[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.

                          ____________________