to increase flexibility and insulate our forces against volatility
in the global oil market. For the future, our men and women in uniform
will need alternative fuels to keep our supplies diverse and effective,
especially for our legacy fleet of ships and planes, which will be with
us for decades to come. The DOD has been examining, testing, and
certifying alternative fuels for operational use since 2003. Last July,
the Navy successfully demonstrated biofuels with no operational
differences in the performance of their ships and aircraft. These
efforts are relatively small, yet an important part of the Department's
strategy to improve energy security.
Section 313 is in direct conflict with these goals. Reducing our
dependence on fossil fuels is a strategic vision that has been
articulated and embraced in the past on a bipartisan basis--by
President George W. Bush in his 2006 State of the Union Address and by
a large bipartisan majority in Congress in the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007. That bipartisan path is still the best approach
today.
I thank Senator Udall and the co-sponsors for introducing this
important amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this effort to
ensure that our military has the flexibility necessary to meet their
energy requirements and bolster our national security, by striking
section 313.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I understand Senator Baucus and Senator
Murray are on their way and wish 5 minutes each to speak relative to
this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that between now and 1 o'clock,
they be allocated 5 minutes each and that the amendment then still
would be the pending amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to the amendment of
Senator McCain and that when those two Senators arrive and are
recognized, they be allowed to speak for 5 minutes each on the Udall
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request for extra
time for Senator Baucus and Senator Murray?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Webb
be added as a cosponsor to Senator McCain's amendment that he is now
going to offer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Amendment No. 3051
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3051 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr.
Portman, proposes an amendment numbered 3051 to S. 3254.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To authorize additional Marine Corps personnel for the
performance of security functions for United States embassies,
consulates, and other diplomatic facilities abroad)
At the end of subtitle A of title IV, add the following:
SEC. 402. ADDITIONAL MARINE CORPS PERSONNEL FOR THE MARINE
CORPS SECURITY GUARD PROGRAM.
(a) Additional Personnel.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop and
implement a plan which shall increase the number of Marine
Corps personnel assigned to the Marine Corps Embassy Security
Group at Quantico, Virginia, and Marine Security Group
Regional Commands and Marine Security Group detachments at
United States missions around the world by up to 1,000
Marines during fiscal years 2014 through 2017.
(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the increase under paragraph
(1) shall be to provide the end strength and resources
necessary to support an increase in Marine Corps security at
United States consulates and embassies throughout the world,
and in particular at locations identified by the Secretary of
State as in need of increased security in light of threats to
United States personnel and property by terrorists.
(b) Consultation.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop
and implement the plan required by subsection (a) in
consultation with the Secretary of State pursuant to the
responsibility of the Secretary of State for diplomatic
security under section 103 of the Diplomatic Security Act (22
U.S.C. 4802), and in accordance with any current memorandum
of understanding between the Department of State and the
Marine Corps on the operational and administrative
supervision of the Marine Corps Security Guard Program.
(c) Funding.--
(1) Budget requests.--The budget of the President for each
fiscal year after fiscal year 2013, as submitted to Congress
pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code,
shall set forth as separate line elements, under the amounts
requested for such fiscal year for each of procurement,
operation and maintenance, and military personnel to fully
fund each of the following:
(A) The Marine Corps.
(B) The Marine Corps Security Guard Program, including for
the additional personnel under the Marine Corps Security
Guard Program as result of the plan required by subsection
(a).
(2) Preservation of funding for usmc under national
military strategy.--In determining the amounts to be
requested for a fiscal year for the Marine Corps Security
Guard Program and for additional personnel under the Marine
Corps Security Guard Program under paragraph (1), the
President shall ensure that amounts requested for the Marine
Corps for that fiscal year do not degrade the readiness of
the Marine Corps to fulfill the requirements of the National
Military Strategy.
(d) Reports.--
(1) Reports on program.--Not later than October 1, 2014,
and annually thereafter through October 1, 2017, the
Secretary of Defense shall, in coordination with the
Secretary of State, submit to Congress a report on the Marine
Corps Security Guard Program. Each report shall include the
following:
(A) A description of the expanded security support provided
by Marine Corps Security Guards to the Department of State
during the fiscal year ending on the date of such report,
including--
(i) any increased internal security provided at United
States embassies and consulates throughout the world;
(ii) any increased support for emergency action planning,
training, and advising of host nation security forces; and
(iii) any expansion of intelligence collection activities.
(B) A description of the current status of Marine Corps
personnel assigned to the Program as a result of the plan
required by subsection (a).
(C) A description of the Department of Defense resources
required in the fiscal year ending on the date of such report
to support the Marine Corps Security Guard program,
[[Page S7006]]
including total end strength and key supporting programs that
enable both its current and expanded mission during such
fiscal year.
(D) A reassessment of the mission of the Program, as well
as procedural rules of engagement under the Program, in light
of current and emerging threats to United States diplomatic
personnel, and a description and assessment of options to
improve the Program to respond to such threats.
(E) An assessment of the feasibility and advisability of
authorizing, funding, and administering the Program as a
separate program within the Marine Corps, and if such actions
are determined to be feasible and advisable, recommendations
for legislative and administrative actions to provide for
authorizing, funding, and administering the Program as a
separate program within the Marine Corps.
(2) Report on changes in scope of program in response to
changing threats.--If the President determines that a
modification (whether an increase or a decrease) in the scope
of the Marine Corps Security Guard Program is necessary or
advisable in light of any change in the nature of threats to
United States embassies, consulates and other diplomatic
facilities abroad, the President shall--
(A) notify Congress of such modification and the change in
the nature of threats prompting such modification; and
(B) take such modification into account in requesting an
end strength and funds for the Program for any fiscal year in
which such modification is in effect.
Mr. McCAIN. This amendment is to authorize additional Marine Corps
personnel for the performance of security functions for the U.S.
Embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic facilities abroad.
The tragic events in Benghazi on September 11 and the ongoing tumult
throughout the Middle East and north Africa should serve as a stark
reminder that the security environment confronting American personnel
serving in U.S. Embassies and consulates abroad is as dangerous as any
time I can remember.
Despite claims by some, al-Qaida and its affiliates remain dangerous
and determined to kill Americans. This reality must force us to
reassess the threat to U.S. Embassies and consulates around the world
and provide additional resources and military end strength; that is,
U.S. marines, to increase protection of diplomatic personnel from those
threats. This amendment will do that. It will provide the necessary end
strength and resources to support an increase in Marine Corps security
at U.S. Embassies and consulates throughout the world--up to 1,000
additional personnel--in particular at locations identified by the
Secretary of State as in need of increased security in light of known
and emerging threats to U.S. personnel and property by terrorists.
Most Americans believe that U.S. marines are stationed to protect our
Embassy personnel abroad, but I think they would be surprised to learn
that marines are assigned in only slightly more than half of our
diplomatic missions worldwide--182 missions in 137 countries. Moreover,
their numbers are small. A typical detachment consists of only six
military Marine personnel. Today there are 126 U.S. diplomatic missions
outside the United States without Marine Corps security protection,
including parts of Asia and Africa where we suspect al-Qaida is
expanding its presence.
As the nature of threats to American diplomatic personnel is
changing, the Marine Corps security guard mission has not. The current
mission of this program dates back to the post-war era of 1948,
principally for the protection of classified information and equipment
in diplomatic facilities.
The Marine Security Guard Program is also the only Marine Corps
program that is under the operational command of the Department of
State. For this reason, this amendment would also require the President
to present discrete budget requests for Marine Corps security personnel
overseas in support of diplomatic personnel and Marine Corps end
strength and resources required to maintain readiness to protect our
national security. These are distinct missions, and increasing one--as
is necessary in light of the attack in Benghazi--cannot come at the
expense of another.
Americans may believe our marines are the first line of defense in
attacks on diplomatic compounds overseas. The truth is that they are
not. They are not mandated to engage with attackers and in some cases
may not be permitted to engage. For this reason, this amendment calls
on the Department of Defense to reassess this mission and rules of
engagement as we increase our capability to protect embassies and
consulates throughout the world.
As the world now knows, there were no marine guards at the consulate
at Benghazi at the time of the September 11 attack despite the rapidly
deteriorating security situation. Would their presence have made a
difference and saved the lives of our heroic Ambassador and his
security personnel? I think I know the answer to that question, and so
do the American people.
So I think it is time for the administration to rapidly complete a
reassessment of the risk to U.S. personnel conducting diplomacy abroad
posed by terrorists and others wishing to do us harm and ensure that
personnel at all 285 missions, not just 182, have adequate protection,
including by U.S. marines. I am not saying this amendment requires that
marine presence at every one of these missions. What we are saying is
that as a result of the risk assessments, we have sufficient
authorization and appropriation for adequate protection, part of
which--and a major part--is the presence of the U.S. Marine Corps.
I call on my colleagues to fulfill the mission of the Marine Security
Guard Program to ensure that U.S. personnel are protected and authorize
the necessary end strength and resources for the Marine Corps to
achieve this necessary goal.
Mr. President, at this time I yield to Senator Murray.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Amendment No. 2985
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for
allowing me to speak about an amendment we are going to be voting on at
2 o'clock. I wish to express my concerns with provisions in the Defense
authorization bill that we are currently considering that would limit
the Department of Defense in investing in alternative fuels.
This underlying bill is a very important piece of legislation. I have
always supported it to make sure our military has the equipment and
resources and effective policies it needs to perform its mission. But I
can't support the inclusion of provisions that would severely limit the
Department's ability to use alternative fuels. I strongly believe those
limitations will cause lasting harm to our national security and our
military readiness and our efforts to decrease American dependence on
foreign oil. That is why we are considering an amendment that I
cosponsored that will strike one of those troubling provisions in
section 313 of the committee-passed bill.
As many of our colleagues are aware, DOD is the single largest
consumer of oil in the world, using over 355,000 barrels of oil per day
in fiscal year 2011. Even though we have increased the domestic supply
of traditional fossil fuels here in the United States, the price of oil
is still set on the global market. That means that DOD's fuel bill was
significantly more than it had budgeted for, mostly, of course, due to
the price of fuel being higher than expected. In fact, in fiscal year
2012, the Navy alone was $500 million over its budget for fuel, and
that is just one of our services. So what does that mean? It means our
military leaders have had to pull billions of dollars from operational
accounts in recent years, which has led to decreased unit readiness,
deferred maintenance on some of their critical equipment, and less
training for our troops preparing for deployment into harm's way.
Conveniently, critics of biofuels leave out these very real threats
when they insist on the kinds of harmful policies the amendment we are
offering addresses.
It is true that alternative fuels will not replace fossil fuels in
the immediate future, but it is also true that replacing even a
fraction of the oil consumed by the Department of Defense with domestic
alternative fuels will advance our national security and our military
readiness, it will save many millions of dollars, and it will protect
the Department from the price volatility of the global oil market and
spur a domestic industry that will decrease our dependence on foreign
oil.
Some of our colleagues have said this is all about the cost of
alternative fuel, and they will likely use some misleading figures
attributed to a training
[[Page S7007]]
exercise that actually, by the way, ended up proving these types of
fuels work seamlessly. But the truth is that the cost of biofuels has
decreased by over 50 percent in the last 2 years alone. The truth is
that the test fuel purchase they like to mention was only 0.3 percent
of the Navy's annual fuel bill. And the truth is that those concerns
over costs don't take into account the very real and very high price of
inaction and continued dependence on oil.
I mentioned earlier that the Department uses 355,000 barrels of oil
every day. The Department estimates that for every 25-cent increase in
the price per gallon of oil, it will spend over $1 billion in
additional fuel costs. Given the high price of oil and gas, that is not
a bet I want to make long term.
We are facing difficult fiscal times, as everyone here knows, and the
Department of Defense, like the rest of the Federal Government, has to
make sure it is responsibly spending taxpayer dollars--today and
tomorrow. The Department's efforts to develop alternative fuels is in
keeping with the best traditions of military technology development
programs.
In the past, programs have brought us products that have benefited
both DOD and the civilian users, such as GPS or jet engines, microwave
ovens, and cell phones. Our Navy pioneered the transition from sails to
coal, from coal to oil, and from oil to nuclear power. I know we can
make the next leap to alternative fuels--and we need to.
Our Nation's reliance on foreign oil is a significant and well-
recognized military vulnerability. Our military leaders are telling us
the ability to use fuels other than petroleum is critical to our
national energy security. The Department is strongly opposed to the
language limiting its flexibility in the committee-passed bill, and DOD
supports our amendment.
I urge our colleagues to join us and support the amendment we will be
voting on shortly and strike this troubling provision.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Amendment No. 3051
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent the following Senators be added
as cosponsors to my amendment No. 3051: Senators Inhofe, Ayotte, Brown
of Massachusetts, and Webb.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Boxer also
be allocated 5 minutes to speak on the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, are we going to voice-vote the amendment
at this time?
Mr. LEVIN. Can I ask the Senator from Montana if he wishes to speak
on the Udall amendment?
Mr. BAUCUS. Correct.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on Senator
McCain's amendment No. 3051. We are not quite ready.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Amendment No. 2985
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my good friends from Michigan and
Arizona for their gracious willingness to find an opportunity for me to
make a brief statement.
I rise today in strong support of the amendment to protect the
military's ability to purchase American-made fuels.
Powering our military with American-made energy makes our country
safer and our economy stronger. Tying our hands and forcing the
American military to depend on foreign oil is short-sighted and
dangerous. Instead, we need to give our commanders the flexibility to
power our military with homegrown energy, like Montana camelina that
supports jobs right here in America.
The Department of Defense is the largest single user of oil in the
world--consuming more than 355,000 barrels of oil per day last year.
Despite increased domestic production of fossil fuels, rising global
prices and market volatility caused DOD's fuel bill to rise by more
than $19 billion in 2011. The trend is expected to continue.
This is why I strongly support the efforts of our military leaders--
that is what they want--to develop and employ alternative fuels. Our
military leaders recognize the problem of rising fuel costs and
dependence on foreign oil. The Pentagon's largest energy user, the Air
Force, has established a goal of purchasing half of its domestically
consumed aviation fuel from alternative sources by the end of 2016. The
Navy has also invested in the F-18 Green Hornet program--a fighter jet
powered by a biofuel blend.
The DOD relies on a sustainable biofuel market to meet its goal of
lessening the nation's dependence on foreign oil. It is very important
to the Pentagon. Regrettably, a provision in the underlying bill will
limit our military's ability to develop alternative fuels.
Members on both sides of the aisle are concerned that this section of
the Committee-passed bill would cause harm to our national security and
military readiness. That is why I am fighting to allow the Pentagon to
enter into long-term deals to buy biofuels as long as they are made
right here in the USA.
Montana is in the perfect position to provide the homegrown fuels our
Nation needs to move toward energy security.
There is clearly a demand from both the military and the private
sector to use American-made biofuels.
In 2011, the Navy, the Department of Energy and the Department of
Agriculture aimed to assist the development and support of a
sustainable commercial biofuels industry. They investigated the
development biofuels as alternatives to diesel and jet fuels.
The agreement included Montana farmers and corporations. Limitations
placed on our military's procurement of alternative fuel would be
detrimental to Montana's alternative fuel industry.
As a result of investing in biofuels, renewable Montana-grown crops
like camelina have been used by our military as the predominate
feedstock for biofuel blends. I call these freedom fuels. Why? Because
they help get us off of foreign oil and help bring good paying jobs to
Montana.
Researchers at Montana State University Northern in Havre, MT showed
early that camelina to be a promising dryland crop for use in biodiesel
and other bioproducts. Camelina, also known as ``Gold of Pleasure,'' is
an oilseed crop that includes canola, mustard and broccoli. The small-
seeded, cool-climate crop has been grown in Europe and the Northern
plains of the United States.
Since its initial production, the cost per gallon of camelina-based
fuel in Montana has dropped annually by half.
That is another reason why I think it makes sense to ramp up our
domestic energy production, whether it is biofuels wind, coal, oil,
natural gas, or hydropower. We need an energy policy that puts America
back in control. We must reduce our dependence on foreign oil and work
to develop all of our domestic resources--just like we have in my State
of Montana.
Alternative fuels will not replace fossils fuels all-together--no
way. However, replacing even a small fraction of fuel consumed by our
military with alternative fuels made here in the United States can
improve strategic flexibility, insulate the defense budget from spikes
in the cost fossil fuels, create good-paying jobs for Americans, and
make the United States a more secure nation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer
be allocated 5 minutes of debate time on the Udall amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Amendment No. 3051
Mr. LEVIN. We are waiting for just one further word on the McCain
amendment. We hope to be able to voice-vote that in the next few
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the matter of Senator Boxer, without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the McCain amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to the amendment.
[[Page S7008]]
The amendment (No. 3051) was agreed to.
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.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, was Senator Boxer's 5 minutes agreed to?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a
period of debate only on S. 3254, the Defense authorization bill, until
2 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
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.
Fiscal Cliff
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, while we are waiting for
further debate on the Defense authorization bill and any possible
amendments, I wanted to offer a couple of comments regarding all of the
concern in the Nation about the fiscal cliff as we approach that
fateful day of December 31 and the need to get something done.
In the opinion of this Senator, sequestration, which is this
additional cut of $1 trillion in a most unorthodox way, is like a meat
cleaver coming down and cutting off--I am rounding here--$\1/2\
trillion off defense and $\1/2\ trillion off nondefense discretionary.
Sequestration, let us remember, in the historical context was never
supposed to happen. Sequestration was a mechanism that was set up in
the Budget Control Act in August 2011, almost a year and a half ago.
The act called for $1 trillion to be cut off of the top to begin with,
and it set up a process by which additional deficit reduction over a
10-year period would occur. That process was--after the $1 trillion was
whacked off, which it already has been--a supercommittee of six from
the House and six from the Senate would deliberate and a majority vote
of that committee of 12 could determine additional deficit reduction
that would apply over the next 10 years.
To give a little incentive for that supercommittee not to deadlock,
the process of sequestration was set up which, in effect, was this meat
cleaver that in a nondiscriminate way was going to drop a meat ax
approach of another $\1/2\ trillion out of defense and $\1/2\ trillion
out of nondefense discretionary, which nobody wanted. It was never
contemplated sequestration was going to go into effect because the
effects were going to be so onerous that surely people of goodwill
could come together on a 12-member committee and not deadlock. But,
instead, at least one would provide the majority, even if it were only
7 to 5 out of the 12, because the alternative was so unpalatable.
Of course, we know what happened. People of goodwill, in this highly
charged atmosphere of the coming Presidential election--this is almost
a year and a half ago--could not agree. The ugly head of excessive
partisanship raised itself, and the ugly head of excessive ideological
rigidity raised itself, and the supercommittee deadlocked 6 to 6 which,
under the law, left the meat cleaver to drop, the budget meat ax to
drop. That is what we are facing today. We are facing something that
nobody ever intended to go into effect.
So how do we get out of this? We have people of goodwill that have to
be reasonable and utilize a little common sense, lessen their
partisanship, lessen their ideological rigidity. That is the atmosphere
under which we can come together.
I wish to tell a story and then I am going to sit down. I wish to
tell the story about one of the brightest shining moments in government
which occurred back in 1983 when this Senator was a young Congressman.
We were within 6 months of Social Security running out of money. Two
old Irishmen, one who was President, and his name was Reagan, and the
other one who was Speaker, and his name was O'Neill, decided they were
going to do something about this. They were reasonable people who could
operate in a bipartisan way and in a nonideological way.
They said: What we are going to do is take this subject that is so
thorny--namely, Social Security--so thorny at the time of elections,
and we are going to take it off the table at the next election so as
not to use it as a hammer to beat your opponent over the head, and we
are going to do it in the mechanism of a blue ribbon panel that is
going to make recommendations on the solvency of Social Security.
That committee met. They reported to the Congress in a bipartisan
way, and the Congress passed that recommendation overwhelmingly. The
President signed it into law, and that made Social Security solvent for
the next 50-plus years from 1983. I think the most current estimates
are that it is now something like 2034.
So we see what was done so effectively. But we have to have people of
good will who will come together and will do so with some common sense,
which is what this place has not been operating on in a long while.
I wanted to share that memory of one of the great moments of
government working as our government is intended to work.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the
approximately 20,000 military families with loved ones on the autism
spectrum. Sadly, thousands of these Americans suffering from autism are
not receiving the treatments that are the best practices that have been
determined they need. These military families are receiving fewer
services than their civilian government counterparts across the
country, many of whom have been rightly aided by laws passed in over 60
percent of our States representing over 75 percent of the country's
population.
Autism places tremendous strains on our Nation's military families
and nonmilitary families--including tremendous health, financial, and
emotional tolls. I wish to share briefly just a couple stories from our
brave military families.
One veteran was severely wounded in Iraq while heroically serving our
country. His injuries forced him to medically retire. Because he is
retired, his autistic son Shane was no longer eligible to receive the
ABA services he had previously received. The wait list for Medicaid
waiver services is over 9 years. Shane's family had to sell their home
to pay the roughly $5,000 per month of out-of-pocket expenses that the
ABA treatments require that he so desperately needs. The money is
running out for their family, and their family's effort is only to do
what is best for their son. Without any relief, we risk allowing brave
military families just like this one to fall through the cracks.
Another Active-Duty marine, who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan
three times, has maxed out his ABA care for therapy treatments to treat
his 11-year-old autistic son Joshua. Joshua is nonverbal and his safety
is a key concern, so Joshua is prescribed 35 hours of these ABA therapy
treatments each week. Due to the severity of Joshua's symptoms, the
family is faced with the nearly impossible decision of forgoing the
recommended care for their son or paying the bills out of pocket as
long as they are able to.
In my opinion--and it is shared by many families--this should never
happen to any child, but it should also particularly not happen to the
child of someone from our military service. That is why I am submitting
an
[[Page S7009]]
amendment requiring TRICARE to cover medically recommended autism
treatments, including ABA therapy, in a manner that is consistent with
best practices so our military families, our heroes, get the care they
need for their children, children such as Shane and Joshua.
Every parent who has a child with autism faces challenges in ensuring
that their child has access to the treatments they desperately need.
For military families, these challenges are often compounded by
frequent deployments overseas, frequent movements to different bases
across State lines, and sometimes gaps in coverage.
Today, TRICARE coverage of ABA is severely limited. It is capped at
$36,000 per year for an Active-Duty servicemember. This falls far below
what is medically recommended. This care is limited to Active-Duty
servicemembers only. Guard and Reserve families receive intermittent
care, and children of retirees cannot get any coverage at all.
As a consequence, military servicemembers must often turn to State-
run Medicaid programs to help their children, but these programs are
often unavailable to a mobile military family because of the extensive
wait lists. In Maryland, for example, the wait is 17 years long,
essentially eliminating ABA coverage during the early development years
when a child needs it most. The wait list in Virginia, for example, is
over 10 years long.
Even more remarkable than TRICARE not covering these treatments is
that the Office of Personnel Management has already determined that
such treatments may be covered as medical therapies for Federal
civilian employees. A recent court decision, which DOD is still
reviewing and may appeal, determined that TRICARE must cover these
treatments, but this decision is being applied under the most narrow
definition in the interim, limiting the potential pool of providers.
This amendment basically requires TRICARE to provide coverage and
deliver services in a manner that is consistent with best practices.
This would, thereby, improve access to care for our military families,
and it would finally align TRICARE with the other types of coverage
that is available in civilian sectors.
We have a duty to stand by our military families and to address this
very difficult health issue that affects their children. When we ask
our men and women to serve, we promise we will support them and their
families. This amendment simply fulfills that promise.
I also rise to speak about another issue concerning the armed
services authorization bill, and this is equally as serious and
troublesome; that is, the issue of sexual violence.
While the vast majority of our servicemembers serve our country
honorably and bravely and are simply the best our country has to offer,
sexual violence in the military continues to occur at an alarming rate
by a minority of servicemembers who should not be serving.
Despite Secretary Panetta's efforts to create a zero-tolerance policy
in 2011, still more than 3,000 military sexual assaults were reported.
But the DOD's estimates themselves indicate that number is much closer
to 19,000 cases.
In the words of DOD:
[Sexual violence in the military] is an affront to the
basic American values we defend, and may degrade military
readiness, subvert strategic goodwill, and forever change the
lives of victims and their families.
All our service branches have in place some version of a policy that
sends convicted sex offenders to an administrative separation process
for discharge. However, the most recent Annual Report on Sexual Assault
in the Military shows that in fiscal year 2011, 36 percent of convicted
sex offenders remained in the Armed Services, despite these policies.
If one-third of convicted sex offenders within the military are being
retained, then clearly we must do better. Creating a uniform standard
to correct deficiencies in the respective branch policies would be a
good step forward.
Experts reviewing current policies have found that the Navy has
established a mandatory policy that calls for administrative discharge
of any personnel who are convicted of a sex offense.
My amendment would require the Department to oversee that each
service branch establish policies that would mandate servicemembers
convicted of a sex offense be processed for administrative separation.
This means each such perpetrator would get due process but that the
process would be required.
This amendment is common sense, and it is one that would strengthen
the policies the services have actually already put in place and
reinforce DOD's zero-tolerance policy.
I am very pleased Senators Collins and Snowe have joined me as
cosponsors of this amendment, and I wish to thank them for their
leadership.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Cardin are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2985
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the Udall
amendment. I have great admiration and respect for the Senator from
Colorado as well as his cousin who now presides. I have concerns about
this amendment that were raised during the committee markup. I think
they have become even more of a concern since that time period.
Let me begin by saying as someone who spent 5 years in the Pentagon,
one as a marine and four as a defense executive, I would hope that the
top order of business for our President as he begins his next term
would be to call for a reexamination, a rigorous reexamination of all
of the programs in the Department of Defense.
In other words, not quite to zero-based but to examine the
justifications for all of the programs that are in place with an eye
toward the realities of the future, I think we could benefit as a
country. People who care about national security, but also care about
the tax bills they are getting, would benefit as well from something of
a triage of the programs in the Department of Defense.
We should ask the Secretary of Defense and his people who work--or
her--with these programs to examine which programs in DOD are the must-
haves, which are absolutely vital to our national security, and which
programs are the need-to-haves, the programs that might place our
national security at some level of risk if they were to be altered or
modified. Then we also need to have some painful examination of
programs that might be called the nice-to-haves, those that are
essentially ancillary to the harder definitions of national security,
even though they have been supported.
I would say these, the costly biofuels programs, in the sense that we
are proposing to fund them in the operational environment at this time,
would have to qualify as nice-to-haves. That does not mean we should
eliminate the biofuels programs. There is money in R&D to continue to
examine them.
But I will tell you, Mr. President, what a must-have is. A must-have
is our shipbuilding program. When I was commissioned in the U.S. Marine
Corps in 1968, we had 930 combatant ships in the U.S. Navy. By the time
we went into the post-Vietnam drawdowns, we had 479 combatants.
When I was Secretary of the Navy in 1987-1988, we were able to
rebuild the Navy up to 568 combatants. Since that time, national
strategy has changed. Our commitments have changed, but the size of the
Navy has been dramatically reduced down to the point where today it is
about 285 operational combatant vessels.
We have been trying, since I came to the Senate, to rebuild the Navy
up to a
[[Page S7010]]
minimum of 313 combatants. It is very difficult to do this when we have
other programs in place that are not directly contributing to our
national security but are competing for programs.
I understand the concerns about energy independence. I also would
like to remind my colleagues of the advances we have made in this
country in that area just over the past few years in a way that many of
us could not even have imagined 6 years ago when I came to the Senate.
The International Energy Agency just made a report called ``The World
Energy Outlook,'' and in this report as summarized by Reuters the
United States, according to their estimates, will overtake Saudi Arabia
and Russia as the world's top oil producer by 2017.
IAEA Chief Economist Faith Birol told a news conference in London
that he believed the United States would overtake Russia as the biggest
gas producer by a significant margin by 2015, and by 2017 it would
become the world's largest oil producer.
Will this prediction hold out? I don't know, but are we on our way
toward significant gains in terms of our energy independence? Yes, we
are. The language in section 313, which this amendment proposes to
strike--I want to be very clear about this--does not affect programs
that have been discussed here in such areas as hydrogen fuel as a fuel
of choice for engine design or doing away with R&D dollars. It is just
not true.
It states, in part, that this restriction goes to the cost of
producing or purchasing alternative fuels if they exceed the cost of
producing traditional fossil fuel that would be used for the same
purpose--very narrowly defined.
There is a second paragraph in section 313 that goes to an exception
to this program, which only applies to 50-50 blends of fuels. I
personally believe that section should be modified and actually could
be modified in conference. I think it is too narrow. But in general
this is not a paragraph that totally does away with the biofuels
program in the Department of Defense.
We have to make decisions. We have to get competitive programs into
the Department of Defense. We must increase the readiness. We are not
proposing to decrease the research and development programs. For those
reasons, I will be opposing this amendment with the hope that we can
continue the R&D programs for biofuels.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to be very proud to support
amendment No. 2985. I think it has to do with our military readiness; I
think it has to do with our national security; and I think that the
fact that we have this opportunity is commendable. I thank Senator
Udall for it.
Striking section 313 is important because that section harms DOD's
ability to diversify its fuel supplies by developing and using
effective alternative fuels.
Now, lots of colleagues can come down here and proclaim this isn't
important or it is important. You know what. I want to listen to the
DOD themselves and what they say. There was an Armed Forces press
service news report in July 2012, and this is what they said:
Smart investing and less reliance on petroleum-based fuels
will help ensure an agile, lethal, and adaptable combat
force, and, ultimately, national security.
So, Mr. President, I was distraught when I heard that the Armed
Services Committee, by one vote, put in the section that would stop the
ability of the DOD to invest in these very important fuels so they can
have an ``agile, lethal, and adaptable combat force and, ultimately,
national security.''
Now this is coming from the DOD. Why on Earth would anyone support
something that the DOD tried to take away, the ability of the DOD to
have an agile force?
I don't understand it. I can't understand it. The report also quotes
Assistant Secretary of Defense Sharon Burke who said:
The department is going to have ships, planes and vehicles
that were designed to use petroleum fuels for a very long
time to come. . . . [Alternative fuels] investment ensures
our equipment can operate on a wide range of fuels, and
that's important for our readiness over the long term.
How many wars do we have to have over oil?
How many wars do we have over oil? I can tell you a story from a
colleague of mine who said he went up to the White House when George W.
Bush was President before the Iraq war, and George W. Bush had pictures
of all the oil wells in Iraq.
If anyone says there was no connection to oil and that war, I would
say they are wrong. I have met with many veterans who say the same
thing. They don't want to go and fight and die for oil.
So this is of critical importance, this vote. There is no more
important mission for the Department of Defense than to fight and win
battles needed to defend our Nation and return our troops home safely
to their families.
Section 313 could undercut the ability of the Department of Defense
to achieve these goals.
In a letter to Senator Udall, Vice Admiral Cullom said:
Section 313--
That's the section we are trying to strike--
Section 313 is overly broad and has the potential to
restrict investments that would address tactical and
operational needs for our Navy. . . . As fuel technologies
advance, the Navy may wish to test and satisfy multiple types
of alternative fuel, including some that might be 100 percent
alternative fuel, not a blend.
Why would anyone in this Senate want to stop us from developing
alternative fuels? I don't get it. We are trying so hard to become
energy independent. We have made great success under President Obama
with fuel economy in place and investment in alternative energy.
The military says it is important for them to ``ensure an agile,
lethal and adaptable combat force, and ultimately, national security.''
Their words. In addition to everything else, this is a need that the
military has definitely outlined for us.
A Statement of Administration Policy on the House Defense
authorization bill, which contains a nearly identical provision, says
that affecting DOD's ability to procure alternative fuels in this way
would ``further increase America's reliance on fossil fuels, thereby
contributing to geopolitical instability and endangering our interests
abroad.''
Some of the same people who called for boycotts on Iran, which I
support, somehow believe it is not important for us to be free from
reliance on those kinds of countries for our oil. It makes no sense. We
can't make these compartments. We are going after countries that have
oil, and we are right to do it because they are dangerous, many of
them. We are embargoing. We have embargoes on many of them. We have
sanctions on many of them. At the same time, with the other hand we are
saying to the DOD: Forget about alternative fuels. It makes no sense
from a national security perspective.
In addition to harming the military's ability to achieve its goals
that I have outlined here, that were written very clearly by the
Defense Department itself, section 313 precludes research into fuels
such as hydrogen, which has the potential to power some military
vehicles over much longer missions.
I have been around a while. Something tells me Big Oil is calling the
shots. I would hope not, but I don't understand why this section, which
Senator Udall is trying to strike, is in this bill when the military
says it is critical for them to continue this program.
The section could also prevent DOD from purchasing fuels that are
sold today in the United States, such as E-85, which is 85 percent
ethanol. The Department of Defense has flex-fuel vehicles in its suite
that can run on E-85.
Can you imagine going after that as well? It would restrict DOD's
efforts to develop technologies to generate fuel at tactical locations,
including waste to energy. These are precisely the types of
technologies in which the Nation should be investing.
I thank Senator Udall for bringing this to our attention. This is a
very important amendment, perhaps one of the most important I have
voted on in a long time.
I will close by saying this: If you believe this country should be
energy independent, then vote with Senator Udall. If you believe it is
dangerous for us to rely on oil from countries who want to cause us
harm, then you
[[Page S7011]]
should support the Udall amendment. If you believe it is good for our
health, our environment, to invest in alternative energy, then vote for
the Udall amendment. It is a win-win-win and, most of all, the military
tells us we should continue this program. It is important so that we
have an agile, adaptable force, and it is important for our national
security.
I will be proud to vote for this amendment.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Colorado
is recognized.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be lifted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
Senators Baucus, Coons, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Lieberman, Stabenow,
Cantwell, Schumer, Durbin, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Bennet,
Blumenthal, Whitehouse, and Collins be added as cosponsors to my
amendment No. 2985.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it so ordered.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill 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. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2985.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 37, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 206 Leg.]
YEAS--62
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hoeven
Inouye
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--37
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Hatch
Heller
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Toomey
Vitter
Webb
Wicker
NOT VOTING--1
Kirk
The amendment (No. 2985) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MANCHIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3016
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that we proceed
to the consideration of amendment No. 3016 of Senator Gillibrand.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. I was going to add something further to the request, and
that is that there be 5 minutes of debate on the Gillibrand amendment
and then Senator Mikulski be recognized to speak as in morning business
for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator will suspend for a moment.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I request my amendment be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New York [Mrs. Gillibrand], for herself,
Ms. Collins, and Ms. Snowe, proposes an amendment numbered
3016.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for the processing for administrative separation
from the Armed Forces of members who are convicted of certain sexual
offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and not punitively
discharged in connection with such convictions)
On page 138, strike lines 14 through 20 and insert the
following:
(8) A requirement that each Secretary of a military
department establish policies that require that each member
of the Armed Forces under the jurisdiction of such Secretary
whose conviction for a covered offense is final and who is
not punitively discharged from the Armed Forces in connection
with such conviction be processed for administrative
separation from the Armed Forces, which requirement shall not
be interpreted to limit or alter the authority of such
Secretary to process members of the Armed Forces for
administrative separation for other offenses or under other
provisions of law.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``covered offense'' means the following:
(A) Rape or sexual assault under subsection (a) or (b) of
section 920 of title 10, United States Code (article 120 of
the Uniform Code of Military Justice).
(B) Forcible sodomy under section 925 of title 10, United
States Code (article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice).
(C) An attempt to commit an offense specified in
subparagraph (A) or (B) under section 880 of title 10, United
States Code (article 80 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice).
(2) The term ``special victim offenses'' means offenses
involving allegations of any of the following:
(A) Child abuse.
(B) Rape, sexual assault, or forcible sodomy.
(C) Domestic violence involving aggravated assault.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an amendment
that I believe is on an incredibly urgent matter.
Today the vast majority, almost all of our servicemembers, serve this
country so honorably, so bravely. But there is a very small number who
do not, who are engaging in sexual assault in the military. Despite
Secretary Panetta's efforts to have a zero tolerance policy in this
country, in 2011 alone there were 3,000 military assaults reported, and
the Secretary of Defense reports the real number is much closer to
19,000 assaults. In the words of the DOD, sexual violence in the
military ``is an affront to the basic American values we defend, and
may degrade military readiness, subverts our strategic goodwill, and
forever changes the lives of victims and their families.''
My amendment is very simple. Today each of the services have policies
that address this issue, but the one that the Navy has is the best. My
amendment requires the Department to oversee that each of the service
branches has established a policy that would mandate that
servicemembers convicted of sexual offenses will be processed for
administrative separation.
The reason this is so important is because one-third of convicted
sexual offenders in the military are still retained. They are still
serving. So, obviously, we must do better. We need a uniform standard
to correct these deficiencies in the respective branch policies to be
able to serve our military families and our military members as we
should.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the
Gillibrand amendment.
[[Page S7012]]
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I would like to say Senator Collins
and Senator Snowe are cosponsors of this amendment.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of this
amendment, which will require that every military service must
establish a crystal-clear, zero-tolerance policy that military
personnel who are convicted of a sexual offense will not be permitted
to continue to serve our Nation in uniform.
According to the Department of Defense, approximately 3,000 sexual
assaults were reported in the military in 2011. Yet some estimate that
the actual number of sexual assaults in our military in 2011 is closer
to 19,000, accounting for the terrible reality that many attacks are
never reported. Without question, this is an entirely unacceptable
situation, and is another compelling reason that the Department of
Defense, as well as Congress, must continue to do what is necessary to
eliminate, once and for all, sexual assaults from occurring within our
military ranks.
Unfortunately, as my colleague Senator Gillibrand has noted, each of
the services have different policies for dealing with military
personnel who are convicted of a sexual offense. As a result, according
to the Department of Defense's April 2012 Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response report, approximately 40 percent of servicemembers who have
been convicted of a sexual offense in a courts-martial are not
discharged or dismissed as part of that judgment.
Our honorable and law-abiding military personnel deserve far better.
And that is why our amendment is so important. By requiring all
military services to establish a policy that all who are convicted of
sexual assaults must be processed for administrative separation from
the military, we will remove from our military ranks sexual assault
offenders who threaten the welfare of the men and women of our armed
services, as well as their families.
I was very pleased to join with Senator Gillibrand in crafting this
amendment, and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage
today. Unfortunately, our work is not yet done, which is why I have
also joined with Senator Klobuchar to develop several additional
amendments to this bill in furtherance of the effort to eradicate
sexual assault in the military. I urge my colleagues to join us in
supporting each of these amendments as well. We owe it to our military
personnel to do everything possible to stop sexual assaults from
occurring within our armed services.
Mr. LEVIN. I know of no further debate on the Gillibrand amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on the adoption of the amendment, No. 3016.
The amendment was agreed to.
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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. I understand under the unanimous consent agreement the
Senator from Maryland is to be recognized for 5 minutes as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
The Fiscal Cliff
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am not going to linger because there
is much to be discussed on the Defense authorization. What I wish to
talk about for a few minutes is about the safety and security of the
United States of America, meaning our solvency and the demonstration of
our ability to govern.
We need a sense of urgency about solving the fiscal cliff problem. We
need to end the culture of delay in this institution. I am very
concerned that as we talk about solving the problems of the fiscal
cliff, there is this whole dynamic going on. There is this whole patter
going on, from staff level to Senators. It is, oh, we are going to be
here until Christmas Eve.
I think that is a disaster. I think it is a disaster for our economy,
I think it is a disaster for the demonstration of our ability to
govern, and I think it is a disaster for our standing in the world. We
need to show we can govern ourselves, and we can put ourselves on a
sound fiscal path with the right combination of growth, frugality, and
ensuring a safety net for the most vulnerable of our citizens. I am
here to say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, both sides of
the dome, and even the White House: Let's get the job done. I propose
let's really conscientiously work hard to make sure we have a framework
that we could vote on by the weekend of December 15.
Why do I want December 15 as a deadline? It is Saturday. Mr.
President, you, yourself, have tweeted about--Oh, let's have Saturday
as Small Business Week. We have had cyber Mondays. Let's have a strong
economy closing of the week before Christmas.
I can tell you, Mr. President, if we show that we can govern and
actually pass a bill by Saturday, December 15, that does exactly what I
said. It shows that we have a sense of frugality and are on a path
where we are solving our issues around debt, but we also have the
elements that promote growth and ensure a safety net for the most
vulnerable. We could do three things: We could show that we can govern.
That would be very big in the mind of the public, that we could govern
ourselves. It would be important to the public, and it would be
important to the world, particularly those who lend us money.
It would be an enormous sense of boosting consumer confidence 10 days
before Christmas. We would show that we are on the way to solving our
problems. For those who benefit from either Federal employment or
contracts with the Federal Government, there would be stability in
their employment.
I can also say as to the stock market we could have a floor under the
stock market, and we might even have a jump in the stock market. Just
one-third of Americans believe Congress can be counted on to behave
like responsible adults--only one-third. They have seen no compromise
or cooperation. They have seen lip service. We don't need to be trading
pet rocks over what we need to do, and we should not throw them either.
We have to come together, both sides of the aisle, both sides of the
dome, with the White House.
We do not lack in ideas. The content for a solution is not new. We
have had excellent people working on this. We have seen Simpson-Bowles
in a report, Domenici-Rivlin, wise heads giving us good ideas. We have
had the supercommittee that fleshed out a lot of these issues and knows
where the disagreements are. We have had the Gang of 6, the Gang of 8.
Let's get to the Gang of 100 and pass this bill. I would be happy with
the Gang of 51.
I want to be sure we know, because we do know, the ideas. We do not
lack in ideas. What we lack is will and momentum to get this job done.
My principles are simple and straightforward: No. 1, let's have a sense
of urgency. No. 2, make sure when we look at cuts that we count the
cuts that we have already done. For example, the $900 billion we have
done in the Budget Control Act because that would also include the $450
billion that we have done in defense spending--the kinds of issues we
have talked about. Let's also count the $550 billion that we did in
reforming Medicare during health care reform.
We have had good words, now we need good deeds and swift action. Just
think what it would mean to reach an agreement by December 15.
Americans could see that we can work together. Think about the energy
this would unlock to avoid a sequester. Think about what a signal this
would be to middle-class people on Main Street as well as the people on
Wall Street because business would have certainty, we would have
consumer confidence, and we could have a new self-confidence about
ourselves that we could govern.
The Presiding Officer and I represent a great State. We represent a
State that has an innovative economy, from both the Federal Government
and its great Federal labs, such as NIH, to its great national security
areas, such as the Cyber Command at Fort Meade. Yes, they would be
devastated by a sequester. So would our contractors, both defense and
civilians. Great iconic institutions such as Hopkins would take a huge
hit in not only research and development but in providing care to the
needy, care to the desperate who come from all over the country to get
help for a sick child or an aging relative or to get eyesight restored
at the
[[Page S7013]]
Wilmer Eye Institute. Sure, I am for jobs in Maryland, but I am here
trying to stand for America.
We need to show we can govern, and we cannot wait until December 24,
that somehow or another this is going to be Santa Claus, because if we
don't act soon, we are going to get rocks in our socks, and I think
they would be well deserved.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 (Mr. Merkley). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Illinois be allocated 7 minutes to speak as in morning business.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask that
the Senator modify his request that the Senator be immediately followed
by Senator Kyl to offer an amendment, with the proviso that it is
cleared by the majority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Illinois.
The DREAM Act
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we just concluded a Presidential campaign.
Who could have missed it? There were a lot of issues that were
discussed, but one of particular interest to me was one that involves a
personal effort I have made to pass a piece of legislation known as the
DREAM Act. I introduced the DREAM Act 11 years ago. Things move slowly
in the Senate, but this has taken way too long.
It has been heartening over the years to watch the support for the
DREAM Act grow among the American people. It has also been interesting
to me that in the last Presidential campaign one of the issues asked of
Governor Romney, as well as President Obama, pointblank, was: Are you
for the DREAM Act? I guess that says quite a bit for this piece of
legislation and the idea and principle behind it.
When I introduced the DREAM Act 11 years ago, it was because I met a
young woman from Chicago, Tereza Lee, who was Korean, who came to this
country as a child, was raised in the United States, but her parents
never filed the necessary documentation. So Tereza Lee was graduating
from high school in Chicago, an accomplished pianist, and she had been
accepted at the Manhattan Conservatory of Music in the Juilliard School
of Music, but she was undocumented, she was not a citizen, she was not
here legally.
So she came to our office and asked what she could do, and we had to
advise her mom, under the law, Tereza, having lived in this country for
more than 16 years, had to leave and go back to Brazil, where her
family had been before they immigrated to the United States, wait 10
years, and then try to come back in. What a waste of talent. So I
introduced the DREAM Act to give her and many like her a chance--a
chance to be legalized, to become part of America.
Over the years, we have had many votes. I have always had a majority
vote on the floor, a bipartisan majority vote, but I have been unable
to break the filibuster from the other side of the aisle.
Well, now this issue's time has come because this President issued an
executive order earlier this year to allow those who have been here and
would qualify for the DREAM Act to stay without deportation if they
registered, made it clear that they qualified otherwise for the DREAM
Act, had no serious criminal past that would jeopardize anyone in the
United States, and go through the process of review to be
fingerprinted, to be basically identified as part of the system.
It was a great leap of faith for these young people, who had been
here for so many years hiding, to step up in front of somebody and say:
I am going to report myself to the Government of the United States. But
they did it. Tens of thousands did it, and they continue to.
This deferred action that is being offered to so many of these young
people gives them a chance now to work in the United States, to go to
school in the United States, and to be here legally. That is why this
issue is so important. But we are far from finished. We have not passed
the law. We have an executive order from the President that gives them
this chance.
This weekend, in Kansas City, MO, hundreds of DREAMers--that is what
we call these young people now--are going to get together. They are
part of the largest national organization of DREAMers: United We Dream.
They will be planning their next effort--advocating for immigration
reform legislation that will bring them and their families out of the
shadows once and for all and give them a chance to earn their way to
legal status and citizenship in America.
One part of immigration reform--the DREAM Act--is near and dear to
me. But I want to see comprehensive immigration reform before it is all
over. We know if we pass the DREAM Act, it will help the economy,
creating new jobs and economic growth when the talent of these young
people, as they come out of high school and college, is brought into
our economy.
In my home State of Illinois, by 2030, the DREAM Act would contribute
$14 billion in economic activity and DREAMers would create up to 58,992
new jobs.
I come to the floor of the Senate frequently to tell their stories.
They used to hide in the shadows. They did not want to talk about who
they were because they were undocumented and afraid of being deported.
Many were deported. But I came to the floor to tell the stories of
those who had the courage to step up and identify themselves and run
that risk, just so people knew who they were.
I will tell a story today about Pierre Beranstain.
Pierre and his sister were brought to the United States by their
parents from Peru in 1998, when they were children. Pierre did not
speak a word of English when he first arrived in Carrollton, TX, but he
worked hard to learn English. He excelled academically and was accepted
into the Academy of Biomedical Professions in his high school.
In 2006, Pierre was accepted at Harvard, one of the best universities
in our country. He went on to get a bachelor's degree with honors. He
is currently pursuing a master's degree at Harvard Divinity School.
In addition to working on this graduate degree, he is active in his
community. Among many other volunteer activities, Pierre works at
Renewal House, a domestic violence shelter in Boston.
His volunteer work led Harvard to award Pierre the Thomas E. Upham
Scholarship, which is given to an outstanding graduate student
committed to public service.
Pierre recently wrote an article about growing up as an undocumented
immigrant. This is what he said:
I am not a criminal, a monster, a predator, or someone who
sits at home doing nothing substantive or meaningful. I care
for this country; I care for its successes as well as its
struggles, for its joys as well as its sorrows. I am not
asking that our government maintain an open-door policy
for immigrants. I am simply asking that it give an
opportunity to those of us who have proven ourselves.
Well, Pierre is right. America needs young people just like him, who
love their country and are dedicated to caring for our society's most
vulnerable.
So what do the American people think about the idea of the DREAM Act?
Listen to a recent poll. A Bloomberg poll found that 64 percent of
likely voters--almost 2 out of 3, including 66 percent of
Independents--support the policy, compared to only 30 percent who
oppose it. By a margin of 2 to 1, the American people know this is the
right thing to do.
Now we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform. On our side,
the negotiating effort will be led by Senator Schumer of New York, who
chairs the Immigration Subcommittee, and a number of us will join in
that effort. We are going to join with those on the other side--
Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Susan Collins, Rand
Paul, and Senator-elect Jeff Flake--who have expressed an interest in
this issue to make sure we move forward in a bipartisan fashion to try
to finally find a solution to immigration reform.
Let me close by thanking Senator Jon Kyl and Senator Kay Bailey
[[Page S7014]]
Hutchison. Yesterday they introduced the ACHIEVE Act, which has been
called the Republican version of the DREAM Act. I have worked with them
for a long time. We share many of the same ideas. We have some
differences. I have some concerns, but I appreciate that Senator Kyl
and Senator Hutchison have come forward with this proposal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional
minutes, please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. I am sorry I will not have the chance to work with these
two Senators on this measure because they are both retiring. But I hope
we can build on what they have offered on their side of the aisle in a
bipartisan fashion.
In that spirit, let me point out two major concerns with the ACHIEVE
Act. The bill is limited to young people who arrived in the United
States since the age of 13 or under. That would have the effect of
excluding DREAMers who were brought when they were still children at
the age of 14 or 15.
Let me give you two examples of people I know.
This is a picture I have in the Chamber of Tolu Olubunmi. She was
brought to America from Nigeria when she was 14 years old. Tolu
obtained a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering 10 years ago. She
still cannot work as an engineer. We can use her talent.
Let me also show you a picture of Novi Roy. He was brought to America
from India when he was 14 years old. Novi graduated from the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with a bachelor's degree in economics
and two master's degrees, one in business administration and one in
human resources. His dream is to help provide affordable health care to
a lot of people who do not have it in America.
Tolu and Novi should be eligible for the DREAM Act. They would not be
under the ACHIEVE Act. The other thing is, I want them to have a path
to citizenship. At the end of the day, after they have earned their
stripes, paid their price, paid the taxes, did everything they were
supposed to do, give them a chance--not to go to the front of the line
but the back of the line--and give them a chance to be American
citizens. It is the right thing to do.
It is time for this to become a truly bipartisan issue. I hope in the
next Congress we can truly come together for the sake of these young
people, and so many others just like them all across America, to
finally let their dream come true.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3123
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk No. 3123.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for himself, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Risch, Mr. Lugar, Mr. DeMINT, Mr.
Cornyn, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Wicker, Ms. Ayotte, Ms. Collins, and
Mr. Sessions, proposes an amendment numbered 3123.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require regular updates of Congress on the military
implications of proposals of the United States and Russia under
consideration in negotiations on nuclear arms, missile defense, and
long-range conventional strike system matters)
At the end of subtitle F of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1064. BRIEFINGS AND CONSULTATIONS ON THE MILITARY
IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSALS OF THE UNITED STATES
AND RUSSIA UNDER CONSIDERATION IN NEGOTIATIONS
ON NUCLEAR ARMS, MISSILE DEFENSE, AND LONG-
RANGE CONVENTIONAL STRIKE SYSTEM MATTERS.
(a) Briefings and Consultations.--
(1) Briefings.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and every 120 days thereafter, the
Secretary of Defense shall, in coordination with the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provide to the appropriate
committees of Congress a briefing on the military and
strategic implications of any offer or proposal, by either
the Russian Federation or the United States, to limit or
control nuclear arms, missile defense systems, or long-range
conventional strike systems, including any proposal as part
of formal negotiations between the two countries or otherwise
exchanged between official entities of the two countries.
(2) Basis of quarterly consultations.--The briefings under
paragraph (1) shall serve as the basis for quarterly
consultations to be provided by the Secretary to the
appropriate committees of Congress on any current proposals
described in that paragraph.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
any agreement of the United States with the Russian
Federation related to missile defense, nuclear weapons, or
long-range conventional strike systems that would limit,
constrain, or reduce the Armed Forces or armaments of the
United States in any militarily significant manner may be
made only pursuant to the treaty-making power of the
President as set forth in Article II, section, 2, clause 2,
of the Constitution of the United States, as consistent with
section 303(b) of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act.
(c) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''
means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives.
Mr. KYL. Let me begin by saying that I send this amendment to the
desk with an understanding of the chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee and of the Armed Services Committee that before I would
request a vote on this amendment, we would work out the language, the
specific language of this amendment, along with the ranking members,
and would not ask for a vote unless that is achieved.
This amendment has been offered not only for myself, but also
Senators Lieberman, Inhofe, Risch, Lugar, Sessions, DeMint, Cornyn,
Rubio, Wicker, Ayotte, and Collins. Our purpose is to get a greater
involvement at an earlier stage of the Senate in discussions between
the United States and the Russian Federation regarding nuclear arms,
missile defense, and potentially long-range conventional strike
systems. These are all three matters that have been the subject of
treaties and agreements.
There has been an indication by different people within the
administration, indeed even the President, that he may be wanting to
talk to the Russian Federation representatives about additional
agreements in these areas.
There have been concerns that the Congress is not adequately briefed
on those discussions and certainly not at an early enough date.
Clearly, if these agreements reach a formal stage, they can require
ratification by the Senate. We think it is important that they not be,
in effect, negotiated in their entirety before they are known to the
Senate and before some input from Members of the Senate can be provided
to the administration.
What the amendment as originally introduced therefore would do is to
require regular updates of Congress on the military implications of
proposals that the United States and Russia have under consideration in
their negotiations on nuclear arms, missile defense, or long-range
conventional strike systems, and in its current form would require the
Secretary of Defense to brief the Foreign Relations, the Armed
Services, and the Appropriations Committees.
One of the changes that we might want to make here is that the
briefings might include other groups within the Congress as well. These
briefings could occur, under this proposal, no later than 30 days after
the act goes into force, and would affect the quarterly briefings where
the administration would, on a quarterly basis, provide consultation
between the Congress and the Secretary of Defense regarding any
proposals to limit or reduce nuclear arms, missile defense or, as I
said, long-range conventional strike systems.
The amendment also does something else which we may have to modify
the language of, but it would express the sense of Congress that any
agreement between the United States and Russia
[[Page S7015]]
that would limit or constrain or reduce our missile defense or our
nuclear weapons or long-range conventional strike systems in any
militarily significant manner could only be done pursuant to the
treaty-making power of the President as set forth in the Constitution.
And that, of course, is in order to protect our right to consult,
provide advice and consent to any matters that reach that level of
negotiation between the administration and, in this case, the Russian
Federation.
We will have more to say about this if we have an opportunity to
further debate. As I said, I am happy to sit down with the chairman of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee
to consider any changes they might want to make to this language with
the purpose of getting it adopted, rather than just having something to
talk about.
This is something we need. Congress needs to be advised. We need to
be consulted on matters this important. I do not think the
administration would argue with that; it is a matter of coming to an
agreement on how we would actually do it.
I appreciate the cooperation of the chairman of the committee and the
ranking member.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona, Senator
Kyl, for his willingness to sit down and try to work this out in a way
which is satisfactory to him and the Foreign Relations Committee. We
very much appreciate that. We know what he is after and we believe
there should be consultation. So we are trying to make that happen.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Amendment No. 3099
(Purpose: To improve mental health care programs and activities for
members of the Armed Forces and veterans)
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3099.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an
amendment numbered 3099.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment that is pending in front of
us is to improve the mental health and suicide prevention services. It
is language that is derived from our Mental Health ACCESS Act, which
was unanimously approved by the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
This amendment is critical legislation that improves how DOD and VA
provide mental health care. I think everyone in this body knows about
it and is distressed by the alarming rate of suicide and mental health
problems in our military and veterans populations.
We know our servicemembers and veterans have faced unprecedented
challenges, multiple deployments, difficulty finding a job here at
home, isolation in their communities, and some have faced very tough
times reintegrating into family life with loved ones trying to relate
but not knowing how. These are the challenges our servicemembers and
veterans know all too well. But even today as they turn to us for help,
we are losing the battle.
Time and again we have lost servicemembers and veterans to suicide.
While the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs have taken very
important steps toward addressing this crisis, we know more does need
to be done. We know any solution depends on reducing wait times and
improving access to mental health care. We know they need to have the
proper diagnosis, and we know we need to achieve true coordination of
care and information between the Departments of Defense and Veterans
Affairs.
What this amendment does is require a comprehensive, standardized,
suicide prevention program across the Department of Defense. It
requires the use of best medical practices in suicide prevention and
behavioral health programs to address some serious gaps that exist in
the current programs, and this amendment expands eligibility for VA
mental health services to family members of our veterans. This
amendment would also give servicemembers an opportunity to serve as
peer counselors to fellow Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and create a
quality assurance program for the historically troubled disability
evaluation system.
It would require the VA to offer peer support services at all medical
centers and create opportunities to train more veterans to provide
these needed peer services. It will require the VA to establish
accurate and reliable measures for mental health services.
We must have an effective suicide prevention program in place. It is
often only on the brink of crisis that a servicemember or a veteran
seeks care. If they are told, sorry, we are too busy to help you, we
have lost the opportunity to help them. To me and to all of us here,
that is not acceptable.
I wish to thank Senator Levin and Senator McCain for their work on
this Defense authorization bill and for their help in bringing this
amendment to the floor today. I believe there are no objections to this
amendment, and I hope we can move it as quickly as possible.
I would ask unanimous consent to add Senator Baucus as an original
cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish to commend and thank Senator Murray
for her huge effort in this area. Her efforts on behalf of our veterans
and our troops have been instrumental in bringing some of the
corrections that are needed to the forefront, and we very much welcome
this amendment. It touches issues which are very much on the minds of
most Americans; that is, the mental health care we provide for our
veterans and for our troops.
I simply not only support this amendment, but I wish to commend
Senator Murray for her leadership and her initiative and I hope and
believe it can be passed on a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3099.
The amendment (No. 3099) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion upon the table.
The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I know we have matters under discussion
with the distinguished chairman and the distinguished ranking member of
the committee. I have discussed with them that I am not bringing up an
amendment at this point. But let me talk about an amendment that I will
bring up and expect to pass at some point.
The amendment I will call up at some appropriate point is legislation
I have been trying to get enacted for more than 3 years called the Dale
Long Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act. This legislation
improves the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act, which is the Federal
death and disability program for our Nation's first responders who are
killed or disabled in the line of duty.
Just so Senators will know, an earlier version of this legislation
was adopted here on the Senate floor by voice vote in December 2011.
The Presiding Officer will recall it was almost exactly a year ago when
we brought that up. It was adopted as part of the FAA Air
Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act. During the
course of conference negotiations related to the FAA legislation, the
House Judiciary chairman Lamar Smith and I negotiated additional
measures to be added to the legislation. Our work together produced a
package of improvements that contains a modest expansion of benefits
for deserving emergency medical responders, and a host of reforms to
make the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program stronger, more
effective, and more cost efficient.
[[Page S7016]]
The legislation has become one of the cornerstones of the partnership
we have between the Federal Government and our first responders and
will make that partnership even stronger. In fact, the reforms Chairman
Smith and I developed in consultation with the Department of Justice
and the first responder community completely offset and eliminate an
estimated modest increase in spending.
Unfortunately, at that time, due to an error made by the
Congressional Budget Office, the matter was dropped from the FAA
conference report. The CBO, to their credit, later corrected their
error, and provided an official cost estimate which makes clear this
legislation will result in no new Federal spending. I ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the Record a copy of that letter.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
June 22, 2012.
H.R. 4018--Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvements Act of 2012
As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary
on June 6, 2012
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 4018 would have no
significant cost to the federal government. Enacting the bill
could affect direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that any effects
would be insignificant for each year. The legislation would
not affect revenues.
Under current law, the families of public safety officers
who have died as a result of injuries sustained in the line
of duty are eligible for a one-time payment of about
$320,000. Public safety officers who have been permanently
disabled are eligible for the same payment, but this payment
is subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
This legislation would make members of rescue squads or
ambulance crews operated by nonprofit entities eligible for
benefits paid when public safety officers are permanently
disabled or die as a result of injuries sustained in the line
of duty. H.R. 4018 also would narrow the eligibility of
members of rescue squads or ambulance crews for benefits
under the Public Safety Officers' Benefit (PSOB) program; as
a result, some individuals would no longer receive benefits
that they could receive under current law. The bill would
prevent individuals from receiving certain benefits under the
program if they receive payments from the September 11th
Victim Compensation Fund of 2001. In addition, the proposed
legislation would make many technical and administrative
changes that aim to expedite the processing of claims for
benefits.
Based on the number of fatalities of members of nonprofit
rescue squads or ambulance crews in recent years, CBO expects
that, on average, a few persons each year would be affected
by the proposed legislation and that additional payments from
the PSOB program would be made. CBO estimates that those
payments would total $13 million over the 2013-2022 period.
However, based on information from the Department of Justice,
we expect that those costs would be offset by savings from
other provisions of the bill that would result in fewer
persons receiving PSOB payments than will receive them under
current law. As a result, CBO estimates that enacting the
legislation would have no significant net effect on direct
spending or discretionary spending from the PSOB program.
H.R. 4018 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz.
The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Mr. LEAHY. Despite our setback, Chairman Smith and I were, and have
remained, determined to move forward. I know I have his full support
for inclusion of this measure in the Defense authorization measure we
now consider, and I greatly appreciate the efforts he made in a
bipartisan manner to get this done. In fact, the legislation containing
this amendment was unanimously passed in the House of Representatives
in June of this year by a voice vote.
I know a lot of Senators on both sides of the aisle care about
reforming government programs and making the Federal Government work
better. This is a bipartisan measure that does that. It will speed up
claims processing, it will reduce costs to the Department of Justice,
and it will lessen unnecessary paperwork burdens for claimants. It has
passed with overwhelming Democratic and Republican support in the
House. It had stalled in the past over misguided objections. Some might
say this is not the responsibility of Congress. As a constitutional
matter, that is simply not true. It is a matter of policy.
Since 1976, Congress has made the judgment that the right thing to do
is to take care of surviving spouses and children of police officers,
firefighters, and emergency medical responders who are killed in the
line of duty. Congress has always provided assistance to these heroes.
If there is a Senator who believes this is beyond the responsibility of
Congress, then introduce and defend legislation to repeal the policy
first enacted in 1976.
Americans take care of each other. We live by the ideal that we take
care of our own. Just as the Federal Government is working hard to help
those suffering from Hurricane Sandy or as the Federal Government
provides critical assistance to people and communities devastated by
tornadoes or droughts or wildfires, just as Congress stood by the
families of those killed in the attacks of September 11, 2001, we take
care of our own. We always will.
As I said, at some appropriate time I will call up the amendment.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam 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. Will the Senator from Vermont yield?
Mr. SANDERS. Yes.
Mr. LEVIN. I understand the Senator will take about 10 minutes; is
that correct?
Mr. SANDERS. Somewhere in that vicinity.
Mr. LEVIN. And then the Senator will take approximately 10 minutes?
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I would like to be recognized at the conclusion of
the remarks of the Senator from Vermont for about 10 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. I ask that the two Senators be recognized for 10 minutes
each as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Wall Street
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, sometimes there is no end to arrogance.
I find it literally beyond comprehension that we have folks from Wall
Street who receive huge bailouts from the people of our country, from
working families in this country, because of the greed and recklessness
and illegal behavior that Wall Street did to drive us into this
recession, and now these very same people are coming here to Congress
to lecture us and the American people about how we have to cut Social
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid while they enjoy huge salaries and
retirement benefits.
Lloyd Blankfein is the CEO of Goldman Sachs. In 2006 and 2007 he was
the highest paid executive on Wall Street, making over $125 million in
total compensation. My understanding is that he has wealth of hundreds
of millions of dollars. Goldman Sachs received a $278 million refund--
Goldman Sachs did--from the IRS in 2008 even though it made a profit of
$2.3 billion. During the financial crisis, Goldman Sachs received a
total of $814 billion in virtually zero interest loans from the Federal
Reserve and a $10 billion bailout from the Treasury Department. This is
the CEO of Goldman Sachs. Now, with his huge wealth, he is coming here
to Washington to lecture the American people on how we have to cut
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for tens of millions of
Americans who are struggling now to keep their heads above water.
This is a statement Lloyd Blankfien recently made, I believe, on a TV
show:
You're going to have to, undoubtedly, do something to lower
people's expectations, the entitlements, and what people
think they're going to get because they're not going to get
it. Social Security wasn't devised to be a system that
supported you for a 30 year retirement after a 25 year career
. . . So there will be certain things, like the retirement
age will have to be changed, maybe the benefits will have to
be affected, maybe some of the inflation adjustments will
have to be revised . . . But, in general, entitlements have
to be slowed down and contained.
This comes from a man worth hundreds of millions of dollars whose
company, along with the rest of the companies on Wall Street, drove
this country
[[Page S7017]]
into the recession it is in, which, by the way, contributed to the
deficit we are in. He is coming to Capitol Hill to lecture us and
lecture the working families in this country on how we have to cut
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I think arrogance has no end,
that people from Wall Street can come down here and tell us that.
I think most Americans understand that the reason we are in the
terrible recession we are in right now and the reason we went from a
$236 billion surplus when Bill Clinton left office has everything in
the world to do not with Social Security but with the fact that we went
into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and forgot to pay for them; we
gave huge tax breaks to people such as Mr. Blankfein and did not offset
them; passed the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, not paid
for; and as a result of the Wall Street recession, significantly less
revenue is now coming into the Federal Government. That is why we went
from a $236 billion surplus in 2001 to a $1 trillion deficit today.
The deficit is a serious issue and it has to be addressed, but it has
to be addressed not in the way that Mr. Blankfein, Pete Peterson, and
the other Wall Street billionaires want us to address the deficit but
in a way that is fair to working people. Among other things, we have to
protect Social Security, protect Medicare, protect Medicaid.
I was appreciative the other day when I read that the White House has
said something that many of us have wanted them to say, which is that
Social Security had nothing to do with the deficit; Social Security
should be treated separately. I think that is a real step forward. Many
of us signed a letter to that effect.
But what does worry me is this issue of chain CPI. I want everybody
to understand what the chain CPI is about. Nobody outside of Capitol
Hill knows what it is about. What it is about is reformulating how we
determine COLAs. If this chain CPI passed, what it would mean is that
if somebody was 65 now--this would go into effect immediately if it
were passed--by the time they were 75, there would be a $560-a-year
reduction in what they otherwise would have gotten in Social Security
benefits through the COLAs. By the time they are 85, it would be $1,000
a year. We must defeat any and all efforts to oppose a chain CPI not
only on Social Security beneficiaries, but it would also apply, if my
colleagues can believe this, to disabled veterans. Mr. Blankfein and
his other CEO friends on Wall Street really want us to balance the
budget on the backs of the disabled vets? Well, this Senator surely is
not going to support that.
There are ways to deal with deficit reduction that are fair.
Everybody has to understand that we have already cut approximately $1
trillion in benefits. So when we talk about $4 trillion in deficit
reduction, $1 trillion has already taken place.
Second of all, obviously, at a time when the wealthiest people are
doing phenomenally well and we have growing wealth and income
inequality in America, of course we have to repeal Bush's tax breaks
for people making $250,000 a year or more. That is another $1 trillion.
We have to appreciate the fact that one out of four corporations in
America doesn't pay a nickel in taxes. We can bring in significant
amounts of revenue through tax reform that asks corporations to start
paying their fair share of taxes. We are losing $100 billion a year
because corporations and the wealthy are stashing their money in the
Cayman Islands and other tax havens, thus losing substantial revenue in
the United States.
Defense spending has tripled since 1997. We are now spending almost
as much as the rest of the world combined. Let's take a serious look at
defense spending. If we do that, make some changes toward efficiency in
Medicare and Medicaid, make them more efficient but not cut benefits,
we can move toward serious deficit reduction without cutting Social
Security, without cutting Medicare, and without cutting Medicaid.
We just had an election a few weeks ago--November 6--and what I think
the American people said is that the time is now for the wealthy to
start paying their fair share of taxes. We have seen poll after poll
after poll, including from some very conservative people who are saying
do not cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I think it is time
for the Senate and the Congress to start listening to the American
people. Let's go forward with deficit reduction, but let's not do it on
the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick, or the poor.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Climate Change
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, we are working toward a national
defense authorization act, and as we do that, I rise to discuss the
importance of assessing and planning for and mitigating the national
security effects of climate change.
Our changing climate is not simply a green issue invented by
environmentalists and conservationists; climate change threatens our
strategic interests, our military readiness, and our domestic security
in many ways. It is a serious national security issue--so says not just
me but the U.S. Department of Defense and, indeed, our national
intelligence community.
In 2011 the Defense Science Board provided the Secretary of Defense
guidance for a governmentwide approach to preparing for the effects of
climate change, concluding that ``climate change will only grow in
concern for the United States and its security interests.''
The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review by the Department of Defense
noted that climate change is one of the things that ``will play
important roles in the future security environment.''
The White House's 2010 national security strategist stated that
``climate change . . . threaten(s) the security of regions and the
health and safety of the American people.''
Back to 2008, Dr. Thomas Fingar, then Deputy Director of National
Intelligence for Analysis and the Chairman of the National Intelligence
Council, said that ``global climate change will have wide-ranging
implications for U.S. national security interests for the next 20
years.''
In a report requested by the CIA, the National Research Council wrote
this year that ``while climate change alone does not cause conflict, it
may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict.''
In 2006 the Center for Naval Analysis, a federally funded research
and development center that has advised the Navy and Marine Corps since
1942, convened a military advisory board of retired three-star and
four-star admirals and generals and asked them to report on national
security and the threat of climate change. The report stated:
While uncertainty exists . . . regarding . . . the future
extent of projected climate change, the trends are clear. The
nature and pace of climate changes being observed today . . .
pose . . . grave implications for our national security.
And, of course, as the Presiding Officer knows, in the 5 years since,
the evidence has tracked the worst of those climate change projections,
not the most gentle.
Our Nation's top military strategists, our Nation's top researchers,
the National Research Council, and the National Academy of Sciences all
have recommended that our national security institutions prepare for
threats caused by climate change.
On the other hand, we have a tiny fringe of scientists, many of whom
are funded by industry, that denies these facts and urges us to
maintain the status quo. In effect, that little fringe urges us to do
nothing. This is the same strategy, often the same organizations, and
in some cases even the same people who denied in the past that
cigarettes are bad for us or that lead paint harms children. They are
professional, industry-paid deniers at large.
The choice is a clear one, and I recommend we follow the findings of
our military leaders. They have determined that climate change is real
and that our national security requires us to reject the false science
of the climate deniers.
The National Intelligence Council has identified more than 30 U.S.
military installations that are threatened by risks associated just
with rising sea levels. One is Diego Garcia. It is a small island south
of India and home to a logistics hub for U.S. and British forces in the
Middle East and to Air Force Satellite Control Network equipment. The
Navy reports that the average elevation of Diego Garcia is
approximately 4 feet. Even absent a
[[Page S7018]]
storm or tsunami, this installation is threatened by inundation from
slow and steady sea level rise.
The Norfolk Naval Air Station and Naval Base on the southern end of
the Chesapeake Bay is the Navy's largest supply center and home to the
U.S. Atlantic fleet. A New York Times analysis this past weekend using
U.S. Geological Survey and NOAA data showed that a 5-foot sea level
rise would permanently flood portions of that base. The base is at
continuing risk, of course, from storm surges. By the way, a 5-foot sea
level rise is now predicted to be a possibility in this century.
Eglin Air Force Base on Florida's gulf coast, the largest Air Force
base in the world, is threatened by storm surge, sea level rise, and
saltwater infiltration. We know that climate change loads the dice for
more and more severe extreme weather.
Retired Brigadier General Steven Anderson and retired Lieutenant
General Daniel Christman recently used Hurricane Katrina as an example
of how extreme weather can cause what they call ``negative operational
impacts'' to our military. In response to Katrina, the National Guard
mobilized 58,000 National Guard members to the relief effort at the
same time that 79,000 Guard members were deployed fighting the war on
terrorism. The generals pointed out that although Louisiana's physical
infrastructure did not hold, our National Guard did hold. But the
limits of even our exceptional National Guard would be tested by these
changes in extreme weather, and it is imperative that we prepare our
emergency management and responders for a new normal of new extremes.
Climate change will also create new strategic challenges. Climate
events such as droughts and heat waves, floods and storms exacerbate
political and military tensions in areas around the world with fragile
governments and instability. This can result in violent conflict and in
refugee problems.
It is not just the shock of extreme weather that portends danger. As
the temperature of the air and ocean steadily rises, the amount of
moisture in the atmosphere will change and the composition of the
oceans will change. Habitats will change, growing conditions will be
altered, and the snows and glaciers that feed great rivers will change,
changing the seasonal flows of the rivers. The world's great
agricultural deltas will face both those changes in the rivers and
rising sea levels. All of these changes will disrupt food supplies and
water resources. Many poorer regions are unprepared to deal with the
effects of famine, drought, crop failure, flooding, and disease that
can be anticipated. These slower moving climate disasters will create
migration, competition for resources, and government instability that
in turn sets the stage for more international unrest.
Last, the changing environment will affect our military's operating
environment. Sea ice in the Arctic is already vanishing, and new Arctic
waterways are opening. In September, Reuters reported that the first
Chinese icebreaker crossed the Arctic, with the expedition leader
explaining how surprised he was to find the route to be so open. In
addition to new shipping routes, the reduction in Arctic sea ice makes
oil, gas, and mineral exploration more likely there. These new
operational challenges will expand the Coast Guard's mission along our
Arctic borders and the Navy's mission in the Arctic Ocean.
The Department of Defense and our intelligence community have
accepted the science of climate change and the fact that we need to
prepare for it. We customarily rely on the professional judgments of
the sober and thoughtful leaders of these great national security
organizations. Their assessments are based on sound and comprehensive
science and analysis. I respect the solemn mission our national
security institutions have to protect the United States and its
interests, and I trust their judgment.
Their judgment is echoed by significant Republican leaders. Our
former colleague, Senator John Warner, Republican of Virginia, who was
the chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, has said:
Leading military and security experts agree that if left
unchecked, global warming could increase instability and lead
to conflict in already fragile regions of the world.
He continued:
We ignore these facts at the peril of our national security
and at great risk to those in uniform who serve this nation.
George Shultz was Secretary of Treasury and Labor and Director of the
Office of Management and Budget under President Nixon, and the
Secretary of State under President Reagan. He leads the Hoover
Institution's Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy Policy and has
also served on the advisory boards of Stanford's Precourt Institute for
Energy and MIT's Energy Initiative. In his words, ``. . . the globe is
warming, which is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. The
arctic is melting. If you could bring together the constituencies
concerned with national security, the economy and the environment--both
local and global--that would be a potent coalition.''
So I hope Members on both sides of the aisle can agree that when it
comes to protecting our American interests at home and abroad, we
should believe our national security institutions when they warn us of
the security and strategic implications of climate change rather than
align ourselves with a questionable fringe of industry-allied deniers.
Ultimately, as I have said before on this floor, we are beholding to
our children and grandchildren to do something about the carbon
pollution that is causing this climate change. And history's verdict
for our failure will be harsh.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, in a moment I am going to ask unanimous
consent that we proceed to a debate, to Senator Feinstein, who will
speak on an amendment that she intends to offer but not offer it at
this time. I will then ask she be followed by Senator Paul, who will
speak on that same amendment. It is our intention then to move to a
vote on the Leahy amendment to improve the Public Safety Officers'
Benefits Program. This falls within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary
Committee, but the chairman, whose amendment it is, and the ranking
member, Senator Grassley, have both approved this amendment, and I
would simply alert other Senators that if they wish to speak on this
amendment, for or against, that it is our intention to proceed to a
vote on the Leahy amendment following the speaking of Senator Paul and
Senator Feinstein.
So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed in that way.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman.
I am going to offer an amendment--a version of it was introduced as a
separate bill last year as S. 2003. The cosponsors of the amendment are
Senators Paul, Lee, Coons, Collins, Lautenberg, Gillibrand, and Kirk. I
ask unanimous consent to add Senators Tester, Johnson of South Dakota,
Sanders, Whitehouse, and Heller as cosponsors to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This amendment is almost identical to the bill I
introduced a year ago. That bill has a bipartisan group of 30
cosponsors. It is called the Due Process Guarantee Act, and the co-
sponsors include five Republicans: Senators Lee, Paul, Collins, Kirk,
and Moran. Thanks to Chairman Leahy, the bill had a hearing earlier
this year in the Judiciary Committee, as the Presiding Officer will so
note, on February 29, 2012.
The amendment I will offer clarifies questions that arose during last
year's defense authorization bill about the U.S. Government's power to
detain its citizens indefinitely. Last year's bill had detention
provisions in it that never had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee,
the Intelligence Committee, or the Armed Services Committee.
Let me just take a minute to describe why this is such an important
issue for me.
When I was a very young girl--I remember it was a Sunday because my
father worked every other day of the week--my father took me down to a
racetrack just south of San Francisco
[[Page S7019]]
called Tanforan. It was the beginning of World War II. The racetrack
was then a staging point for Japanese Americans en route to more
permanent detention centers.
Here is the edict that was put out:
Western Defense Command and Fourth Army Wartime Civil
Control Administration, Presidio of San Francisco,
California, April 1, 1942, Instructions to All Persons of
Japanese Ancestry, Living in the Following Area:
Then it describes the area. It says:
All Japanese persons, both alien and non-alien, will be
evacuated from the above designated area by 12:00 o'clock
noon Tuesday, April 7, 1942.
No Japanese person will be permitted to enter or leave the
above described area after 8:00 a.m., Thursday, April 2, 1942, without
obtaining special permission from the Provost Marshal of the Civil
Control Station.
This was an order which remanded all persons of Japanese ancestry
into custody for the duration of World War II.
Let me show you a little of what these facilities looked like. Shown
in this picture I have in the Chamber is Tanforan Racetrack, and these
are the barracks that were put up to house Japanese-American citizens
and non-citizens--only because they were of Japanese ancestry.
In this next picture, this is what it looked like close up. This is a
young person walking out of this small cell in that barrack.
In this next picture, these are Japanese Americans standing in line--
and here is the racetrack--either to get food or for some other reason.
This stuck in my memory, and I believe it was a stain on the
greatness of this country. As I saw the barbed wire, these men, women,
and children housed in horse stables, in small buildings, as you can
see, it was an experience I will never forget.
To ensure that this shameful experience was never repeated, almost 30
years after the 1942 evacuation order was issued, Congress passed and
President Nixon signed into law the Non-Detention Act of 1971, which
repealed a 1950 statute that explicitly allowed detention of U.S.
citizens without charge or trial.
The Non-Detention Act of 1971 clearly states:
No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the
United States except pursuant to an act of Congress.
Despite this history, during last year's debate on the Defense
authorization bill some in this body advocated for the indefinite
detention of American citizens. This is an issue that has been the
subject of much legal controversy since 9/11.
Proponents of indefinitely detaining citizens apprehended in the U.S.
argue that the Authorization for Use of Military Force--what we call
the AUMF--that was enacted in the wake of 9/11 is ``an act of
Congress,'' in the language of the Non-Detention Act, that authorizes
the indefinite detention of American citizens regardless of where they
are captured.
They further assert that their position is justified by the U.S.
Supreme Court's plurality decision in the 2004 case of Hamdi v.
Rumsfeld. However, that position is undercut by the 2003 case of
Padilla v. Rumsfeld in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. So we have
a kind of muddle.
But let me discuss the facts of the Hamdi case because it is
important to note that Yaser Esam Hamdi was a U.S. citizen who took up
arms on behalf of the Taliban and was captured on the battlefield in
Afghanistan. The Supreme Court effectively did uphold his military
detention, so some of my colleagues seize upon this to say that the
military can today indefinitely detain even U.S. citizens who are
arrested domestically.
However, the Supreme Court's opinion in that case was a decision by a
4-to-4 plurality that recognized the power of the government to detain
U.S. citizens captured abroad as ``enemy combatants'' for some period,
but otherwise repudiated the government's broad assertions of executive
authority to detain citizens without charge or trial.
To the extent the Hamdi case permits the government to detain a U.S.
citizen ``until the end of hostilities,'' it does so only under a very
limited set of circumstances; namely, citizens taking an active part in
hostilities who are captured in Afghanistan and who are afforded
certain due process protections, at a minimum.
Additionally, decisions by the lower courts have contributed to the
current state of ambiguity. For example, consider those decisions
involving Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who was arrested in Chicago. He
was initially detained pursuant to a material witness warrant based on
the 9/11 terrorist acts.
In Padilla, the Second Circuit held that AUMF did not authorize his
detention, saying:
We conclude that clear congressional authorization is
required for detentions of American citizens on American soil
because . . . the Non-Detention Act . . . prohibits such
detentions absent specific congressional authorization.
The Second Circuit went on to say that the 2001 Authorization for Use
of Military Force--and I quote--``is not such an authorization, and no
exception to [the Non-Detention Act] otherwise exists.''
So here is the problem. We have the Supreme Court that says one thing
in a limited way and a federal appeals court that says another thing on
an issue not directly addressed by the Supreme Court. When we debated
this issue on the Senate floor last year, the Senate ultimately agreed
to a compromise amendment which passed by an overwhelming 99-to-1 vote.
I worked on that with Senators Lee, Paul, Levin, McCain, Durbin, Leahy,
and the amendment provided the following:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect
existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, or lawful resident aliens of the
United States, or any other persons who are captured or
arrested in the United States.
Now, that was adopted to say, leave things as they are right now. It
preserved the current state of the law, continuing to leave it to the
courts to resolve who is right about whether the AUMF authorizes the
military detention of anyone apprehended domestically.
I believe strongly the time has come now to end this legal ambiguity
and to state clearly once and for all that the AUMF or other
authorities do not authorize such indefinite detention of Americans
apprehended in the United States.
To accomplish this, we are offering an amendment which affirms the
continuing application of the principles behind the Non-Detention Act
of 1971. It amends that act to provide clearly that no military
authorization allows indefinite detention of U.S. citizens or green
card holders who are apprehended inside the United States.
The amendment states, ``An authorization to use military force, a
declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the
detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent
resident of the United States apprehended in the United States unless
an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.''
That affirms the Second Circuit's clear statement rule from the
Padilla case. Some may ask why this amendment protects green card
holders as well as citizens. Others may ask why the amendment does not
protect all persons apprehended in the United States from indefinite
detention? Let me be clear. I would support providing the protections
in this amendment to all persons in the United States whether lawfully
or unlawfully present.
But the question is, Is there enough support in this body to expand
this amendment to cover others besides U.S. citizens and green card
holders? I do not believe there is. We got 45 votes last year on a
similar amendment protecting U.S. citizens. We have re-worked the
amendment and gained more support this year, as reflected in the co-
sponsors we have today. So my hope is that at least we can clear up the
law with strong protections for citizens and legal permanent residents.
Wherever we draw the line on who should be covered by this
legislation, I believe it violates fundamental American rights to allow
anyone apprehended in the United States to be detained without charge
or trial. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have proven time
and time again they are up to the challenge of detecting, stopping,
arresting, and convicting terrorists found on U.S. soil, having
successfully arrested, detained, and convicted hundreds of these
heinous people, both before and after 9/11.
For example, since January 2009, 98 individuals have been
successfully arrested inside the United States by the
[[Page S7020]]
FBI and other Federal or local law enforcement officers on terrorism-
related charges. Last month, the staff of the Senate Intelligence
Committee compiled a list of the individuals arrested in the past 4
years as part of more than 50 different terrorism investigations. The
list was based on publicly available information from the FBI, the
Congressional Research Service, and media reports. I have it here and I
ask unanimous consent to have the list printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Terrorist Arrests and Plots Stopped in the United States 2009-2012
(Compiled by Senate Intelligence Committee staff based on publicly
available information from the FBI, the Congressional Research Service,
and media reports)
(1) Ralph Deleon, (2) Miguel Alejandro Santana Vidriales
(Santana), (3) Arifeen David Gojali--Conspiracy to Provide
Material Support to Terrorism--November 2012.
On Friday, November 16, 2012, the FBI arrested Deleon,
Santana, and Gojali who were planning to travel to
Afghanistan to attend terrorist training and commit violent
jihad. Deleon, of Ontario, California, is a lawful permanent
resident alien, born in the Philippines. Santana, of Upland,
California, is a lawful permanent resident, born in Mexico,
and whose application for citizenship is pending in the U.S.
Gojali, of Riverside, California, is a United States citizen.
According to a criminal complaint filed in U.S. District
Court in the Central District of California, the defendants
conspired to provide material support to terrorists knowing
or intending that such support was to be used in preparation
for or in carrying out: conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or
injure persons and damage property in a foreign country;
killing and attempting to kill officers and employees of the
United States; killing nationals of the United States;
conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction outside the
United States; and bombing places of public use and
government facilities. The complaint further alleges that
Santana, Deleon, and Gojali conducted preliminary training in
southern California at firearms and paintball facilities to
prepare for terrorist training overseas.
(4) Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis--Plot to Bomb New
York Federal Reserve Bank--October 2012.
On October 17, 2012, the FBI arrested Ahsan Nafis, a
Bangladeshi national, as he attempted to detonate what he
believed to be a 1,000-pound bomb at the New York Federal
Reserve Bank in lower Manhattan's financial district. The
defendant faces charges of attempting to use a weapon of mass
destruction and attempting to provide material support to Al
Qaeda. According to an FBI press release, the accused,
``traveled to the United States in January 2012 for the
purpose of conducting a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Nafis,
who reported having overseas connections to Al Qaeda,
attempted to recruit individuals to form a terrorist cell
inside the United States. Nafis also actively sought out Al
Qaeda contacts within the United States to assist him in
carrying out an attack.''
(5) Adel Daoud--Plot to Bomb Downtown Chicago Bar--
September 2012.
On Friday September 14, 2012, Adel Daoud attempted to
detonate what he believed to be a car bomb outside a bar in
downtown Chicago. Daoud, a U.S. citizen, was arrested as part
of an ongoing FBI counterterrorism operation after he was
discovered on the Internet seeking information on how to
conduct terrorist attacks. According to an FBI press release,
``In about May 2012, two FBI online undercover employees
contacted Daoud in response to material Daoud posted online
and thereafter exchanged several electronic communications
with Daoud. According to the affidavit, during these
communications Daoud expressed an interest in engaging in
violent jihad, either in the United States or overseas.''
(6) Douglas L. Wright, (7) Brandon L. Baxter, (8) Anthony
Hayne, (9) Connor C. Stevens, and (10) Joshua S. Stafford--
Plot to Bomb Brecksville-Northfield High Level Bridge in
Ohio--May 2012.
These five men were arrested on May 1, 2012 after they
attempted to detonate an explosive device set on the
Brecksville-Northfield High Level Bridge in Ohio that was
given to them by an undercover FBI agent. The accused men are
self-proclaimed anarchists who considered carrying out a
series of attacks, but ultimately decided to target the
bridge in Ohio after an initial plot to use smoke grenades to
distract law enforcement in order for co-conspirators to
topple financial institution signs atop high rise buildings
in downtown Cleveland failed to materialize. ``The defendants
conspired to obtain C-4 explosives contained in two
improvised explosive devices to be placed and remotely
detonated,'' according to the complaint.
(11) Bakhtiyor Jumaev and (12) Jamshid Muhtorov--Conspiracy
to Provide Material Support to the Islamic Jihad Union
(IJU)--March 2012.
On March 15, 2012, the FBI arrested Bakhtiyor Jumaev who
was charged with one count of conspiracy to provide material
support to the Islamic Jihad Union (IJU). The FBI had been
conducting an investigation into the activities of Jumaev and
his associate, Jamshid Muhtorov, who was arrested in January
2012 on similar charges. Jumaev and Muhtorov had pledged
support for the IJU and Jumaev sent funds to Muhtorov,
specifically intended for the IJU. The U.S. Government has
designated the IJU as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
(13) Amine El Khalifi--Plot to carry out a Suicide Bomb
Attack against the U.S. Capitol--February 2012.
Amine El Khalifi, an illegal immigrant from Morocco, was
arrested on February 17, 2012 for attempting to detonate a
bomb in what was envisioned to be a suicide attack against
the U.S. Capitol Building. According to an FBI press release,
``El Khalifi allegedly traveled to a parking garage near the
U.S. Capitol building. El Khalifi took possession of a MAC-10
automatic weapon and put on a vest containing what he
believed to be a functioning bomb. Unbeknownst to El Khalifi,
both the weapon and the bomb had been rendered inoperable by
law enforcement. El Khalifi walked alone from the vehicle
toward the United States Capitol, where he intended to shoot
people and detonate the bomb. El Khalifi was arrested and
taken into custody before exiting the parking garage.'' The
FBI made initial contact with Khalifi in January 2011. Over
the course of the year he cited his anger over the ``war on
terrorism'' and the ``war on Muslims'' as his rationale
behind planned attacks against a military installation and a
restaurant in Washington D.C. After acquiring and testing
dummy explosives given to him by FBI affiliates, Khalifi
modified his plans to conduct a suicide attack against the
U.S. Capitol.
(14) Sami Osmakac--Plot to Bomb Locations in Tampa,
Florida--January 2012.
On January 7, 2012, the FBI arrested Sami Osmakac, a
naturalized U.S. citizen born in the former Yugoslavia
(Kosovo) on one count of attempted use of a weapon of mass
destruction. The FBI used a sting operation to apprehend
Osmakac who was 25 years old at the time of his arrest.
According to FBI investigators, in September 2011, an FBI
source reported that Osmakac and another person had asked for
Al Qaeda flags at the source's business. The source continued
to interact with Osmakac and report to the FBI about his
activities. Osmakac allegedly expressed interest in
obtaining firearms and explosives for attacks he was
planning in the Tampa area, and the source introduced him
to an FBI undercover employee reputed to have access to
such materials. The undercover employee supplied Osmakac
with hand grenades, an assault rifle, a pistol, a car
bomb, and an explosive belt. Osmakac was unaware that the
items actually did not work. In the course of his plotting
Osmakac purportedly discussed targets such as ``night
clubs in the Ybor City area of Tampa, the Operations
Center of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office in Ybor
City, and a business in the South Tampa,'' according to a
DOJ press release. Muslims in Tampa reportedly aided the
FBI in its investigation. Osmakac purportedly exhibited
extremist views prompting at least one local Muslim to
tell authorities about him.
(15) Jose Pimentel--Plot to Bomb New York City Targets and
Troops Returning from Combat Overseas--November 2011.
On November 19, 2011, New York City police arrested a
convert to Islam named Jose Pimentel on terrorism charges.
According to New York City Police Commissioner Raymond W.
Kelly, Pimentel purportedly discussed killing U.S. military
personnel returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan, in
conjunction with bombing post offices in and around
Washington Heights and police cars in New York City, as well
as a police station in Bayonne, N.J. The alleged would-be
bomber was building explosive devices when he was arrested
after two years of surveillance by the New York City Police
Department (NYPD). Pimentel reportedly discussed his plans
with an individual he did not know was an NYPD criminal
informant. Pimentel sympathized with Al Qaeda and drew
inspiration from now-deceased radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
The alleged would-be bomber purportedly tried but failed to
correspond with Awlaki via e-mail, and the cleric's death may
have sped up Pimentel's plotting. According to the criminal
complaint filed in the case, the NYPD tracked Pimentel's
internet activity, finding that Pimentel had posted online
pro-Al Qaeda material as well as an article detailing how to
make a bomb from Inspire Magazine. Working in the apartment
of an NYPD criminal informant, Pimentel supposedly followed
Inspire's bomb making instructions, scraping match heads,
collecting the incendiary material, as well as drilling holes
in three pipes, among other steps.
(16) Mansour Arbabsiar--Plot to Assassinate the Saudi
Ambassador to the United States--October 2011.
Mansour Arbabsiar was arrested after he approached a DEA
informant, who he believed was a member of Los Zetas, to hire
the cartel to carry out a terrorist attack against the Saudi
ambassador at a restaurant in Washington. Mr. Arbabsiar had
many connections to Iran's military and the Qods Force.
(17) Rezwan Ferdaus--Plot to Attack U.S. Capitol and
Pentagon--September 2011.
On September 28, Rezwan Ferdaus, a U.S. citizen from
Ashland, MA, was arrested on terrorism charges. He allegedly
plotted to attack the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol with
explosives-laden remote-controlled airplanes. According to
DOJ, he also planned a ground assault in conjunction with his
aerial
[[Page S7021]]
attack, intending to use firearms and to involve six
conspirators in this phase of his plot. Ferdaus also
purportedly attempted to provide Al Qaeda with modified cell
phones he believed would be used as detonators for improvised
explosive devices intended to harm U.S. soldiers abroad. As
described by DOJ, FBI undercover employees acting as members
of Al Qaeda supplied Ferdaus with money, fake explosives for
the airplanes, firearms, and hand grenades. In turn, (among
other things) Ferdaus provided the cell phone detonators to
these phony Al Qaeda recruiters as well as a training video
on how to construct them. Ferdaus supposedly began plotting
in 2010. In January 2011, he discussed his plans with an FBI
informant. In May 2011, he visited the Washington, DC, area
to conduct surveillance of his targets and view the site from
which he intended to launch his remote-controlled airplanes.
According to the FBI, Ferdaus believed that one of his
airplanes could collapse the Capitol dome.
(18) Agron Hasbajrami--Plot to Fight in Pakistan--September
2011.
On September 6, 2011, Agron Hasbajrami was arrested at John
F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City as he tried
to board a flight to Turkey. Hasbajrami allegedly planned to
join a jihadist fighting group in the Federally Administered
Tribal Areas of Pakistan. He also purportedly sent more than
$1,000 to Pakistan to support the efforts of a militant with
whom he communicated.
(19) Naser Abdo--Plot to Attack Targets Near Fort Hood--
July 2011.
On July 27, 2011, U.S. Army Private Naser Abdo was arrested
near Fort Hood in Texas for allegedly plotting a shooting
spree and bombing in the area--near the same place where Army
Major Nidal Hasan reportedly killed 13 individuals in 2009.
Abdo, described in the media as a Muslim soldier in the 101st
Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, KY, was supposedly absent
without leave from the Army after applying for conscientious
objector status. A November 2011 superseding indictment
charged Abdo with one count of attempted use of a weapon of
mass destruction, one count of attempted murder of officers
or employees of the United States, two counts of possession
of a firearm in furtherance of a federal crime of violence,
and two counts of possession of a destructive device in
furtherance of a federal crime of violence. Abdo allegedly
purchased gunpowder, shotgun ammunition, and a magazine for a
semi-automatic pistol at a gun store near Fort Hood. An
employee at the gun store supposedly brought Abdo to the
attention of law enforcement officers. Federal officials have
noted that Abdo also possessed a .40 caliber handgun, bomb
making materials, and an article on how to construct an
explosive device, among other items. The article was from
Inspire, an English-language magazine produced by Al Qaeda in
the Arabian Peninsula.
(20) Ulugbek Kodirov--Plot to Assassinate President Obama--
July 2011.
Ulugbek Kodirov, an Uzbek living in Alabama, was arrested
when he sought assistance to kill President Obama either by
shooting him or using explosives. The affidavit said that the
source whom Kodirov contacted for help told authorities that
Kodirov supported Islamic extremists and regularly viewed
jihadist websites.
(21) Emerson Begolly--Plot to Encourage Jihadist Acts in
the United States--July 2011.
On July 14, 2011, Emerson Begolly, a U.S. citizen from New
Bethlehem, PA, was indicted for attempting to encourage
jihadists to commit acts of terrorism within the United
States and distributing information related to explosives
online. In August 2011, he pleaded guilty to ``soliciting
others to engage in acts of terrorism within the United
States and to using a firearm during and in relation to an
assault on FBI agents.'' According to DOJ, Begolly posted
``links to a 101-page document that contain[ed] information
on how to set up a laboratory, conduct basic chemistry, and
manufacture explosives.''
(22) Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif and (23) Walli Mujahidh--Plot
to Attack Seattle Military Processing Center--June 2011
On June 22, 2011, Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif and Walli
Mujahidh, were arrested on terrorism and firearms charges for
plotting to attack a Seattle military processing center. An
FBI sting operation apprehended the two as they took
possession of machine guns they had purchased for the plot.
The firearms had been rendered inert as part of the sting
operation. Assistant Attorney General for National Security
Todd Hinnen described the plot as, ``driven by a violent,
extreme ideology.'' While the two reportedly had not worked
out all of the details of their plot, they allegedly were
frustrated by ``American war policies'' and hoped for an
attack that would garner wide attention.
(24) Yonathan Melaku--Plot to Shoot Targets in Washington,
DC, Area--June 2011
On June 23, 2011, DOJ announced that Yonathan Melaku, an
Ethiopian native living in Alexandria, VA, was charged with
destruction of property and firearm violations. These charges
stemmed from five shootings at military installations in
Northern Virginia between October and November 2010. No one
was harmed in the shootings. It is unclear to what extent
Melaku, a Marine Corps reservist, was driven by jihadist
motivations; however, investigators linked Melaku to a spiral
notebook with numerous Arabic statements referencing the
Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, ``The Path to Jihad,'' as
well as a list of several other individuals associated with
foreign terrorist organizations. Law enforcement officials
also found a video when they searched Melaku's bedroom. It
reportedly depicted ``Melaku in an automobile driving near
what appears to be the U.S. Marine Corps Heritage Museum and
repeatedly firing a handgun out the passenger-side window.''
In the video, he allegedly states, ``that's my target. That's
the military building. It's going to be attacked,'' and then
he shouts, ``Allah Akbar.''
(25) Waad Ramadan Alwan and (26) Mohanad Shareef Hammadi--
Material Support to Al Qaeda in Iraq--May 2011
Alwan and Hammadi were arrested on May 25, 2011 in Kentucky
on charges to commit conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals abroad
and provide material support, including weapons, to Al Qaeda
in Iraq among other charges.
(27) Ahmed Ferhani and (28) Mohamed Mamdouh--Plot to Attack
New York City Targets--May 2011
On May 12, 2011, Ahmed Ferhani (an Algerian native living
in Queens, NY) and Mohamed Mamdouh (a naturalized U.S.
citizen from Morocco) were arrested for plotting to blow up a
synagogue as well as churches in New York City. However, the
duo had not chosen a specific target. New York City officials
alleged that Ferhani was driven by a hatred of Jews and a
belief that Muslims are mistreated the world over. He and
Mamdouh allegedly had purchased firearms and a hand grenade
from an undercover detective posing as a gun dealer.
(29) Joseph Jeffrey Brice--Testing Explosives and Proving
Material Support to Terrorists--May 2011
Joseph Jeffrey Brice was arrested on charges of
manufacturing an unregistered firearm and later an additional
charge of providing material support for terrorism. Police
began to take an interest in Mr. Brice after he was seriously
injured in April 2010 while testing a homemade bomb.
Investigators discovered videos Brice posted that depicted
suicide bombings in Pakistan and links to a terrorism
magazine with instructions on how to make explosives. He also
posted bomb making videos to YouTube under the name
``StrengthofAllah.'' Mr. Brice also plotted with an
unidentified man to rob a Zions First National bank in Idaho
although the plot was never acted upon. Authorities believe
Brice was not a Muslim; rather, he assumed a Muslim identity
online in order to sell his bomb-making expertise.
(30) Hafiz Muhammed Sher Ali Khan, (31) Irfan Khan, and
(32) Izhar Khan,--Material Support to the Pakistani Taliban--
May 2011
Six individuals located in South Florida and Pakistan were
indicted in the Southern District of Florida on charges of
providing financing and other material support to the
Pakistani Taliban, a designated foreign terrorist
organization. Three of them were located abroad. Hafiz
Muhammed Sher Ali Khan, Irfan Khan, and Izhar Khan were
arrested in the U.S.
(33) Kevin William Harpham--Attempt to Use an Explosive
Device--March 2011
On March 9, 2011, Kevin Harpham was arrested for placing an
explosive device alongside a planned Martin Luther King Jr.
Day Unity March. Harpham admitted that he was a white
supremacist and white separatist.
(34) Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari--Plot to Bomb U.S. Targets--
February 2011
On February 23, 2011, FBI agents arrested Khalid Ali-M
Aldawsari, a citizen of Saudi Arabia and resident of Lubbock,
TX. He was charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass
destruction. He also allegedly plotted to purchase material
to make an improvised explosive device and had researched
potential U.S. targets. A chemical supplier provided
information to the FBI about a suspicious attempted purchase
by Aldawsari. Prosecutors have stated that among the targets
Aldawsari researched was the home address for former
President George W. Bush. He also researched the names and
home addresses of three American soldiers who had previously
served at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
(35) Roger Stockham--Plot to Attack Shia Mosque in
Michigan--January 2011
Roger Stockham was arrested on January 24, 2011 outside the
Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Michigan. Mr.
Stockham, a Vietnam veteran from Southern California, was
caught with explosives in his vehicle outside the Michigan
mosque. Authorities found a large but undisclosed quantity of
class-C fireworks including M-80s, which are banned in
Michigan, in his car. Mr. Stockham had a history of mental
health issues and criminal acts ranging from kidnappings to
attempted bombings.
(36) Antonio Martinez--Plot to Bomb Armed Forces Recruiting
Center--December 2010
Antonio Martinez (aka Muhammad Hussain), a U.S. citizen
from Baltimore was charged with attempting to detonate a bomb
outside of a U.S. Armed Forces recruiting center in
Catonsville, Maryland on December 8, 2010. Unbeknownst to
him, Mr. Martinez was working with undercover FBI agents the
whole time as they had been monitoring him since October 1,
2010 when a confidential source tipped off authorities to the
potential danger. Martinez had attempted to recruit up to
five other people to his plot, but they all declined to help
him.
(37) Mohamed Osman Mohamud--Plot to Bomb Christmas Tree
Lighting Ceremony--November 2010
Mohamed Osman Mohamud a US Citizen from Somalia was charged
with attempting to detonate a vehicle bomb at a Christmas
[[Page S7022]]
tree lighting ceremony in Portland, OR on November 26, 2010.
The arrest was the culmination of a months-long investigation
and the explosives he was trying to detonate were inert.
Mohamud was in touch with contacts in Pakistan and he was
trying to travel overseas to engage in a violent jihad,
according to the FBI. Mohamud told undercover agents that he
had been trying to commit a violent jihad for 4 years, since
he was 15.
(38) Mohamud Abdi Yusuf and (39) Abdi Mahdi Hussein--
Material Support to Al-Shabaab and Conspiracy to Structure
Financial Transactions--November 2010
On November 1, 2010, Mohamud Abdi Yusuf was arrested on
charges of providing material support to al Shabaab and one
charge of conspiracy to structure financial transactions.
Abdi Mahdi Hussein was arrested one day later on a charge of
conspiracy to structure financial transactions. The
indictment alleged that Yusuf and Hussein sent funds to al
Shabaab supporters in Somalia from licensed money remitting
businesses operating in the United States, in part by using
fictitious names and telephone numbers to conceal the nature
of their activities.
(40) Farooque Ahmed--Plot to Bomb Washington, DC, Subway
Stations--October 2010
Farooque Ahmed was arrested on October 27, 2010, and
charged with conspiring with others he believed to be Al
Qaeda operatives to bomb subway stations in Washington, DC.
His co-conspirators turned out to be undercover law
enforcement officers.
(41) Abdel Hameed Shehadeh--Travel Abroad to Wage Jihad--
October 2010
Abdel Hameed Shehadeh was arrested on October 22, 2010, in
Honolulu, HI. Among the accusations against him were that he
tried to join the U.S. military so he could be deployed to
Iraq but would desert and fight with anti-American insurgency
forces.
(42) Sami Samir Hassoun--Plot to Detonate an Explosive
Device--September 2010
Sami Samir Hassoun was charged with one count each of (1)
attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and (2)
attempted use of an explosive device after placing a backpack
which he thought contained an explosive device into a
curbside trash receptacle near a crowded nightclub.
(43) Amina Ali and (44) Hawo Hassan--Material Support to
Terrorist Group al Shabaab--August 2010
On August 15, 2010, 2 Americans and 12 others were charged
with terrorism-related crimes linked to the Somali-based
organization known as al Shabaab. There were only two arrests
of Amina Ali and Hawo Hassan women charged with raising money
to support al Shabaab through door-to-door solicitations and
teleconferences in Somali communities in Minnesota.
Indictments were also unsealed in Minnesota, Alabama, and
California charging the other 12 individuals who were
believed to be fugitives in Somalia.
(45) Shaker Masri--Attempted Travel to Somalia or
Afghanistan to Fight--August 2010
Shaker Masri was arrested by the FBI on August 3, 2010,
just before he was allegedly planning to travel to Somalia or
Afghanistan to join either al-Shabaab or Al Qaeda. The FBI
used a cooperating source who met Masri in November 2008 and
subsequently consensually recorded conversations with him for
the investigation. According to court documents, Masri
encouraged the cooperating source to ``review speeches'' by
Anwar al-Awlaki.
(46) Paul Gene Rockwood and (47) Nadia Rockwood--Charged
with Perjury in a Terrorism Investigation--July 2010
Both Paul Rockwood and his wife pleaded guilty to one count
of willfully making false statements to the FBI involving
terrorism. According to the plea agreements and other
documents filed with the court, Paul Rockwood converted to
Islam, and later became a strict adherent to the violent
jihad-promoting ideology of cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki. According
to the filed court documents, after he moved to King Salmon,
Alaska in 2006, Paul Rockwood continued his adherence to Al-
Awlaki's ideology and by early 2010, he formalized a target
list to include 15 specific locations all outside the state
of Alaska. In April 2010, Paul Rockwood gave his written
target list to his wife, Nadia, who, knowing of its purpose,
carried the list with her on a trip to Anchorage. The FBI's
Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) subsequently obtained the
target list. On May 19, 2010, JTTF agents questioned Paul
Rockwood and provided him a copy of the target list. In
response to agents' questions, Rockwood made false
statements, denying he had created such a list, denying the
purpose of the list and denying ever having such a list. JTTF
agents also questioned Nadia Rockwood on May 19, 2010, about
transporting the target list authored by her husband to
another person. In response, Nadia Rockwood also made false
statements to FBI agents.
(48) Zachary Adam Chesser and (49) Proscovia Kampire
Nzabanita--Conspiracy to Murder ``South Park'' Creators--July
2010
On July 21, 2010, Zachary Adam Chesser, of Fairfax County,
Va., was arrested on charges that he provided material
support to al-Shabaab, a designated foreign terrorist
organization. According to court documents, Chesser
maintained several online profiles dedicated to extremist
jihad propaganda. Chesser eventually admitted to encouraging
violent jihadists to attack the writers of South Park,
including highlighting their residence and urging online
readers to ``pay them a visit.'' Chesser's wife, Proscovia
Kampire Nzabanita, eventually pleaded guilty to making a
false statement to an FBI agent during the course of the
FBI's investigation of her husband.
(50) Mohamed Alessa and (51) Carlos Almonte--Attempting
Material Support to Terrorism--June 2010
On June 5, 2010, two New Jersey residents, Mohamed Alessa
and Carlos Almonte, were arrested at JFK in New York prior to
boarding separate flights to Egypt. Authorities alleged the
two had hoped to eventually link up with al-Shabaab in
Somalia. The following day, they were charged with conspiracy
to kill Americans abroad. They are alleged to have vowed to
``slice up'' troops in ``a thousand pieces,'' according to
the criminal complaint which cites conversations secretly
recorded by a NYPD undercover officer.
(52) Tarek Mehanna--Providing Material Support to Al
Qaeda--June 2010
Tarek Mehanna (of Sudbury, Massachusetts) and Ahmad
Aboursamra (a fugitive in Syria) were charged with conspiring
to aid Al Qaeda, as well as attempting to commit murder in a
foreign country, conspiracy to commit provide false
information to law enforcement, as well as a number of other
counts of false statements to law enforcement. Only Mehanna
was arrested.
(53) Barry Walter Bujol, Jr.--Attempting to Provide
Material Support to Al Qaeda--June 2010
Barry Walter Bujol, Jr. was charged with attempting to
provide material support to AQAP and aggravated identity
theft.
(54) Faisal Shahzad--Attempted Car Bombing in Times
Square--May 2010
Fasial Shahzad was arrested on May 3, 2010 and eventually
pleaded guilty to 10 crimes stemming from attempting to
detonate a car bomb in Times Square on May 1, 2010. Shahzad
was apprehended after being identified at JFK Airport after
U.S. Customs agents recognized him from video taken at Times
Square. Two other individuals were indicted in connection
with this terrorist plot:
(55) Mohammad Younis was arrested in September 2010 and
accused of operating an unlicensed money transmitting
business which provided funds to Faisal Shahzad. There are no
allegations, however, that Younis was aware of the intended
use of the money. In the indictment, he was charged with
operating an unlicensed money transfer business between the
United States and Pakistan and conspiracy to operate an
unlicensed money transfer business. In August 2011, he
pleaded guilty to the former charge.
(56) Aftab Ali was charged in a criminal complaint in
November 2010 with immigration fraud and making false
statements. The complaint alleges that Ali provided $4,900 to
Shahzad in February 2010 as part of a hawala transaction. The
complaint does not allege that Ali was aware of the intended
use of the money by Shahzad, but in April 2011, Ali pleaded
guilty to charges of unlicensed money transmitting and
immigration document fraud. He was sentenced to time served
and ordered to be deported.
(57) Khalid Ouazzani--Providing Material Support to Al
Qaeda--May 2010
Ouazzani swore an oath of allegiance to Al Qaeda in June
2008. Ouazzani admitted that, from August 2007 to February
2010, he participated in a conspiracy to provide material
support or resources to Al Qaeda. Ouazzani admitted that he
personally provided more than $23,000 to Al Qaeda and
performed other tasks at the request of and for the benefit
of Al Qaeda. Ouazzani also had conversations with others
about various ways to support Al Qaeda, including plans for
them to fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Somalia.
(58) Wesam el-Hanafi and (59) Sabirhan Hasanoff--Providing
Material Support to Al Qaeda--April 2010
Wesam el-Hanafi and Sabirhan Hasanoff were indicted for
conspiring to provide material support, including computer
advice and assistance, to Al Qaeda.
(60) Colleen R. LaRose, (61) Jamie Paulin Ramirez, and (62)
Mohammad Hassan Khalid--Material Support to Terrorists--March
2010
On March 9, 2010 Colleen LaRose was charged with conspiracy
to provide material support to terrorists, conspiracy to kill
in a foreign country, making false statements to a government
official, and attempted identity theft. The indictment
charged that LaRose, an American citizen who went by the
alias ``Jihad Jane'', was part of a group who recruited men
on the Internet to wage violent jihad in South Asia and
Europe, and recruited women on the Internet who had passports
and the ability to travel to and around Europe in support of
violent jihad. Additionally, LaRose was accused of directly
plotting to kill a citizen of Sweden. LaRose, aka ``Jihad
Jane,'' pleaded guilty in February 2011 in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania and Ramirez pleaded guilty in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania in March 2011.
On April 2, 2010, Jamie Paulin Ramirez, a U.S. citizen and
former resident of Colorado, was also charged with conspiracy
to provide material support to terrorists, and linked to the
same group as LaRose. The superseding indictment charged that
LaRose and Ramirez traveled to and around Europe to
participate in and in support of violent jihad.
Finally, on October 20, 2011, Mohammad Hassan Khalid was
also charged with providing material support to terrorists
linking back to the same case as LaRose and Ramirez. The
indictment alleged that, from about 2008 through July 2011,
Khalid conspired with LaRose, Ramirez, and others to provide
material support and resources, including
[[Page S7023]]
logistical support, recruitment services, financial support,
identification documents and personnel, to a conspiracy to
kill overseas.
(63 through 71) Nine Members of Militia Group ``The
Hutaree'' Charged with Attempted Use of Weapons of Mass
Destruction--March 2010
Six Michigan residents, two Ohio residents, and a resident
of Indiana were charged with attempted use of weapons of mass
destruction among other charges. The indictment alleged that
nine individuals who were part of the Lenawee County Michigan
militia group called the Hutaree, conspired to oppose by
force the authority of the U.S. government. The indictment
further alleged that the Hutaree planned to kill an
unidentified member of local law enforcement and then attack
the law enforcement officers who gathered for the funeral.
According to the plan, the Hutaree would attack law
enforcement vehicles during the funeral procession with
improvised explosive devices, which, according to the
indictment, constitute weapons of mass destruction.
(72) Raja Ladrasib Khan--Provided Material Support to Al
Qaeda--March 2010
Khan was arrested and charged with sending money orders to
Ilyas Kashimiri, a Pakistani Al Qaeda Leader on multiple
occasions knowing that the money was going to a terrorist
organization.
(73) Hosam Maher Husein Smadi--Attempting to use a Weapon
of Mass Destruction--March 2010
On September 24, 2009, Hosam Maher Husein Smadi was
arrested and charged in a federal criminal complaint with
attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction after he
placed an inert/inactive car bomb near Fountain Place, a 60-
story glass office tower in downtown Dallas. Smadi repeatedly
espoused his desire to commit violent jihad and had been the
focus of an undercover FBI investigation.
(74) Omer Abdi Mohamed--Conspiring to Provide Material
Support to Murder, Kidnap, and Maim Abroad--November 2009
The indictment alleged that Omer Abdi Mohamed conspired to
provide material support to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure
persons in a foreign country. Among the activities alleged
against Mohamed were that he recruited young men to send to
Somalia to fight for al-Shabaab. In July 2011, Mohamed
pleaded guilty to the charges filed against him.
(75) Abdow Munye Abdow--False Statements in a Terrorism
Investigation--October 2009
On October 13, 2009, a federal grand jury returned a two-
count indictment charging Abdow Munye Abdow with making false
statements to the FBI after being stopped during a road trip
from Minneapolis to Las Vegas with young men, allegedly
facilitating their travel to Somalia to fight for al-Shabaab.
(76) David Coleman Headley and (77) Tahawwur Hussain Rana--
Terrorism Conspiracy--October 2009
On October 29, 2009, David Coleman Headley and Tahawwur
Hussain Rana were arrested for their alleged roles in
conspiracies to provide material support and/or to commit
terrorist acts against overseas targets, including facilities
and employees of a Danish newspaper that published cartoons
of the Prophet Mohammed in 2005. Eventually Headley pleaded
guilty to a dozen charges of terrorism stemming from the
November 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai, India. Headley also
admitted to attending training camps in Pakistan to prepare
for terrorist attacks and to traveling to Mumbai to conduct
surveillance in 2005.
(78) Najibullah Zazi, (79) Adis Medunjanin, and (80) Zarein
Ahmedzay--Conspiracy to Use Weapons of Mass Destruction--
September 2009
On Sept. 8, 2009, Zazi drove from Denver to New York,
carrying explosives and other materials necessary to build
bombs and carry out attacks in New York City, including a
plan to bomb the New York subway system. However, shortly
after arriving in New York, Zazi learned that law enforcement
was investigating his activities, so he traveled back to
Denver, where he was arrested on Sept. 19, 2009. Medunjanin
and Ahmedzay were later arrested in connection with Zazi's
bombing plot. All three men had traveled to Pakistan for
terrorist training and along with others, planned the New
York terrorist attacks. Three other individuals were indicted
in connection with this terrorist plot:
(81) Mohammed Wali Zazi, Najibullah Zazi's father was
arrested in the fall of 2009 for lying to investigators. On
February 1, 2010, he was indicted for conspiring to dispose
of his son's bomb-making materials and chemicals. In July
2011, the elder Zazi was found guilty in federal court on one
count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and one count of
obstruction of justice.
(82) Ahmad Wais Afzali, a Queens Imam, was arrested for
tipping off Zazi to the FBI investigation. Afzali had been a
source of information for federal and New York City
investigators in the past. On March 4, 2010, Afzali pleaded
guilty to lying to federal officials. He stated in court that
he lied about a conversation he had with Zazi tipping him off
to the FBI's investigation.
(83) Naqib Jaji, Zazi's uncle, eventually pleaded guilty to
obstructing justice.
(84) Michael Finton--Plot to Bomb the Springfield,
Illinois, Federal Building--September 2009
On September 23, 2009, Michael C. Finton, who had converted
to Islam was arrested after he drove a van he thought was
loaded with explosives--but was actually full of inert
materials provided to him by the FBI--to the Paul Findley
Federal Building in Springfield, IL. Prosecutors say he
parked and locked the vehicle, then moved a few blocks away
before twice making cell phone calls he believed would
trigger a blast that would kill or injure people inside the
building. In May 2011, he pleaded guilty to attempting to
bomb the building and was sentenced to 28 years in prison.
(85) Daniel Patrick Boyd, (86) Hysen Sherifi, (87) Anes
Subasic, (88) Zakariya Boyd, (89) Dylan Boyd, (90) Mohammad
Omar Aly Hassan, and (91) Ziyad Yaghi--Terrorism Violations--
July 2009
On July 27, 2009, seven individuals in North Carolina were
charged with conspiring to provide material support to
terrorists and conspiring to murder, kidnap, maim, and injure
persons abroad. The indictment alleged that Daniel Boyd and
the other defendants conspired to provide material support
and resources to terrorists, including currency, training,
transportation, and personnel. The defendants also conspired
to murder, kidnap, maim, and injure persons abroad during
this period. The object of the conspiracy, according to the
indictment, was to advance violent jihad.
(92) James Cromitie, (93) David Williams, (94) Onta
Williams, and (95) Laguerre Payen--Plot to Blow up Synagogues
and Shoot down U.S. Military Planes--May 2009
These four men were arrested for plotting to bomb
synagogues in the Bronx, New York. Additionally, they planned
to use Stinger, surface to air missiles, to shoot down
military planes at New York Air National Guard Base. The men
were contacted by FBI informants and given inert weapons,
which they proceeded to try and use, which is when they were
apprehended.
(96) Salah Osman Ahmed--Providing Material Support to al-
Shabaab--July 2009
On February 19, 2009, Salah Osman Ahmed pleaded guilty to
providing material support to al-Shabaab.
(97) Abdifatah Yusuf Isse--Providing Material Support to
al-Shabaab--April 2009
On February 19, 2009, Abdifatah Yusuf Isse guilty to
providing material support to al-Shabaab.
(98) Kamal Said Hassan--Providing Material Support to al-
Shabaab--February 2009
On February 19, 2009, Kamal Said Hassan pleaded guilty to
providing material support to al-Shabaab and making false
statements to the FBI.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It is also important to understand that suspected
terrorists who may be in the United States illegally can be detained
within the criminal justice system using at least the following four
options: One, they can be charged with a Federal or State crime and
held; two, they can be held for violating immigration laws; three, they
can be held as material witnesses as part of Federal grand jury
proceedings; and, four, they can be held under section 412 of the
PATRIOT Act for up to 6 months.
I wish to be very clear about what this amendment is and what it is
not about. It is not about whether citizens such as Hamdi and Padilla
or others who would do us harm should be captured, interrogated,
incarcerated, and severely punished. They should be. But what about an
innocent American? What about someone in the wrong place at the wrong
time with the wrong skin color?
The beauty of our Constitution is that it gives everyone in the
United States basic due process rights to a trial by a jury of their
peers. That is what makes this Nation great. As Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor wrote for the plurality in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld:
As critical as the Government's interests may be in
detaining those who actually pose an immediate threat to the
national security of the United States during ongoing
international conflict, history and common sense teach us
that an unchecked system of detention carries the potential
to become a means for oppression and abuse of others who do
not present that sort of threat.
Just think of it. If someone is of the wrong race and they are in a
place where there is a terrorist attack, they could be picked up, they
could be held without charge or trial for month after month, year after
year. That is wrong. Experiences over the last decade prove the U.S. is
safer now than before the 9/11 attacks. Terrorists are behind bars,
dangerous plots have been thwarted. The system is working and hopefully
improving each day.
So I think now is the time to clarify U.S. law to state unequivocally
that the government cannot without trial or charge indefinitely detain
Americans and green card holders captured inside this country.
The Federal Government experimented with indefinite detention of U.S.
citizens during World War II, a mistake we now recognize as a betrayal
of our core values. Let's not repeat it. I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment.
[[Page S7024]]
I yield the floor for Senator Paul.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Feinstein's
amendment. I compliment her on her work. I also echo the importance of
the right to trial by jury. In fact, I am appalled that anyone would
think we could arrest anyone in our country without charging them and
giving them a right to a trial. It seems so fundamentally un-American.
I agree with her also that I think the Supreme Court would apply this
to anyone. Our amendment will say citizens and permanent residents. But
I think the Supreme Court, if challenged, will uphold the right to
trial by jury of anyone within the United States.
Today, we will either affirm the right to trial by jury or restrict
it. Today, we will vote to affirm the sixth amendment to the
Constitution or we will spurn it. Today, we will vote to affirm 800
years of history, beginning with the Magna Carta, or we will relinquish
or, at the very least, diminish a right that Jefferson referred to as
``the only anchor yet imagined by man, which a government can be held
to the principles of its Constitution.'' The right to trial by jury was
a check on oppressive government.
Opponents of the right to trial by jury will come and they will argue
that the American homeland is now a battlefield and that we must
circumscribe our right to trial by jury to be safe from terrorists. But
if we give up our rights, have not the terrorist won? If we let fear
relinquish our rights--if we relinquish our rights because of fear,
what is it exactly then we are fighting for?
We are asked to relinquish our rights because the battlefield is
limitless. It is, though, not a temporary suspension they are asking
for, and they request this because they also say the battle is also
without limit. This is not a war that is going to end, nor is it a
right they will suspend temporarily. They are asking people to
relinquish their right to trial by jury for the rest of this limitless
war.
Those Senators who would propose limiting the right to trial by jury,
they deflect and demur that everyone will still have a habeas hearing.
A habeas hearing is important. They must present the body and a judge
might say: Why are you holding this person? But it is not the end of
due process; it is the beginning of due process.
A habeas hearing is not due process. It is the beginning. We must
still have a trial by jury or we do not have the due process our
Founding Fathers fought for. Those Senators who would abridge this and
say a habeas hearing is enough should remember Blackstone's admonition,
``Every new tribunal, erected for the decision of facts without the
intervention of a jury . . . is a step towards establishing
aristocracy, the most oppressive of absolute governments.''
We are told we cannot do this. We have to put these people outside
the constitutional court, that somehow we need something beyond the
Constitution, that the Constitution is not enough to convict
terrorists. Yet hundreds of terrorists have been convicted. In fact,
two terrorists in my little small town, Bowling Green, KY, were
apprehended and were tried and were convicted to life for terrorism. We
can do it.
We are told that only terrorists associated with al-Qaida will this
be applied to. We will only take away the right to trial by jury if
they are part of al-Qaida. But part of the security apparatus also
tells us to know your neighbor. Know your neighbor so you can report
your neighbor.
In fact, we are told by the government some of the characteristics
that might make you a terrorist. We are told by the Department of
Justice that if you have stains on your clothing, that if you are
missing fingers, if you have changed the color of your hair recently,
that if you prefer to pay in cash, that if you own weatherized
ammunition, if you own multiple guns, you might be a terrorist; that
your neighbor should report you.
Do we want to relinquish our right to trial by jury if the
characteristics of terrorism are wanting to pay by cash? In Missouri,
they had fusion centers. They are supposed to accumulate information
about terrorists and sort of assimilate Federal and local and have
better communications.
Sounds good. I am all for better communications. Before 9/11 we did
mess up. We did not communicate well. But from this fusion center comes
a document that says: Beware of people who have bumper stickers
supporting third-party candidates, beware of people who believe in
stricter immigration laws, beware of people who support the right to
life; they might be terrorists. This is an official document. Do we
want to give up the right to trial by jury when we are being told
someone who keeps food in their basement might be a terrorist?
Am I the only one who fears the relinquishing of a right we have had
for 800 years? Am I the only one who fears that a terrorist might be
someone whom we might describe as someone who is a constitutionalist?
This is an ancient right to trial by jury we have had since virtually
the beginning of our historic times. The Greeks and the Romans had a
form of right to trial by jury.
In 725 A.D., Morgan of Glamorgan, the Prince of Wales, said, ``For as
Christ and his Twelve Apostles were finally to judge the world, so
human tribunals should be composed of twelve wise men.'' We have been
doing this for hundreds upon hundreds of years. We saw it as a way to
check the oppression of the King but also to check the potential
oppression of government.
England and America have for centuries prized this right to trial by
jury. It seems a shame to scrap it now. Our Founders believed so firmly
in the right to trial by jury that they enshrined it in the body of the
Constitution, again in this sixth amendment and again every State of
the Union has within the body of its constitution the right to trial by
jury.
It seems a shame to scrap it now. Churchill proudly remembers our
joint devotion to trial by jury. He writes, ``We must never cease to
proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the
rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking
world and which through the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, habeas
corpus, trial by jury and the English common law find their most famous
expression in the Declaration of Independence.''
Senator Lafollette, a famous Senator from Wisconsin, put it well. He
said:
Let no man think that we can deny civil liberty to others
and retain it for ourselves. When zealot agents of the
government arrest suspected radicals without warrant, hold
them without prompt trial, deny them access to counsel and
admission of bail . . . we have shorn the Bill of Rights of
its sanctity . . .
Today we have a chance to reaffirm our belief in the right to trial
by jury. We have a chance to replace fear with confidence, confidence
that no terrorist and no country will ever conquer us if we remain
steadfast, steadfast to the principles of our founding documents.
We have nothing to fear except our own unwillingness to defend what
is naturally ours, our God-given rights. We have nothing to fear that
should cause us to relinquish our rights as free men and women. I urge
my colleagues to reject fear, to reject the siren call for an ever more
powerful government.
Justice White put it well when he said:
A right to jury trial is granted criminal defendants in
order to prevent the oppression by the government.
It is not just about a fair trial, it is about checking your
government. This vote today is about more than just combating terrorism
or a fair trial, it is about relinquishing the right to the checks and
balances, to the checks that cause and help us to check the relentless
growth of government. It is about whether a free people are willing to
remain steadfast in our defense of an 800-year-old right that finds
justice for the accused and provides restraint and limits on despotism.
I hope my colleagues will today vote against limitations on the trial
by jury, recognize its sanctity, and recognize the importance of
something that brings Members from the right side of the aisle together
with Members of the left side of the aisle who believe strongly in the
defense of the Bill of Rights.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
[[Page S7025]]
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the
Feinstein-Lee amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. At
the outset, I wish to note this amendment is the product of bipartisan
discussion and collaboration on an issue that is important to all
Americans. I am pleased to have been a part of that process.
Senator Feinstein and I have worked closely together over the course
of the past year to craft what we believe represents a very prudent
course in protecting both our Nation and our liberties at the same
time. Security is important. And precisely because it is important it
must not be acquired at the expense of our individual liberty. It may
well be said that government's most important basic responsibility is
to protect the liberties of its citizens. Our Nation has fought wars on
American soil and around the world in defense of individual liberty,
and we must not sacrifice this most fundamental right in pursuit of
greater security, especially when we can achieve security without
compromising liberty.
The Feinstein-Lee amendment does precisely that. It protects liberty
by ensuring that no American will be deprived of due process. The fifth
amendment states:
No person . . . shall be deprived of life, liberty or
property, without due process of law.
The sixth amendment, likewise, guarantees that individuals accused of
a crime will have access to an attorney and access to a trial by a jury
consisting of that person's peers. Our amendment protects those rights
and it provides the following:
An authorization to use military force, a declaration of
war, or any similar authority shall not authorize detention
without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent
resident of the United States apprehended in the United
States.
It is important to note the Supreme Court has never specifically held
that an authorization for the use of military force somehow authorizes
the indefinite detention of a U.S. citizen or a U.S. person apprehended
within the United States, and I don't think we should break new ground
here. I don't think we should start opening that precedent and suggest
that is somehow acceptable. The Constitution does, in fact, require
nothing less than traditional due process for all Americans apprehended
within the United States.
As Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia has written:
The gist of the Due Process Clause, as understood at the
founding and since, was to force the government to follow . .
. common-law procedures traditionally deemed necessary before
depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. When a
citizen was deprived of liberty because of alleged criminal
conduct, those procedures typically required committal by a
magistrate followed by indictment and trial.
I understand and respect, of course, the fact that we live in
perilous times. We, unfortunately, as Americans have enemies not only
around the world but even within our own borders. This is unfortunate.
This creates challenging times for us. I hope and pray every day we
will be successful in fending off those who would harm us, those who
hate our way of life and everything about us and will do everything in
their power to destroy us and our liberty. But that does not--it
cannot, it will not--mean we, as Americans, should surrender our basic
instinct to be free.
We must stand behind our 225-year-old founding document as it has
been amended to ensure that our liberty isn't taken away from us to
give us a path toward providing for our security without jeopardizing
the freedom our American citizens cherish so much and have fought so
hard and for so long to protect.
Granting the U.S. Government the power to deprive its own citizens of
life, liberty, or property without full due process of law goes against
the very nature of our Nation's great constitutional values. This
amendment--the Feinstein-Lee amendment--protects those values. I urge
my colleagues to support it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, somewhere on this desk I have a unanimous
consent request.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative 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.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Baucus be added as a cosponsor to my amendment No. 3018.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it now be in
order for Senator Leahy to call up his amendment No. 2955; that the
time until 6 p.m. be equally divided in the usual form; that at 6 p.m.
the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Leahy amendment No.
2955; further, that there be no amendments in order to the Leahy
amendment prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, but I am not objecting, I
wish to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman.
Is it our intention to continue to consider amendments following this
amendment, and I don't know whether there is a possibility of votes,
but we certainly--isn't it correct to say we could consider amendments,
and we will try to dispose of them given the limited time we have to
consider the bill?
Mr. LEVIN. It would be my hope that after this vote, we would be able
to clear amendments, perhaps----
Mr. McCAIN. Debate.
Mr. LEVIN. And to have the Senators debate amendments.
I know Senator Coburn will be here between now and 6 o'clock to
debate the Leahy amendment. We don't need to protect him further since
the time is equally divided, and he can have part of the half hour of
time.
But it is my hope that people who want to dispose of amendments will
come after the 6 o'clock vote and bring these amendments to our
attention, see if our staffs can make progress, clear amendments, and
maybe package some votes for tomorrow morning. We can make progress
after this vote if our colleagues will cooperate with us.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend, and I do not object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2955
(Purpose: To improve the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program)
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2955.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes an amendment
numbered 2955.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is actually a simple amendment. It
strengthens the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act. That is the
Federal death and disability program that we have for our Nation's
first responders who are killed or disabled in the line of duty. There
is nothing new to this body in this amendment.
An earlier version of this legislation was adopted on the Senate
floor by voice vote in December of 2001. It was adopted as part of the
FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act. In
fact, following the Senate's adoption of the amendment, I worked
closely with the House Judiciary chairman, the distinguished Member of
the House, Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas. He and I added additional
reforms so we ended up with an improved bill. We ended up with a
[[Page S7026]]
modest expansion of benefits for deserving emergency medical responders
and a host of reforms to make the Public Safety Officers' Benefits
Program stronger, more efficient, and more cost-effective.
The most important thing, CBO, which initially had concern, reviewed
it and found this cost nothing. The CBO recognized the cost savings
associated with the reforms and efficiencies that we incorporated and
determined that the modest expansion of benefits was fully offset by
these reforms. What we are saying, since 1974, this country has
recognized that we have first responders who are killed and disabled in
the line of duty whose families deserve our help. This bipartisan
legislation does that.
We have determined that a police officer who is shot in the line of
duty, a first responder, a firefighter, an emergency medical responder
and others who are killed in the line of duty, died as a result of
their work in the line of duty, that they would have and share in the
same benefit we have provided for the whole country. This clarifies the
policy for all first responders who serve their communities in an
official capacity.
It is hard to think of anybody who could possibly disagree with this
amendment. It costs taxpayers nothing. It builds upon and improves what
we have always done.
Let me tell a story. Before we had this act, before we had this law,
when I was a young State's attorney, the police chief in Manchester,
VT, responding to a burglary, was shot and killed. He was a man, the
sole support of his wife and his aging mother. It turned out there was
no program at that time, no assistance from the state or Federal
Government. This was prior to 1974, 1976, and there was no program to
care for them, to care for the widow. Therefore, there was not even
money to pay for his funeral.
I was president of the Vermont State's attorneys association at the
time, and I started making calls around the State. We quickly raised
the money for his funeral and for some modest help for his family. I
still remember that funeral. It was one of those days we often have in
the winter during a snowfall when there are very large snowflakes. They
call them silver dollar snowflakes, and they are very large. They were
falling gently out of the sky. But on the two-lane road leading to this
small church, a typical New England church with a white steeple on it,
for miles and miles all we saw is that of the snow coming down in the
reflection. The blue lights from the police cars were flashing, the red
lights from the firetrucks were flashing, and the white and red lights
from the ambulances were flashing. I have never forgotten that.
Today, thanks to Federal legislation, if that happened again, there
would at least be benefits, as it should be. But this is something that
could happen in Vermont or Rhode Island or any other State in this
country. This measures contained in this amendment were passed in the
House overwhelmingly by voice vote in June of this year. It passed here
on the floor of the Senate by voice vote before that. It has no cost to
the taxpayers, which is something Chairman Smith and I worked on
together to ensure. I hope it will pass and at 6 o'clock we vote on it.
I reserve the balance of my time and I suggest the absence of a
quorum and ask that time be equally divided during the call of the
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
DeMint be added as a cosponsor of the amendment entitled ``Feinstein-
Collins amendment No. 3018.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the
amendment offered by Senator Feinstein. The purpose of our amendment is
to make clear that a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident arrested
in this country cannot be detained indefinitely without charge or
trial. This amendment is necessary because current law with respect to
the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens within the United States
remains unclear after more than 11 years of a persistent conflict in
which the enemy often does not distinguish itself from civilians.
Without this amendment, it is conceivable that an American citizen
could be arrested, detained, and held without charge or trial in order
to address the gap in the law. Our amendment is necessary.
Last year the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act
defined the scope of the detention authority provided under the 2001
Authorization for Use of Military Force for detainees captured outside
the United States. But the scope of detention authority, as it relates
to U.S. citizens and lawful residents captured or arrested inside the
United States, was left nebulous.
Because of this legal ambiguity, despite the guarantees enshrined in
our Constitution, an American citizen could be indefinitely detained
without charge or trial, even if they are detained in the United
States.
I do not believe that many of us intended to authorize such a
sweeping detention authority within the United States when we voted to
allow our military to pursue al-Qaida following the 9/11 attacks.
Because Congress was responsible for authorizing the use of military
force in the first place, it is our duty, our obligation, to define
carefully the scope of the detention authority we intended in the AUMF.
If we do not clarify this important issue, the Federal courts and the
executive branch will be left to substitute their judgment for ours.
This amendment specifically addresses the issue of American citizens
and lawful permanent residents detained in the United States, and it
would clarify that it is not the intention of the Congress to allow for
their indefinite detention.
Let me briefly mention what the Feinstein-Collins amendment does not
do.
First, it does not change the ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. In that
case, the Supreme Court ruled that an American citizen who wages war
against U.S. troops in an active combat zone can be taken into
preventive detention in order to keep that person from continuing to
wage war overseas against American military forces.
When an American citizen leaves this country to wage war against his
fellow citizens, he relinquishes certain rights, otherwise supported by
the Constitution, and I agree with the Court's decision in this case.
Next, this amendment does not preclude intelligence gathering
subsequent to a suspected terrorist being taken into detention.
The intelligence gathered from a suspect in the hours or days after
his arrest can be vital to preventing further acts of violence or in
uncovering terrorist networks at home or abroad. This amendment
balances the ability to gather this important information with the
suspect's rights by providing some flexibility within the
Constitution's bounds.
For example, it does not circumscribe the existing public safety
exception to Miranda. This exception permits law enforcement, in
certain circumstances, to engage in a limited and focused unwarned
interrogation and allows the government to introduce the statement as
direct evidence in a judicial proceeding. Law enforcement officials,
confronted with an emergency, may question a suspect held in custody
about an imminent threat to public safety without providing Miranda
warnings first.
In addition, nothing precludes other Federal agents from gathering
intelligence without providing Miranda rights. Under current law, a
U.S. citizen cannot be tried in a military tribunal, and that does not
change under our amendment.
Finally, this amendment does not change the treatment of those who
are here on temporary visas, such as students or travelers--the kind of
visas that were used by the 9/11 terrorists.
In closing, let me talk about how this amendment would have changed
the treatment of some U.S. citizens detained under the authorization
for use of military courts during the last 11 years had it become law.
First, because this amendment only covers American citizens captured
in
[[Page S7027]]
the United States, it would not have affected the detention of John
Walker Lindh, for example. So the only U.S. citizen affected by this
amendment would have been Jose Padilla. If this amendment were the law,
Jose Padilla's detention would have ended as it did under the Bush
administration--in a Federal courtroom, where he was charged with
aiding terrorists in a terrorist organization.
Since 2001 terrorism has claimed far too many victims, both abroad
and here in our country. But it is crucially important that in pursuing
the war on terrorism, we must assure our fellow citizens their
constitutional rights--the very foundation of what makes us Americans.
For this reason, I am proud to be a cosponsor of Senator Feinstein's
amendment, and I strongly urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 2955
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would like to spend a few minutes noting
why I am against the expansion of the Dale Long Public Safety Officers'
Benefits Improvements Act. And it is a great example of where we find
ourselves in the country. If you read the Constitution and look at the
enumerated powers, we have a Federal program to benefit what is really
the responsibility of States. Now, nobody is going to say this isn't a
beneficial program to those poor families who might need this. And the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee has done a wonderful job in terms
of offsetting this so that there is no additional cost, and for that I
congratulate him. But this is a great example of why we have $88
trillion in unfunded liabilities and are $16 trillion in debt--because
we are doing a function that is truly the responsibility of the States.
The PSOB Program was originally designed, in its original design, to
be a model so that the States would set up and demonstrate to them how
they could structurally set up their own programs. Over the last 30
years, Congress has continued to expand this program, and now we spend
about $81 million to $85 million a year on this program. I am not
saying it is not needed money for the families, but we are going to
expand a program that is truly not a Federal responsibility.
I have no hopes this will be defeated. I know it won't. But I wanted
to raise this question: Given what is in front of us, it is one thing
to meet the needs under our Federal requirements for Medicare and
Medicaid, but when are we going to stop expanding programs that aren't
truly our responsibility? The cause is great. It is appropriate for a
government agency to help in times for the people who actually put
their lives on the line for us. But is it a Federal responsibility? The
answer is no, it is not. It is a State responsibility. As we assume
more and more responsibilities for the States, with budget deficits in
excess of $1 trillion, what we are going to do is find ourselves at a
point where we are going to have to make cuts in programs that are our
responsibility.
All I ask you to do is think about whether this is truly a
responsibility of the Federal Government and whether we ought to be
expanding the program. It is well-intentioned and does great work, I
don't discount that. It is well-deserved, I don't discount that. But is
it a responsibility of the Federal Government?
I would state to the chairman that I would be happy to have a voice
vote on this and not force a vote because I know the outcome and we
shouldn't waste everybody's time to do that. So I ask for a voice vote
and to vitiate the vote that is scheduled for 6 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to that request?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am not sure what that request was.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request was for a voice vote on the Leahy
amendment now.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will be asking for the yeas and nays at
the appropriate time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we will be
voting at 6 p.m. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LEAHY. And as I understand, the managers will be requesting a
rollcall vote.
Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from Vermont have
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma
has noted his objection, and I appreciate him doing that, but I would
also note that we share different views on this. For example, the
Senator from Oklahoma was the lone vote opposing the Bulletproof Vest
Partnership Grant Act of 2012. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant
Program has saved the lives of hundreds and even thousands of our
police officers. He opposes the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act,
which provides a Federal death benefit to surviving families of first
responders who are killed in the line of duty. And he is objecting to
the passage of the bipartisan, bicameral, and cost-neutral Public
Safety Officers' Benefits Improvements Act of 2012, which would make
important reforms to a program that has assisted the families of
thousands of police officers and other first responders who have lost
their lives protecting their communities and fellow citizens.
During the months when we were trying to pass the Public Safety
Officers' Benefits legislation, we heard from Chuck Canterbury, the
highly respected president of the Fraternal Order of Police. He is one
of our Nation's law enforcement leaders. He wrote to the chairs of both
the Senate and House Judiciary Committees about the distinguished
Senator's opposition to this cost-neutral Public Safety Officers'
Benefits Program reform, and he concluded:
The FOP views this not as a politician embracing the
principle of federalism, but as a . . . ploy to place even
greater strain between law enforcement and other public
safety officers that serve on the local and State level and
their colleagues employed by the Federal government. When a
police officer puts himself in harm's way, he does not stop
to think about jurisdiction. He does not ask the offender if
he is committing a local, State, or Federal crime. He acts in
the best interest of the safety of those he swore to protect.
A family that loses a loved one in the line of duty should
not just be left adrift, their sacrifice ignored because
their loved one was a local firefighter or State Trooper and
not a Federal agent.
I hope the Senate will overwhelmingly pass this bipartisan piece of
legislation. We have always supported our first responders. I think
back to my own experience in law enforcement and also the experience of
former Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell from Colorado, who I joined to
write legislation, based upon his experience in the sheriff's
department in Colorado, and my experience as a prosecutor, to provide
assistance to state and local law enforcement to obtain bulletproof
vests. The amendment we consider today is in that same spirit. Anybody
who served in law enforcement, anybody who served as a volunteer
firefighter or emergency medical responder, anybody in any part of this
country who serves in these capacities knows the need for this. The
fact that we have been able to improve the existing law, with no cost
to the taxpayer, is even better.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
letters from the Congressional Fire Services Institute, International
Association of Fire Chiefs, International Association of Fire Fighters,
National Fire Protection Association, National Volunteer Fire Council,
and the American Ambulance Association in support of this legislation.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
November 28, 2012.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Leahy: We are writing to express support for
S.A. 2955, which would amend S. 3254, the National Defense
Authorization Act to include language from the Public Safety
Officers' Benefits Improvements Act (PSOBIA). As you know,
the Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) program provides
critical assistance to the families of public safety officers
who suffer a fatal injury in the line of duty and to public
safety officers who suffer a permanently disabling injury in
the line of duty.
PSOBIA would make several important changes to how PSOB is
administered, including making employees and volunteer
members of private, non-profit EMS/rescue
[[Page S7028]]
agencies eligible. Volunteer and career firefighters and EMTs
in private, non-profit fire departments already qualify for
PSOB while their counterparts in non-fire-based, private non-
profit EMS systems generally do not. PSOBIA fixes this
inequity.
The bill also clarifies that public safety officers who
suffer a fatal vascular rupture injury in the line of duty
are eligible for PSOB. The Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits
Act was enacted in 2003 and created a presumption that public
safety officers who suffer a fatal heart attack or stroke
within 24 hours of engaging in emergency response activity
are considered to have died as a result of a line of duty
injury and thus qualify for PSOB. Vascular rupture is a type
of injury that is similar to but technically distinct from
heart attack and stroke.
To reiterate, our organizations support S.A. 2955, which
makes several minor but extremely important changes to how
the PSOB program operates without any additional cost to the
federal government.
Sincerely,
Congressional Fire Services Institute,
International Association of Fire Chiefs,
International Association of Fire Fighters
National Fire Protection Association
National Volunteer Fire Council.
____
American Ambulance Association,
November 27, 2012.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John McCain,
Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain: We are
writing to ask your support for a critical amendment to the
FY 13 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Senate
Amendment 2955, the Dale Long Public Safety Officers'
Benefits Improvements Act of 2012.
The American Ambulance Association (AAA) is the primary
trade association for ground ambulance service agencies whose
combined membership provides emergency and non-emergency
medical services to over 75% of the U.S. population. Each day
our first responders put their lives on the line to serve our
nation, yet they face an inequity in the existing Public
Safety Officer Benefits Program, a longstanding Federal
program designed to help honor those that lose their lives in
the line of duty.
In order to fix this inequity, we strongly urge you to
support Senate Amendment 2955. The amendment includes
critical improvements to the Public Safety Officers' Benefits
Program, also known as the Dale Long Public Safety Officers'
Benefits Improvements Act of 2012. This amendment would make
members of rescue squads or ambulance crews operated by
nonprofit entities eligible for benefits paid when a public
safety officers is permanently disabled or dies in the line
of duty. The amendment also includes a host of important
reforms to the program including the reduction of claims
processing and administrative to name a few. Just as
importantly, the Congressional Budget Office has provided a
neutral score on the issue
Every state in the country has communities that have
elected to have their emergency medical services provided by
nongovernmental EMS agencies. The Public Safety Officer
Benefit (PSOB) program, however, currently applies only to
those public safety officers employed by a federal, state, or
local government entity. The brave men and women employed by
nongovernmental EMS agencies provide the same vital emergency
medical services as governmental officers and do so daily in
the same dangerous environments. It is unfair to penalize
nongovernmental public safety officers and their families
simply because their employer is a non-profit EMS agency
which cannot afford to offer the same level of benefits as
the PSOB program. This amendment would correct this inequity.
We thank you for all your years of service to our country
and to the support you've provided to the nation's first
responders. Again, we urge you to support Senate Amendment
2955 as you move forward on the NDAA bill. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact Tristan North of
the AAA at [email protected] or 202-486-4888.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Steve Williamson,
President,
American Ambulance Association.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask to call up amendments Nos. 3007,
3008, 3009, 3010, and 3013.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SESSIONS. And No. 3011.
Mr. LEVIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I was listening to the dialog here that was
going back and forth.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican time has expired under the
current order.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional
minutes for the Senator from Indiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I just wanted to comment that I was
listening to the discussion going on here about the Leahy amendment.
I don't know what the history of all this is, but I simply want to
say that I think the Senator from Oklahoma asked a very legitimate
question that we all ought to consider; that is, Is this legitimately a
Federal responsibility? Given the fiscal plight that we are in and
careening toward the cliff, do we want to keep expanding Federal
programs? But in deference to his colleagues and the timeframe here, he
said he understands that it will be a virtually unanimous vote despite
his question, which is legitimate and I think we all ought to consider.
But that was rejected. And then the response to somebody who I think
was trying to be deferential to the Senator from Vermont and his
proposals sort of is put in a position where it looks as though he is
not trying to be conscious of the situation that exists.
I think he asked a legitimate question to which all of us, given our
current fiscal situation, ought to give due consideration.
I thank the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would note that this is a very modest
expansion of benefits for emergency medical technicians who serve at
the direction of a state emergency response system, and is entirely
offset by other provisions in the amendment. It simply reforms and
improves what is already law and adds no cost--no Federal cost.
And if I could have the attention of the Senator from Indiana, this
is less an expansion than a correction to a gap in the existing law. It
is a reform of programs we have, and it is of no cost to the Federal
taxpayers.
I see the Senator from Arizona on the floor. I am perfectly willing
to yield back my time and go to vote if he wishes.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, two things.
No. 1, we are going to proceed to the rollcall vote in a moment, and
with Senator McCain's support and consent, I would like to let our
colleagues know we will be here after this vote. That doesn't mean
there will be any additional votes tonight. That is not up to us to
decide; that is the leadership call. But we will be here to try to
clear amendments for either voice votes or for votes tomorrow if there
are no rollcall votes today or for debate. Senator McCain and I are
prepared to stay here to receive the amendments people want to discuss
and to see if we can't get some of them cleared and perhaps voice-voted
tonight.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield all remaining time.
Mr. LEVIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Bingaman), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Bennet). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 11, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 207 Leg.]
YEAS--85
Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Collins
[[Page S7029]]
Conrad
Coons
Crapo
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
NAYS--11
Coats
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
DeMint
Graham
Inhofe
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
McCain
NOT VOTING--4
Bingaman
Kirk
Paul
Wyden
The amendment (No. 2955) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill 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 have been talking now with Senator McCain. This is what
our plan is for tonight and for the morning. In the morning, we would
hope we would be able--we would first hope to address the Kyl
amendment. We would hope to take up and dispose of the Kyl amendment
first thing in the morning.
We would then expect to move to Senator Ayotte's amendment, to which
there may or may not be a second-degree or a side-by-side amendment
offered. After that matter is disposed of, we would expect then to move
to a Hagan amendment. And, in between, it is our intent to offer
cleared amendments.
I will let Senator McCain join me on this. But these are amendments
which have been cleared. People will have a chance overnight to look at
them and see if there is any reason that they want rollcall votes or
voice votes on these. If there are, we expect they are going to have to
come down, object, and vote on those matters. But our staff works hard.
We work with the committees of jurisdiction, we work with people we
believe have any interest in these amendments. We have perhaps 50 or
100 amendments which we are looking at.
We want to accommodate Senators. We also want to accommodate
potential opponents. We have done our best to do both, sponsors and
opponents. But that is our plan for tonight and for tomorrow morning.
We expect we would then ask Senator Hagan to be recognized tonight to
speak on an amendment, not to call it up but to speak on an amendment
that she would be offering tomorrow in the queue which I just
described.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. I
think we have made reasonably good progress today. I think we have
disposed of a number of important amendments. We still have a number of
issues, particularly the detainee issue, which will probably require
that we have a number of speakers. But also I hope we could reach a
time limit on that.
The Senator mentioned that there may be possibly a side-by-side or a
second-degree amendment to the Ayotte amendment. But I think the
chairman would agree, we have made pretty good progress. We have still
got quite a long way to go. We have a full day tomorrow. Hopefully we
can get it down to a bare minimum of amendments so we can finish.
I thank all of our colleagues for their cooperation. We thank the
Senator from North Carolina for discussing her amendment this evening.
Mr. LEVIN. There will be no more votes tonight. After Senator Hagan's
remarks are completed, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period
of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10
minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Carolina.
Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, Mr. President, I wish to call up amendment
No.----
Mr. LEVIN. Forgive the interruption again, Mr. President. I hate to
interrupt. There will be no amendments called up tonight. The
expectation is that you would be recognized tomorrow in that queue to
call up the amendment, but that tonight you proceed without calling the
amendment up, holding that off until tomorrow.
Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak about an amendment I am
going to call up tomorrow, amendment No. 3995. I believe it is
critical, this amendment to our long-term national security. In August
of 2011, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and
the Navy signed a memorandum of understanding to invest $170 million
each to spur the production of advanced aviation and marine biofuels
under the Defense Production Act.
This joint memorandum of understanding requires substantial cost
sharing from private industry of at least a 1-to-1 match. The main
objective of this memorandum of understanding is to spur the
construction or retrofit of commercial scale advanced biofuel
refineries. These facilities will produce drop-in advanced biofuels
meeting military specifications. They will be located in geographically
diverse locations for ready market access, and will have no significant
impact on the supply of agricultural commodities for the production of
food.
As the largest single consumer of fuel in the world, the Department
of Defense uses approximately 120 million barrels of oil each year,
spending over $17 billion in fiscal year 2011 on fuel. This dependency
on a single source of energy leaves our military's readiness at risk.
When the price of oil goes up $1, it costs the Navy an additional $30
million and the entire Department of Defense over $100 million. Last
year alone, this forced the Navy to pay an additional $500 million
because the price of fuel was higher than budgeted.
DOD is not going to allow these additional fuel costs to directly
affect our missions in Afghanistan. However, cost overruns could force
the military to curtail training and less urgent operations resulting
in increased risk to future missions. Developing a commercially viable
biofuels industry could help DOD diversify its fuel source and reduce
the risk of energy volatility.
Our senior military leaders understand that programs such as this MOU
are critical to national security. In July, the Secretary of the Navy,
the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Marine Corps Commandant
expressed their concern to Chairman Levin.
The demand for fuel in theater means we depend on
vulnerable supply lines, the protection of which puts lives
at risk. Our potential adversaries both on land and at sea
understand this critical vulnerability and seek to exploit
it.
The Navy and the Marine Corps have been aggressively evaluating how
both energy efficiency and alternative sources of energy can provide
tactical benefits to expeditionary forces.
Given the impact of this MOU to our national security, I was
disappointed when the Senate Armed Services Committee marked up the
fiscal year 2013 Defense authorization bill and an amendment was
adopted that would prevent the Defense Department from participating
further in the MOU. The bipartisan amendment that I offer today seeks
to strike that measure.
I believe Senators on both sides of the aisle agree that energy
security is a national security imperative.
However, there are honest disagreements over how the United States
pursues energy independence. These divergent views are reflected in the
debate over the joint MOU.
One argument used by opponents of the MOU is budget related. Given
the current budget restraints, the Department of Defense should not be
spending resources to help spur a commercially viable advanced biofuels
industry. It is important to put in context the amount of money the
Navy is spending on this program. The $170 million dedicated to the MOU
in one fiscal year represents .03 percent of the entire fiscal year
2013 budget request of the Department of Defense. Let me repeat that.
It is .03 percent.
This is not to dismiss concerns about our current budget situation. I
too am
[[Page S7030]]
deeply concerned about our country's fiscal path, and I continue to
advocate for Congress to put politics aside and remake the tough
choices necessary to ensure future generations are not burdened by
unsustainable debt. However, as we tackle our budgetary challenges, we
must not harm programs important to our national and economic security.
This joint MOU is one such program.
What about the cost of advanced biofuels? In the past 2 years, the
cost of biofuels purchased for these 50-50 fuel blends used in Navy
training exercises has dropped by over 50 percent. Moreover, the Navy
has made clear that they will not procure large quantities of biofuels
for operations until they are cost competitive with traditional fuels.
The MOU is bringing the cost of biofuels in line with petroleum, and
now is not the time to stop the program from reaching its goals.
As I mentioned earlier, diversifying our energy mix will also help
protect our military from the costs associated with price spikes in
oil. Sudden energy cost increases force DOD to reallocate finite
resources away from long-term priorities.
Critics of the MOU often say if the government wants to promote
advanced biofuels, we have a Department of Energy. Of course, the
Department of Energy has an important role to play, but so does the
Navy and the Department of Agriculture. From my perspective, leveraging
the unique capabilities of each agency, in partnership with the private
sector, exemplifies the type of innovative approach needed to solve our
country's most vexing problems.
Looking back in history, the Navy's leadership on energy innovation
is nothing new. It was the Navy that shifted from sail to steam in the
middle of the 19th century, steam to oil in the early 20th century, and
pioneered nuclear power in the middle of the 20th century. At each of
these transitions, there were those who questioned the need, challenged
the cost, or simply opposed change of any kind.
I want to make clear that today's debate is not about oil versus
biofuels. I was very pleased with the recent International Energy
Agency report that projected that the United States would be the
world's top oil producer by 2020 and a net exporter of oil around 2030.
However, this does not mean we should abandon efforts to diversify our
energy supply.
In 1913, on the eve of World War I, Winston Churchill made a historic
decision to shift the power source for the British Navy ships from coal
to oil. This decision was not without controversy, but Churchill
successfully argued that safety and certainty in oil lies in ``variety
and variety alone.''
Although at the time Churchill was talking about oil, his message is
just as applicable to today's debate about biofuels. True energy
security requires energy diversity.
I urge my colleagues at a later date--tomorrow--to support this
amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read as follows.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the quorum call be
rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, even in this dysfunctional Senate, we as
Members, we as Senators have a unique opportunity to be advocates for
those who need our help, and we need to provide a voice for those who
are in need. For years--a decade, really--I have been an advocate for
allowing increased engagement with Cuba. I have been an advocate for
Kansas and American farmers having the opportunity to sell their
agricultural commodities to Cuba. I have always believed that increased
engagement with Cuba is a better way to bring about the changes that we
all desire for the Cuban people.
Additionally, I thought that our policy toward Cuba was especially
damaging and created a significant disadvantage to Kansas farmers and
their competition for markets around the globe, and it was ineffective
because it was a unilateral embargo. The market and demand for American
commodities do exist off our coastline, and yet Congress and
administrations over the years have failed to make it possible for
there to be much sale or much relationship, commercial relationship,
with the people of Cuba.
For more than a decade I have worked to open those Cuban markets to
American agriculture. In 2000 I offered an amendment to the Treasury
appropriations bill when I was in the House of Representatives that
removed those trade sanctions on food, agriculture, commodities, and
medicine. It paved the way for American farmers to sell their crops to
Cuba for the first time in more than 40 years.
The language of that amendment ultimately became part of legislation
called the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act, TSRA.
Over the years, administrations have made changes that have tightened
the rules under that legislation and made it, again, difficult for our
farmers to sell agricultural commodities to Cuba. On multiple occasions
I have fought to reverse those decisions, those new rules by
administrations, to make it easier for us to sell those commodities. We
are not even talking about trade; we are simply talking about the sale
for cash of those commodities.
In fact, we went through this last year as I offered an amendment to
an appropriations bill that was approved by the Appropriations
Committee to change those regulations. I say all that because I want to
highlight how important and how long term my interest in this issue has
been, but that is not the point of what I want to talk about tonight. I
want to establish that this matters. But even despite the fact that it
matters, I have taken a hiatus, in fact, and announced to the
Appropriations Committee this year that I would not be offering that
amendment again.
It is not that I have changed my mind about the value of engagement
or the importance for Kansas and American farmers to be able to sell
their commodities to Cuba, but it is a sincere recognition on my part
that the Cuban Government has a responsibility to cooperate with the
United States on an issue that many of us are concerned about, which is
the unjust detention of an American citizen, Alan Gross.
Nearly 3 years ago, December 3, 2009, Alan was arrested in Havana
where he had been working as a U.S. Government subcontractor that had a
contract for USAID, an agency whose mission is to help those in need.
As a USAID subcontractor, Alan had made five trips to Cuba where he
helped a small, peaceful, nondissident Cuban Jewish community. He was
arrested. He was detained without charges for 14 months. Later, he had
a 2-day trial resulting in a 15-year prison sentence for alleged
``actions against the independence or territorial integrity of the
State.''
Since his arrest, now a long time ago, his detention so long ago,
Alan's health has deteriorated. He has lost more than 100 pounds and
suffers from several debilitating medical conditions. During his
imprisonment, several members of his family have faced serious illness.
His daughter has been diagnosed with breast cancer, and his 90-year-old
mother has been diagnosed with inoperable cancer.
In light of Alan's continued detention, deterioration of his health,
and the health problems experienced by his family, 42 of my colleagues
joined me and Senator Cardin earlier this year calling on the Cuban
Government to release Alan on humanitarian grounds and allow him to
return to his family in the United States. In recent news--in fact,
just yesterday--I learned from a press report that Cuba planned to make
an announcement regarding Alan Gross. It fueled hope on the part of
many of us that the announcement would be that he would be released.
Sadly, unfortunately, today the announcement was nothing other than
their assessment, Cuban assessment, that Alan is in good health.
I asked my staff and others who know me and know about this issue to
say their prayers last night that the release would occur. Once again,
Cuba has failed to do what is right and proper. It is unclear whether
their claim that Alan Gross is in good health is true. Certainly, many
reports indicate that is not the case. He has never been examined by an
independent medical examiner, something that is required by
international law.
It is past time for Cuba to release Alan and allow him to return to
his family. Failure to do so makes any improvement in the relationship
between
[[Page S7031]]
our two countries so much more difficult and highly unlikely. I think
that would benefit the people of Cuba, but their government continues
to take an unjust course. Alan should be released and Cuba should do
the right thing. Mr. Gross devoted his professional life to helping
others through his work in international development. He and his family
have suffered more than most could endure over the last 3 years.
Continuing our efforts to bring Alan home, next week, on December 3--
the 3-year anniversary--Senator Cardin and I will introduce a
resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Mr.
Gross. I ask my colleagues to join us in supporting this resolution to
help send the clear message to Cuba that even those of us who want a
better relationship, even those of us who have been willing to cast the
votes to increase that opportunity for a relationship between the
United States and Cuba, want Alan Gross to come home. It is my hope the
Cuban Government will reverse course and that Alan can finally come
home to his wife Judy and to their family.
I ask my colleagues to join me in that effort and perhaps, more
importantly, I ask Americans to join us in the prayer for Alan's
release.
I yield the floor.
____________________