[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 151 (Thursday, November 29, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7148-S7206]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013--Continued


                    Amendment No. 3096, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
Merkley amendment No. 3096, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Merkley], for himself, Mr. 
     Paul, and Mr. Manchin, proposes an amendment numbered 3096, 
     as modified.

  Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
amendment be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3096), as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle B of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 1221. COMPLETION OF ACCELERATED TRANSITION OF UNITED 
                   STATES COMBAT AND MILITARY AND SECURITY 
                   OPERATIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF AFGHANISTAN.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the President should, in coordination with the Government of 
     Afghanistan, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member 
     countries, and other allies in Afghanistan, seek to--
       (1) undertake all appropriate activities to accomplish the 
     President's stated goal of transitioning the lead 
     responsibility for security to the Government of Afghanistan 
     by mid-summer 2013;
       (2) as part of accomplishing this transition of the lead 
     responsibility for security to the Government of Afghanistan, 
     draw down United States troops to a level sufficient to meet 
     this goal;
       (3) as previously announced by the President, continue to 
     draw down United States troop levels at a steady pace through 
     the end of 2014; and
       (4) end all regular combat operations by United States 
     troops by not later than December 31, 2014, and take all 
     possible steps to end such operations at the earliest date 
     consistent with a safe and orderly draw down of United States 
     troops in Afghanistan.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to recommend or support any limitation or 
     prohibition on any authority of the President--
       (1) to modify the military strategy, tactics, and 
     operations of United States Armed Forces as such Armed Forces 
     redeploy from Afghanistan;
       (2) to authorize United States forces in Afghanistan to 
     defend themselves whenever they may be threatened;
       (3) to attack Al Qaeda forces wherever such forces are 
     located;
       (4) to provide financial support and equipment to the 
     Government of Afghanistan for the training and supply of 
     Afghanistan military and security forces; or
       (5) to gather, provide, and share intelligence with United 
     States allies operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to present this 
amendment in this Chamber. I appreciate that my lead cosponsor Rand 
Paul and nine other Senators have signed on to sponsor this amendment.
  This amendment is designed to help draw down the war in Afghanistan 
in a timely and responsible manner. It is time to bring home our sons 
and daughters, our brothers and sisters, our husbands and our wives as 
quickly and as safely as possible and put an end to America's longest 
war.
  We went to Afghanistan with two objectives: destroy al-Qaida training 
camps and hunt down those responsible for 9/11. Our capable American 
troops and NATO partners have accomplished those goals. Afghanistan is 
no longer, and has not been for years, an important hub for al-Qaida 
activity. Al-Qaida has robust operations in a number of nations around 
the world, including Yemen and Somalia, but not in Afghanistan.
  American forces have also accomplished the second objective: 
capturing or killing those who attacked America on 9/11. So it is time 
to put an end to this war.
  Simply put, we are currently in the midst of a nation-building 
strategy that is not working. It simply makes no sense to have nearly 
70,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan when the biggest terrorist 
threats are elsewhere.
  Our President recognizes this fact and has committed to a steady 
course of drawing down troop levels and handing over security 
responsibilities to the Government of Afghanistan. In contrast, the 
House-passed version of this bill calls for keeping at least 68,000 
troops in Afghanistan through the end of 2014.
  Let me give some details about what this short amendment does. It is 
a sense of Congress resolution that the President should undertake all 
appropriate activities to accomplish his stated goal of transitioning 
the lead responsibility for security to the Government of Afghanistan 
by midsummer 2013.
  This is the President's goal, and our team has been working to make 
this happen; second, as a part of accomplishing this transition of lead 
responsibility for security to the Government of Afghanistan, drive 
down United States troops to a level sufficient to meet this goal.
  Third, as previously announced by the President, continue to draw 
down U.S. troop levels at a steady pace through the end of 2014; and, 
very importantly, end all regular combat operations by the U.S. troops 
by not later than December 31, 2014, and take all possible steps to end 
such operations earlier if it can be done in a manner consistent with a 
safe and orderly drawdown of U.S. troops.
  This amendment very clearly sets out that it is not to be construed 
that we are recommending or supporting any limitation or prohibition on 
any authority of the President to modify the military strategy, 
tactics, and operations of the U.S. Armed Forces as such Armed Forces 
redeploy from Afghanistan. It also clearly notes that we are not 
interfering in any way with the

[[Page S7149]]

ability of the United States to authorize forces in Afghanistan to 
defend themselves whenever they may be threatened or to attack al-Qaida 
forces wherever such forces are located. Moreover, we are not limiting 
in any way the provision of financial support and equipment to the 
Government of Afghanistan for the training and supply of Afghan 
military and security forces, nor are we interfering with the gathering 
of intelligence.
  Essentially, the amendment boils down to this: Mr. President, you 
have laid out a course to end this war, and we support you in this 
effort and encourage you to continue this effort and, if conditions 
allow, to accelerate the pace.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have looked at the amendment by the 
Senator from Oregon. He has made some modifications that I think are 
appropriate, and this side has no objection. I understand, however, 
that he will insist on a recorded vote, which is his right. But I see 
at this time no objection to the amendment as he describes it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate the partnership of my 
colleague from Arizona.
  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. PORTMAN. 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. 2995

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
measure be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 2995.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Portman] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2995.

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask 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 enhance authorities relating to the admission of defense 
    industry civilians to certain Department of Defense educational 
                       institutions and programs)

       At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1048. ENHANCEMENT OF AUTHORITIES ON ADMISSION OF DEFENSE 
                   INDUSTRY CIVILIANS TO CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND PROGRAMS.

       (a) Navy Defense Product Development Program.--Section 
     7049(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence, by inserting ``or professional 
     continuing education certificate'' after ``master's degree'';
       (2) in the third sentence, by striking ``125 such defense 
     industry employees'' and inserting ``250 such defense 
     industry employees''; and
       (3) in the last sentence, by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``or an appropriate professional 
     continuing education certificate, as applicable''.
       (b) United States Air Force Institute of Technology.--
     Section 9314a(a) of such title is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or professional 
     continuing education certificate'' after ``graduate degree'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``125 defense industry 
     employees'' and inserting ``250 defense industry employees''; 
     and
       (3) in paragraph (3), by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``or an appropriate professional 
     continuing education certificate, as applicable''.

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is intended to expand the 
opportunities for defense industry employees to attend or participate 
in Department of Defense educational institutions and programs.
  Specifically, the amendment will broaden the existing statute that 
authorizes defense industry employees to obtain a master's degree at 
Defense Department schools, such as the Naval Postgraduate School, by 
also allowing them to obtain professional continuing educational 
certification.
  Having key members of the defense industry exposed to the unique 
courses offered at these institutions is a win-win for the Federal 
Government. The industry pays the tuition and covers all costs 
associated with their attendance, and in the process our defense 
industry partners gain greater expertise in the military application of 
engineering and science, as well as acquisition and program management 
expertise.
  Again, I believe this is a win-win for the government, and I ask for 
a voice vote of the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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. 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 don't know of any further debate on this 
side on the Portman amendment. We support it, and we have no objection 
to it going to a voice vote at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2995) 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, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. AYOTTE. 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. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Amendments Nos. 2948, 2962, 2971, 2986, 2989, 3085, 3110, 3166, 2981 En 
                                  Bloc

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish now to call up a list of nine 
amendments, which have been cleared by myself and the ranking member, 
by Senator McCain: Webb amendment No. 2948, Sessions amendment No. 
2962, Inhofe amendment No. 2971, Casey amendment No. 2986, Murray 
amendment No. 2989, Vitter amendment No. 3085, Coburn amendment 3110, 
Manchin amendment No. 3166, and Boxer amendment No. 2981. I believe 
they have been cleared on the Republican side.
  Mr. McCAIN. I have no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
consider these amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, and the 
motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 2948

 (Purpose: To extend the authority to provide a temporary increase in 
   rates of basic allowance for housing under certain circumstances)

       At the end of subtitle A of title VI, add the following:

     SEC. 602. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY 
                   INCREASE IN RATES OF BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR 
                   HOUSING UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

       Section 403(b)(7)(E) of title 37, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2012'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2013''.


                           amendment no. 2962

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on the submittal to Congress 
of the homeland defense hedging policy and strategy of the Secretary of 
                                Defense)

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

     SEC. 238. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE SUBMITTAL TO CONGRESS OF 
                   THE HOMELAND DEFENSE HEDGING POLICY AND 
                   STRATEGY REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Section 233 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public

[[Page S7150]]

     Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1340) requires a homeland defense 
     hedging policy and strategy report from the Secretary of 
     Defense.
       (2) The report was required to be submitted not later than 
     75 days after the date of the enactment of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, namely by 
     March 16, 2012.
       (3) The Secretary of Defense has not yet submitted the 
     report as required.
       (4) In March 2012, General Charles Jacoby, Jr., Commander 
     of the United States Northern Command, the combatant command 
     responsible for operation of the Ground-based Midcourse 
     Defense system to defend the homeland against ballistic 
     missile threats, testified before Congress that ``I am 
     confident in my ability to successfully defend the homeland 
     from the current set of limited long-range ballistic missile 
     threats'', and that ``[a]gainst current threats from the 
     Middle East, I am confident we are well postured''.
       (5) Phase 4 of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) 
     is intended to augment the currently deployed homeland 
     defense capability of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense 
     system against a potential future Iranian long-range missile 
     threat by deploying an additional layer of forward-deployed 
     interceptors in Europe in the 2020 timeframe.
       (6) The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, 
     has testified to Congress that, although the intelligence 
     community does ``not know if Iran will eventually decide to 
     build nuclear weapons'', it judges ``that Iran would likely 
     choose missile delivery as its preferred method of delivering 
     a nuclear weapon''. He also testified that ``Iran already has 
     the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle 
     East, and it is expanding the scale, reach, and 
     sophistication of its ballistic missile forces, many of which 
     are inherently capable of carrying a nuclear payload''.
       (7) The 2012 Annual Report to Congress on the Military 
     Power of Iran by the Department of Defense states that, in 
     addition to increasing its missile inventories, ``Iran has 
     boosted the lethality and effectiveness of its existing 
     missile systems with accuracy improvements and new 
     submunitions payloads'', and that it continues to develop 
     missiles that can strike Israel and Eastern Europe. It also 
     states that ``Iran has launched multistage space launch 
     vehicles that could serve as a testbed for developing long-
     range ballistic missiles technologies'', and that ``[w]ith 
     sufficient foreign assistance, Iran may be technically 
     capable of flight-testing an intercontinental ballistic 
     missile by 2015''.
       (8) Despite the failure of its April 2012 satellite launch 
     attempt, North Korea warned the United States in October 2012 
     that the United States mainland is within range of its 
     missiles.
       (9) The threat of limited ballistic missile attack against 
     the United States homeland from countries such as North Korea 
     and Iran is increasing.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) the homeland defense hedging policy and strategy report 
     required by section 233 of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2012 is necessary to inform Congress on 
     options to protect the United States homeland against the 
     evolving ballistic missile threat, including potential 
     options prior to the deployment of Phase 4 of the European 
     Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense; and
       (2) the Secretary of Defense should comply with the 
     requirements of section 233 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 by submitting the 
     homeland defense hedging policy and strategy report to 
     Congress.


                           amendment no. 2971

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the protection of 
 Department of Defense airfields, training airspace, and air training 
                                routes)

       At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1084. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PROTECTION OF DEPARTMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE AIRFIELDS, TRAINING AIRSPACE, AND AIR 
                   TRAINING ROUTES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) Department of Defense airfields, training airspace, and 
     air training routes are national treasures that must be 
     protected from encroachment;
       (2) placement or emplacement of obstructions near or on 
     Department of Defense airfields, training airspace, or air 
     training routes has the potential of increasing risk to 
     military aircraft and personnel as well as impacting training 
     and readiness; and
       (3) the Department of Defense should develop comprehensive 
     rules and regulations to address construction and use of land 
     in close proximity to Department of Defense airfields, 
     training areas, or air training routes to ensure 
     compatibility with military aircraft operations.


                           amendment no. 2986

(Purpose: To require contractors to notify small business concerns that 
   they have included in offers relating to contracts let by Federal 
                               agencies)

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

     SEC. ___. SUBCONTRACTOR NOTIFICATIONS.

       Section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) Notification Requirement.--An offeror with respect 
     to a contract let by a Federal agency that is to be awarded 
     pursuant to the negotiated method of procurement that intends 
     to identify a small business concern as a potential 
     subcontractor in the offer relating to the contract shall 
     notify the small business concern that the offeror intends to 
     identify the small business concern as a potential 
     subcontractor in the offer.
       ``(14) Reporting by Subcontractors.--The Administrator 
     shall establish a reporting mechanism that allows a 
     subcontractor to report fraudulent activity by a contractor 
     with respect to a subcontracting plan submitted to a 
     procurement authority under paragraph (4)(B).''.


                           amendment no. 2989

(Purpose: To extend the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
   and the Secretary of Labor to carry out a program of referral and 
    counseling services to veterans at risk of homelessness who are 
                transitioning from certain institutions)

       At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1084. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES TO CARRY OUT A PROGRAM OF 
                   REFERRAL AND COUNSELING SERVICES TO VETERANS AT 
                   RISK OF HOMELESSNESS WHO ARE TRANSITIONING FROM 
                   CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS.

       Section 2023(d) of title 38, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``September 30, 2012'' and inserting ``September 
     30, 2013''.


                           amendment no. 3085

      (Purpose: To require additional elements in the plan on the 
rationalization of cyber networks and cyber personnel of the Department 
                              of Defense)

       On page 306, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       (3) Additional elements.--In developing the plan required 
     by paragraph (1), the Secretary shall also--
       (A) identify targets for the number of personnel to be 
     reassigned to tasks related to offensive cyber operations, 
     and the rate at which such personnel shall be added to the 
     workforce for such tasks; and
       (B) identify targets for use of National Guard personnel to 
     support cyber workforce rationalization and the actions taken 
     under subsection (a).


                           amendment no. 3110

 (Purpose: To require a report on the balances carried forward by the 
         Department of Defense at the end of fiscal year 2012)

       At the end of subtitle A of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1005. REPORT ON BALANCES CARRIED FORWARD BY THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AT THE END OF FISCAL YEAR 
                   2012.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress, 
     and publish on the Internet website of the Department of 
     Defense available to the public, the following:
       (1) The total dollar amount of all balances carried forward 
     by the Department of Defense at the end of fiscal year 2012 
     by account.
       (2) The total dollar amount of all unobligated balances 
     carried forward by the Department of Defense at the end of 
     fiscal year 2012 by account.
       (3) The total dollar amount of any balances (both obligated 
     and unobligated) that have been carried forward by the 
     Department of Defense for five years or more as of the end of 
     fiscal year 2012 by account.


                           amendment no. 3166

(Purpose: To require a report on the future of family support programs 
                     of the Department of Defense)

       At the end of subtitle G of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 577. REPORT ON FUTURE OF FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS OF THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     on the anticipated future of the family support programs of 
     the Department of Defense during the five-year period 
     beginning on the date of the submittal of the report as end 
     strengths for the Armed Forces are reduced and the Armed 
     Forces are drawn down from combat operations in Afghanistan.
       (b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A description of the current family support programs of 
     each of the Armed Forces and the Department of Defense, 
     including the name, scope and intended purpose of each 
     program.
       (2) An assessment of the current costs of the family 
     support programs covered by paragraph (1), and an estimate of 
     the costs of anticipated family support programs of the 
     Department over the period covered by the report.
       (3) An assessment of the costs and other consequences 
     associated with the elimination or reduction of any current 
     family support programs of the Department over the period 
     covered by the report.
       (4) An assessment by the Secretary of the Army of the 
     Family Readiness Support Assistant program, and a description 
     of any planned or anticipated changes to that program over 
     the period covered by the report.

[[Page S7151]]

                           amendment no. 2981

  (Purpose: To prohibit the issuance of a waiver for commissioning or 
enlistment in the Armed Forces for any individual convicted of a felony 
                            sexual offense)

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

     SEC. 526. PROHIBITION ON WAIVER FOR COMMISSIONING OR 
                   ENLISTMENT IN THE ARMED FORCES FOR ANY 
                   INDIVIDUAL CONVICTED OF A FELONY SEXUAL 
                   OFFENSE.

       An individual may not be provided a waiver for 
     commissioning or enlistment in the Armed Forces if the 
     individual has been convicted under Federal or State law of a 
     felony offense of any of the following:
       (1) Rape.
       (2) Sexual abuse.
       (3) Sexual assault.
       (4) Incest.
       (5) Any other sexual offense.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.
  By the way, did we move to reconsider?
  I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, briefly I was just going over the list of 
amendments that have been filed. I urge my colleagues who want those 
amendments considered to come over and state their intention and we 
will move forward with the amendments. I keep hearing from my staff 
this Senator is not ready yet, that Senator is not ready yet. I hope 
they come over, we get these amendments in order and we will dispose of 
them as soon as possible since we are looking at a rather late evening 
this evening, and even tomorrow.
  We need to move these amendments. I hope my colleagues will cooperate 
by coming over prepared to offer those amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from West Virginia wishes now to speak on the 
Merkley amendment. Then it is our intention to move to a vote on the 
Merkley amendment.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3096

  Amendment No. 3096 would express the Sense of Congress in support of 
the President's stated goals for transitioning the security lead to the 
Afghanistan and end the U.S. combat mission in Afghanistan by no later 
than December 31, 2014. The Sense of Congress supports the goals of: 
Accomplishing the President's stated goal of transitioning the lead 
responsibility for security to the Government of Afghanistan by mid-
2013; as part of that transition, drawing down U.S. troops to the 
minimum level required to meet that goal; continuing the drawdown of 
U.S. troop levels at a steady pace through the end of 2014; and ending 
``all regular combat operations'' by U.S. troops by not later than the 
end of 2014, and earlier to the extent consistent with a safe and 
orderly drawdown of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
  The Merkley amendment is consistent with President's plans for 
drawing down U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and it is consistent with our 
best chances for success in securing Afghanistan.
  It expresses this body's support for the President's transition goals 
which include the handover to Afghan security forces of primary 
responsibility for security throughout Afghanistan by mid-2013 and the 
completion of the security transition process by the end of 2014.
  Transitioning to Afghan forces in the lead is the roadmap to security 
in Afghanistan. It challenges the Taliban narrative that commanders 
need to defend Afghanistan from foreign troops seeking to occupy their 
country. As Afghan officials recently told me, when they realize they 
are fighting their fellow Afghans in the Afghan Army, some mid-level 
Taliban commanders have decided to put aside their arms and seek to re-
integrate into Afghan society.
  The Afghan people want to see their own Afghan Army soldiers and 
Afghan police personnel providing security for their communities. A 
recent public opinion poll in Afghanistan found that the overwhelming 
majority of the Afghan people have moderate or high confidence in the 
Afghan Army--93 percent. The Afghan police are also gaining the 
confidence of the Afghan people--82 percent confidence.
  Afghan security forces have shown they are willing to fight. So far 
this year, Afghan soldiers and police have suffered more casualties--
wounded and killed--than have U.S. and coalition forces.
  As Afghan security forces assume more and more responsibility for the 
security lead between now and the end of 2014, NATO and coalition 
forces will gradually step back into a supporting role and then an 
overwatch role.
  The Merkley amendment reaffirms the President's plan to end U.S. 
combat operations in Afghanistan by not later than the end of 2014. 
This is also what was agreed by coalition partners at the NATO Summit 
in Chicago in May, when the U.S. and its allies declared, ``By the end 
of 2014, when the Afghan Authorities will have full security 
responsibility, the NATO-led combat mission will end.'' They also 
agreed to begin planning a new post-2014 training mission, which ``will 
not be a combat mission.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of my 
colleague, Senator Merkley from Oregon, his amendment on Afghanistan. I 
know we all have good ideas. We all have input here. We all have our 
own personal opinions. But it is time to bring our troops home from 
Afghanistan. They have been there since October 7, 2001. They have 
defeated al-Qaida, they have killed Osama bin Laden, and it is time to 
bring them home.
  Mr. President, 66,000 American combat troops still remain in 
Afghanistan. President Obama plans to reduce that number by ``a steady 
pace'' until they are moved completely out by the end of 2014. I would 
prefer a faster pace, as many of my colleague would, but as long as it 
did not jeopardize the safety of troops, because I think that is the 
most important thing we do. After all, the war has already surpassed 
the Vietnam war, your area and mine, Mr. President, as the longest in 
American history. It has already cost us dearly; more than 2,000 
American troops have died for the cause and many thousands more have 
been maimed and more than $500 billion has been spent just in 
Afghanistan.
  Even so, I support the bipartisan amendment sponsored by Senator 
Merkley. It backs the President's current plan to end combat operations 
in Afghanistan by the end of 2014, but I support it because it also 
calls for a quicker transition of security operations from U.S. forces 
to Afghan security forces. Instead of the end of 2014, the amendment 
urges the transition to take place in the summer of 2013, this coming 
year. That, hopefully, would bring a quicker end to the U.S. 
involvement in combat in Afghanistan. This amendment merely expresses 
the sense of the Senate. It is not binding on President Obama and it 
will not affect any negotiations between Washington and Kabul on 
whether a residual force of U.S. military advisers in Afghanistan would 
be there after 2014.
  U.S. forces went to Afghanistan in pursuit of those who planned and 
ordered the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States that 
killed over 3,000 of our citizens. With valor and courage they drove 
from power the Taliban, which had given bin Laden a base from which he 
could launch horrific attacks on innocent American civilians. They 
captured, killed, or brought to justice the leader of al-Qaida and 
eventually they tracked down bin Laden himself and made sure he would 
never, ever harm another American.
  After more than 10 years, more than 1,900 American lives, and more 
than $500 billion, it is time to bring our warriors home to a hero's 
welcome, time to focus our resources on rebuilding America, not on 
rebuilding Afghanistan. I have said many times on this floor, if you 
help us build a new road or bridge in West Virginia, help us build a 
school for our children, we will not blow it up or burn it down.
  It is time to help rebuild America for this great country and bring 
our heroes back to a hero's welcome.
  Mr. REID. 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 the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S7152]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we are now going to proceed to a vote on 
the Merkley amendment. As I indicated, the amendment expresses the 
support of this body for the transition goals of the President, 
including the handover to Afghan security forces of primary 
responsibility for security throughout Afghanistan by mid-2013, the 
completion of the security transition process by the end of 2014--and 
of course that has to do with the completion and transition. That is 
not necessarily by any means a withdrawal of all troops but it is the 
intent that all combat forces be withdrawn by the end of 2014. I 
emphasize it is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  After the disposition of the Merkley amendment, we then intend to 
move to the Whitehouse amendment. The Whitehouse amendment has been 
cleared by the chairman and ranking member of the committee of 
jurisdiction. However, there is a desire to debate and have a rollcall 
on that amendment. We are asking Senator Whitehouse to be prepared 
immediately after this vote to call up formally and debate his 
amendment and any opponent or opponents of the amendment to be prepared 
to debate it at that time. So it is our intent--and I ask unanimous 
consent--that immediately following the vote on the pending Merkley 
amendment, we then move to the Whitehouse amendment, and following the 
disposition of the Whitehouse amendment we then move to the Coburn 
amendment No. 3109, which will require debate, and, hopefully, we can 
work out a time agreement with Senator Coburn during this vote.

  Finally, we are urging Senators who have amendments we have not yet 
addressed that they intend to press, or hope they can press, to meet 
with us during this vote so we can continue to make progress on this 
bill. We will be in tomorrow unless by some wonderful events we are 
able to finish this bill tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I agree with the unanimous consent 
request----
  Mr. Levin addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am sorry, I say to my friend from Arizona. We have to 
withdraw that unanimous consent request on amendment No. 3109 at this 
time. I want to try to see what the problem is. There is an objection 
to my request on this side. We are going to try to work out those 
objections during this rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I have to object on this side. Senator Coburn wants the 
same privilege every Senator has; that is, to bring up his amendment. 
If someone objects to that, I hope that Senator will come down and 
object in person because this is holding up the progress of the bill. 
So if there is a Whitehouse amendment that is agreed to, then a Coburn 
amendment certainly should be allowed as well.
  So we have to object to the unanimous consent request. Hopefully, 
during the vote on the Merkley amendment we can work out some 
agreement.
  Mr. LEVIN. We understand Senator Merkley is on his way and wishes to 
speak for a minute on his own amendment, so I note the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. 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. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of my amendment 
No. 3096 to express the sense of Congress on the accelerated transition 
of U.S. combat and military security operations for the Government of 
Afghanistan.
  Our President has laid out a course of action that involves putting 
Afghan troops in charge of the operation in Afghanistan. This amendment 
fully supports the schedule the President has laid out. Furthermore, it 
calls upon the President to explore every opportunity to see if that 
schedule can be accelerated; that we can, with security for our troops 
and appropriateness for our mission, withdraw at a faster pace.
  The two main objectives in Afghanistan were to take out the al-Qaida 
training camps and to proceed to pursue those responsible for 9/11. We 
have effectively pursued those missions. Al-Qaida is now much stronger 
around the rest of the world. A counterterrorism strategy that is 
appropriate in the rest of the world is appropriate in Afghanistan and 
it should be pursued. But the newly adopted mission of nation building 
in Afghanistan has gone terribly off the track and put our troops at 
great risk. We need to endorse the President's strategy and end this 
war--the longest war the United States has ever experienced.
  I ask for the support of my colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. 
McCaskill) and the Senator from Oregon (Mrs. Wyden) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Heller), and 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 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 210 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hoeven
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Lugar
     Manchin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--33

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Graham
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--5

     DeMint
     Heller
     Kirk
     McCaskill
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 3096) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion upon the table.
  The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, what we wish to do now is move to Senator 
Blumenthal's amendment which has been cleared and I believe can be 
voice-voted. I think that is the current situation.
  Then as soon as that is done, I hope we will have an announcement as 
to where we go next. With the cooperation of one Senator, whom I do not 
see on the floor, we may be able to go to Senator Whitehouse's 
amendment, but I cannot quite announce that yet because we have to find 
that Senator and make sure that is not objected to. I would hope the 
chair would now recognize Senator Blumenthal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                    Amendment No. 3124, as Modified

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, 
the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, as well as the ranking 
member, Senator McCain, for their leadership on this issue and ask 
unanimous consent that my amendment 3124 be made

[[Page S7153]]

pending, as modified with the changes that are at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Blumenthal] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3124, as modified.

  The amendment No. 3124, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of title VIII, add the following:

        Subtitle F--Ending Trafficking in Government Contracting

     SEC. 891. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``End Trafficking in 
     Government Contracting Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 892. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subtitle:
       (1) Commercial sex act.--The term ``commercial sex act'' 
     has the meaning given the term in section 22.1702 of the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation (or any similar successor 
     regulation) .
       (2) Executive agency.--The term ``executive agency'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 133 of title 41, United 
     States Code.
       (3) Subcontractor.--The term ``subcontractor'' means a 
     recipient of a contract at any tier under a grant, contract, 
     or cooperative agreement.
       (4) Subgrantee.--The term ``subgrantee'' means a recipient 
     of a grant at any tier under a grant or cooperative 
     agreement.
       (5) United states.--The term ``United States'' has the 
     meaning provided in section 103(12) of the Trafficking 
     Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(12)).

     SEC. 893. CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 106(g) of the Trafficking Victims 
     Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7104(g)) is amended by 
     striking ``if the grantee or any subgrantee,'' and all that 
     follows through the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``or take any of the other remedial actions 
     authorized under section 895(c) of the End Trafficking in 
     Government Contracting Act of 2012, if the grantee or any 
     subgrantee, or the contractor or any subcontractor, engages 
     in, or uses labor recruiters, brokers, or other agents who 
     engage in--
       ``(i) severe forms of trafficking in persons;
       ``(ii) the procurement of a commercial sex act during the 
     period of time that the grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement is in effect;
       ``(iii) the use of forced labor in the performance of the 
     grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, or
       ``(iv) acts that directly support or advance trafficking in 
     persons, including the following acts:

       ``(I) Destroying, concealing, removing, confiscating, or 
     otherwise denying an employee access to that employee's 
     identity or immigration documents.
       ``(II) Failing to pay return transportation costs to an 
     employee upon the end of employment, unless--

       ``(aa) exempted from the duty to repatriate by the Federal 
     department or agency providing or entering into the grant, 
     contract, or cooperative agreement; or
       ``(bb) the employee is a victim of human trafficking 
     seeking victim services or legal redress in the country of 
     employment or a witness in a human trafficking enforcement 
     action.

       ``(III) Soliciting a person for the purpose of employment, 
     or offering employment, by means of materially false or 
     fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises regarding 
     that employment.
       ``(IV) Charging recruited employees unreasonable placement 
     or recruitment fees, such as fees equal to or greater than 
     the employee's monthly salary, or recruitment fees that 
     violate the laws of the country from which an employee is 
     recruited.
       ``(V) Providing or arranging housing that fails to meet the 
     host country housing and safety standards.''.

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 894. COMPLIANCE PLAN AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.

       (a) Requirement.--The head of an executive agency may not 
     provide or enter into a grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement if the estimated value of the services required to 
     be performed under the grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement outside the United States exceeds $500,000, unless 
     a duly designated representative of the recipient of such 
     grant, contract, or cooperative agreement certifies to the 
     contracting or grant officer prior to receiving an award and 
     on an annual basis thereafter, after having conducted due 
     diligence, that--
       (1) the recipient has implemented a plan to prevent the 
     activities described in section 106(g) of the Trafficking 
     Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7104(g)), as 
     amended by section 3, and is in compliance with that plan;
       (2) the recipient has implemented procedures to prevent any 
     activities described in such section 106(g) and to monitor, 
     detect, and terminate any subcontractor, subgrantee, or 
     employee of the recipient engaging in any activities 
     described in such section; and
       (3) to the best of the representative's knowledge, neither 
     the recipient, nor any subcontractor or subgrantee of the 
     recipient or any agent of the recipient or of such a 
     subcontractor or subgrantee, is engaged in any of the 
     activities described in such section.
       (b) Limitation.--Any plan or procedures implemented 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall be appropriate to the size 
     and complexity of the grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement and to the nature and scope of its activities, 
     including the number of non-United States citizens expected 
     to be employed.
       (c) Disclosure.--The recipient shall provide a copy of the 
     plan to the contracting or grant officer upon request, and as 
     appropriate, shall post the useful and relevant contents of 
     the plan or related materials on its website and at the 
     workplace.
       (d) Guidance.--The President, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of 
     Defense, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, the Administrator for the United States Agency for 
     International Development, and the heads of such other 
     executive agencies as the President deems appropriate, shall 
     establish minimum requirements for contractor plans and 
     procedures to be implemented pursuant to this section.
       (e) Regulations.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
     shall be amended to carry out the purposes of this section.
       (f) Effective Date.--The requirements under subsection (a) 
     and (c) shall apply to grants, contracts, and cooperative 
     agreements entered into on or after the date that is 90 days 
     after the Federal Acquisition Regulation is amended pursuant 
     to subsection (e).

     SEC. 895. MONITORING AND INVESTIGATION OF TRAFFICKING IN 
                   PERSONS.

       (a) Referral and Investigation.--
       (1) Referral.--If the contracting or grant officer of an 
     executive agency for a grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement receives credible information that a recipient of 
     the grant, contract, or cooperative agreement; any subgrantee 
     or subcontractor of the recipient; or any agent of the 
     recipient or of such a subgrantee or subcontractor, has 
     engaged in an activity described in section 106(g) of the 
     Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 
     7104(g)), as amended by section 893, including a report from 
     a contracting officer representative, an auditor, an alleged 
     victim or victim's representative, or any other credible 
     source, the contracting or grant officer shall promptly refer 
     the matter to the agency's Office of Inspector General for 
     investigation. The contracting officer may also direct the 
     contractor to take specific steps to abate an alleged 
     violation or enforce the requirements of a compliance plan 
     implemented pursuant to section 894.
       (2) Investigation.--Where appropriate, an Inspector General 
     who receives credible information that a recipient of the 
     grant, contract, or cooperative agreement; any subgrantee or 
     subcontractor of the recipient; or any agent of the recipient 
     or of such a subgrantee or subcontractor, has engaged in an 
     activity described in section 106(g) of the Trafficking 
     Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7104(g)), as 
     amended by section 893, pursuant to a referral under 
     paragraph (1) or otherwise, shall promptly initiate an 
     investigation of the matter. In the event that an Inspector 
     General does not initiate an investigation, the Inspector 
     General shall provide an explanation for the decision not to 
     investigate.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Very simply, this amendment involves commonsense 
reforms that will ensure the performance of overseas contracts, paid 
for by our taxpayers, involving money in this very Defense budget, 
consistent with the values that we hold dear as Americans.
  The Department of Defense has a special responsibility to lead in 
preventing human trafficking overseas, as this amendment would do. It 
is not only a matter of humane and moral values, it is a matter of 
getting value for the dollars we spend in protecting our national 
security.
  The United States has and ought to have a zero-tolerance policy 
against government employees and contractor personnel engaging in any 
form of human trafficking. These values are transcendent of party 
lines, of any other interests. I am very proud to offer this amendment, 
in fact, with strong support across the aisle, led by my colleague 
Senator Portman who has joined me in forming a human trafficking caucus 
to lead the way on these issues. This amendment is the result of 
efforts we have led and very simply represents the most comprehensive 
legislative effort ever undertaken in the Congress to stamp out human 
trafficking in overseas contracting.
  I am happy to yield to my colleague from Ohio, Senator Portman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Connecticut in offering this amendment, which is modeled on the 
bipartisan legislation we introduced in March along

[[Page S7154]]

with a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle.
  We also recently joined to form a Senate caucus to end human 
trafficking, and I appreciate the chair and ranking member today for 
allowing this amendment to move forward.
  The aim of this amendment is pretty simple. This amendment ensures 
that our contingency contracting dollars are spent in a manner that is 
consistent, as Senator Blumenthal said, with our deeply held values as 
a country. This is particularly important in the context of wartime 
contracting and reconstruction work.
  This amendment comes from the work that both DOD and State Department 
IGs have done. The inspectors general have told us we lack sufficient 
monitoring to have the kind of visiblity we need under the labor 
practices by our contractors and subcontractors who rely on a lot of 
third-party nationals to do overseas work.
  It also comes from the Wartime Contracting Commission, which has 
reported what is described as evidence of the recurrent problem of 
trafficking in persons by labor brokers or subcontractors of 
contingency contractors. The report concluded that existing 
prohibitions on such trafficking have failed to suppress it.
  One of the commission members, a former Reagan and Bush 
administration defense official, testified before our committee, saying 
those findings were, in his assessment, just the tip of the iceberg. So 
I think this legislation is appropriate. It directly affects this issue 
that has been raised now by the IG and by the Wartime Contracting 
Commission. This is a commonsense approach to it.
  Broadly defined, we believe this will help to deal with the human 
trafficking issue that has been identified. It deals with recruiting 
workers to leave their home countries based on fraudulent promises, 
confiscating passports, limiting the ability of workers to return home, 
charging workers so-called recruitment fees that consume more than a 
month's salary, just to name some of the abuses that have been 
identified.
  I think it should be clear that the overwhelming majority of these 
contractors and subcontractors are law abiding, but we need to be sure 
these abusive labor practices are dealt with. This legislation will do 
so. I thank my colleague for raising it today. I am proud to join him 
in cosponsoring the legislation.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I think we are now willing to proceed to 
disposition on the Blumenthal amendment. I don't know if anyone wants 
to speak further on that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment No. 3124, as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment 
aside for the consideration of amendment No. 2972.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator----
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I wonder if we could ask unanimous 
consent at this point to take up the Inhofe amendment. We know of no 
objection to it. Rather than setting any amendment aside, just simply 
send it to the desk.
  Is the amendment at the desk? Just call up the amendment, if the 
Senator would.


                           Amendment No. 2972

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2972.
  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 Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) proposes an 
     amendment No. 2972.

  Mr. INHOFE. 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 express the sense of Congress that the bugle call commonly 
known as ``Taps'' should be designated as the National Song of Military 
                              Remembrance)

       At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1084. SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE BUGLE CALL COMMONLY 
                   KNOWN AS TAPS SHOULD BE DESIGNATED AS THE 
                   NATIONAL SONG OF MILITARY REMEMBRANCE.

       It is the sense of Congress that the bugle call commonly 
     known as ``Taps'' should be designated as the National Song 
     of Military Remembrance.

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, this is something that I know will be 
accepted by both sides, by every Member in here. It is a request by all 
the associations, the veterans and all the others. It is something I 
wasn't familiar with until fairly recently, and that is, in July of 
1862, following the Seven Days Battles, Union GEN Daniel Butterfield 
and bugler Oliver Wilcox Norton created ``Taps'' at Berkeley Plantation 
in Virginia.
  This is something we are all familiar with, those of us who served in 
the military. We know what ``Taps'' is. It is a big deal to a lot of 
people, but it has never had an official designation. We have an 
amendment now that would be a sense-of-the-Senate that would designate 
the bugle call commonly known as ``Taps'' to be designated as a 
national military song of military remembrance. The reason I think it 
is significant to do it is it raises the song known as ``Taps'' to a 
national level of significance, specifically for the military veterans 
as a tribute when played during military funerals and ceremonies. This 
is a request of various veterans organizations, and I would ask that it 
be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. We know of no objection to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2972) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay the motion on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I would now ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Udall of Colorado be recognized for 5 minutes to speak as 
though in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I thank the chairman and 
ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for the recognition. I 
am a proud member of that committee, and I am also a member of the 
Intelligence Committee. From those vantage points, I am well aware of 
the threats that face our country.
  Our military and our intelligence communities have to be prepared to 
counter threats from a wide range of enemies and bad actors. As we all 
know, our national security community is decisively engaged against 
those who would do us harm. When we capture those who are plotting 
against us, we are swiftly bringing them to justice by trying and 
convicting those terrorists in civilian courts and, when appropriate, 
in military commissions.
  This is a flexible strategy that has empowered our terrorism 
community to help keep Americans safe since 9/11, and those brave men 
and women who spend every waking hour defending this country have been 
successfully using our laws to pursue terrorists around the globe. But 
last year Congress changed some of those laws, against the wishes of 
our military and intelligence communities. Those detainee provisions 
last year suggest that our military should shift significant resources 
away from their mission and to instead act as both a domestic law 
enforcement agency and jailer with respect to terrorist suspects. They 
also call into question the principles we as Americans hold dear, 
because they could be interpreted as allowing the military to capture 
and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil without trial.
  I joined our highest ranking national security officials in warning 
my colleagues about the dangerous change

[[Page S7155]]

that such policies would make and I urge us not to pass them. We have 
to get our detainee and counterterrorism policies right, but 
unfortunately I believe the policies that were enacted last year 
complicate our capacity to prosecute the war on terror and in the 
process erode our Nation's constitutional principles, both of which 
concern all of us.
  I have been working with the administration to ensure that those 
detention policies are not harmfully interpreted, but the law itself 
remains a problem. Several of my colleagues, including the Senator from 
Kentucky and the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, 
Senator Feinstein, have suggested changes to the law that will help 
repair the flawed policies enacted last year.
  I have also crafted my own legislation working with the ranking 
member on the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Adam Smith 
from Washington, to repair some of the harm that I believe was done in 
last year's NDAA. I filed that bill to this year's NDAA as amendment 
No. 3115, along with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
Senator Leahy.
  Senators Feinstein and Paul have a slightly similar but different 
approach, created as a result of the detainee provisions passed last 
year. There are efforts under way to assure that whatever path we take 
forward is supported by the greatest numbers possible, and I look 
forward to being part of those important discussions.
  I know we addressed this issue in part last year, but in speaking 
with other Members I know there is a renewed interest in getting our 
detention policies right, both from the view of counterterrorism 
effectiveness and constitutional protection. I believe both security 
and freedom are critically important, and I don't think we have to 
choose one over the other.
  I thank my colleagues for remaining diligent in addressing the 
detention policies that remain a concern, because Americans must remain 
engaged on this issue.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I note 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. 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Thune be allotted 7 minutes to speak on an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I am working with the managers of the 
bill to try to address concerns they might have on an amendment I have 
filed at the desk and hope to get accepted. But I wish to speak to it 
now, if I might.
  Essentially, the amendment is just a sense of Congress regarding the 
Federal Government's use of spectrum, and, in particular, spectrum use 
of the Department of Defense. Spectrum is a very important resource to 
the Department of Defense, and it is a very important resource to the 
private sector.
  Unfortunately, spectrum is becoming a scarcer and scarcer resource, 
and it is increasingly necessary for there to be better and more 
efficient management of this scarce resource. Demand for spectrum is 
sharply rising due to the growing advanced network of communication 
devices that rely on spectrum to transmit and receive information. The 
rise of mobile devices, such as smart phones and tablets, the iPhone 
and iPad over the past few years, are the reason for this sharp rise in 
demand for spectrum.
  According to a recent study by Cisco, last year's mobile data traffic 
was eight times the size of the entire global Internet in 2000. The 
Cisco study predicts that global mobile data traffic will increase 
eighteenfold between 2011 and 2016 at a compound annual growth rate of 
78 percent, reaching 10.8 exabytes per month by 2016.
  The rise in the smart phone and the tablet has contributed 
significantly to our Nation's economy. The Nation's mobile 
communications industry, by one estimate, directly or indirectly 
supports 3.8 million jobs, contributing $195.5 billion to the U.S. 
gross domestic product, and driving $33 billion in productivity 
improvements in 2011.
  With all that has gone wrong with our economy over the past several 
years, it is important that we as policymakers nurture the growth of 
the economy, especially where growth is already happening and, in fact, 
is exploding. We need to enact smart progrowth policies relating to 
spectrum. I know the spectrum issue isn't easy to understand or to 
manage, but it is crucial we seek to better manage this scarce 
resource, and where it is possible to allocate more of the scarce 
resource to the private sector where it can create jobs and grow the 
economy.
  That is the reasoning and purpose behind my amendment. The Federal 
Government controls the vast amount of spectrum for its own use. It is 
probably not all as efficiently managed as it could be. Undoubtedly, a 
sufficient amount of this spectrum could be made available to help 
create jobs and grow the economy.
  One of the low-hanging fruits we can deal with almost immediately is 
the band of spectrum known as the 1755-to-1780 megahertz band. This 
spectrum is particularly well suited for reallocation to commercial use 
because it is identified internationally for commercial mobile services 
and is used for that purpose throughout most of the world. This 1755-
to-1780 band is also immediately adjacent to existing domestic wireless 
spectrum and would fit seamlessly into the current mobile broadband 
spectrum portfolio allowing for more immediate equipment development 
and deployment.
  There is no reason for further delay in the reallocation of the 1755-
to-1780 band for commercial use. This band was identified for 
commercial broadband use internationally at the 2000 World Radio 
Communications Conference over 10 years ago. Despite the international 
designation of the band for advanced wireless use, it is still 
allocated domestically for government use, heavily by DOD. The National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration, or NTIA, the agency 
which is responsible for all government spectrum, issued studies and 
reports in 2001, 2002, and 2010 that addressed use of the band for 
commercial use but took no action. The spectrum was also identified in 
the National Broadband Plan as potentially available for reallocation.
  In March 2012, NTIA released its latest report assessing the 
availability of the band. Unfortunately, the 2012 NTIA report contains 
no firm deadline for action and no clear path to making the band 
available for commercial use. It contemplates a potential 10-year 
timeframe and potential shared use of spectrum but defers any formal 
recommendation regarding reallocation until the completion of still 
further study.
  Had NTIA acted when the first band was allocated internationally for 
advanced wireless use, the band might already be available for 
commercial services. Without a firm deadline DOD is unlikely to agree 
to reallocation, and the prospects for reallocating the 1755-to-1780 
megahertz band for commercial use remain slim.
  That is why my amendment urges the President to direct Federal users 
on that 1755-to-1780 band to prepare, not later than May 31, 2013, a 
reallocation plan that includes the cost of relocating from this band, 
and urges the Federal Communications Commission to reallocate this band 
to commercial use.
  I hasten to add that it is important the cost of relocating the band 
should be verifiable and transparent. The report for the underlying 
bill requires the Government Accountability Office to determine if the 
cost of vacating or sharing the 1755-to-1780 band is sufficiently 
captured in estimates. I look forward to the GAO's report on this 
issue.
  There are those who may voice concerns about how this impacts our 
national security. I take a back seat to no one in being pro-military. 
I sat on the Armed Services Committee for 6 years. I have an Air Force 
Base in my State that I care deeply about. It is important to 
understand that existing law provides ample protection to DOD for the 
relocation to replacement spectrum.
  There are those concerned about the cost to DOT to relocate. The law 
requires DOT relocation costs be covered

[[Page S7156]]

by the Spectrum Relocation Fund, which is funded through the proceeds 
of the auction of the band to commercial licensees. If the auction does 
not raise 110 percent of the relocation cost, the auction would be 
canceled, assuring that incumbent users are made whole. Moreover, as 
part of the U.S. Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 
Congress expanded the scope of funding from the relocation fund to 
include the cost of planning for relocation.
  I am confident the Pentagon and the larger Federal Government can 
more efficiently manage its spectrum holdings and make available 
additional spectrum to help grow our economy and create jobs.
  I hope, Madam President, that we can work this out to have it 
included as part of the Defense authorization bill. I certainly believe 
it is an amendment that is important with regard to the issue I 
mentioned, which is the reallocation and relocation of spectrum in this 
country to allow for multiple uses--obviously, important private 
commercial uses--out there and an enormous demand, a demand that is 
adding significantly to our economy and creating jobs for literally 
thousands and millions of Americans.
  Madam 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. LEVIN. 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed 
to the Gillibrand amendment, that there be 20 minutes debate on the 
amendment, and that it be equally divided between Senator Gillibrand 
and Senator Coburn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.


                    Amendment No. 3058, as Modified

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3058, as 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mrs. Gillibrand], for herself, 
     Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Brown of 
     Massachusetts, Mr. Begich, and Mr. Menendez, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3058, as modified.

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. 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:

       At the end of subtitle A of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. 704. CERTAIN TREATMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, 
                   INCLUDING AUTISM, UNDER THE TRICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Certain Treatment of Autism.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 55 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1077 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1077a. Treatment of autism under the TRICARE program

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (c), 
     for purposes of providing health care services under this 
     chapter, the treatment of developmental disabilities (42 
     U.S.C. 15002(8)), including autism spectrum disorders shall 
     include behavioral health treatment, including applied 
     behavior analysis, when prescribed by a physician.
       ``(b) Requirements in Provision of Services.--In carrying 
     out subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall ensure 
     that--
       ``(1) except as provided by paragraph (2), a person who is 
     authorized to provide behavioral health treatment is licensed 
     or certified by a State or accredited national certification 
     board; and
       ``(2) if applied behavior analysis or other behavioral 
     health treatment is provided by an employee or contractor of 
     a person described in paragraph (1), the employee or 
     contractor shall meet minimum qualifications, training, and 
     supervision requirements as set forth by the Secretary who 
     shall ensure that covered beneficiaries have appropriate 
     access to care in accordance with best practice guidelines.
       ``(c) Exclusions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the 
     following:
       ``(1) Covered beneficiaries under this chapter who are 
     entitled to hospital insurance benefits under part A of title 
     XVIII of the Social Security Act.
       ``(2) Covered beneficiaries under this chapter who are 
     former members, dependents of former members, or survivors of 
     any uniformed service not under the jurisdiction of the 
     Department of Defense.
       ``(d) Construction With Other Benefits.--(1) Nothing in 
     this section shall be construed as limiting or otherwise 
     affecting the benefits otherwise provided under this chapter 
     to a covered beneficiary who is a beneficiary by virtue of--
       ``(A) service in the Coast Guard, the Commissioned Corp of 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or the 
     Commissioned Corp of the Public Health Service; or
       ``(B) being a dependent of a member of a service described 
     in subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as 
     limiting or otherwise affecting the benefits provided to a 
     medicare-eligible beneficiary under--
       ``(A) this chapter;
       ``(B) part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395c et seq.); or
       ``(C) any other law.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 55 of such title is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 1077 the following new 
     item:

``1077a. Treatment of autism under the TRICARE program.''.

       (b) Funding.--
       (1) Increase.--The amount authorized to be appropriated for 
     fiscal year 2013 by section 1406 and available for the 
     Defense Health Program for Private Sector Care as specified 
     in the funding table in section 4501 is hereby increased by 
     $45,000,000, with the amount of the increase to be available 
     for the provision of care in accordance with section 1077a of 
     title 10, United States Code (as added by subsection (a)).
       (2) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated for 
     fiscal year 2013 by section 301 for Operation and Maintenance 
     and available as specified in the funding table in section 
     4301 is hereby reduced by $45,000,000.

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise today on behalf of the 
30,000 military families who have loved ones with disabilities, 
including those on the autism spectrum. Sadly, thousands of these 
Americans suffering from autism and other developmental disabilities 
are not receiving the treatment that best practices has determined they 
need.
  For example, military families with children on the autistic spectrum 
are receiving fewer services than their civilian governmental 
counterparts across the country, many of whom have been rightfully 
aided by laws passed in over 60 percent of our States, representing 
over 75 percent of the American population.
  Autism places such tremendous strain on our families--health strains, 
financial, and emotional. They take such tolls. I want to share briefly 
just a couple of the stories I have heard from struggling military 
families. They have done everything we have asked of them as a nation, 
but now they can't even provide for their children.
  One veteran was severely wounded in Iraq while heroically serving his 
country. His injuries were such that he was forced to retire. Because 
he is retired, his autistic son Shane was no longer able to receive the 
applied behavioral therapies that were recommended. The wait list for 
the Medicaid waiver services where he lives was 9 years. So Shane's 
family had to sell their home to pay the roughly $5,000 per month out 
of pocket for the ABA treatment he so desperately needs.
  The money is running out for their family, and they do not know what 
to do. But they want to do what is best for their son. Without this 
relief, we risk allowing brave military families just like this one to 
fall through the cracks.
  Another story: A marine on Active Duty serving in Iraq and 
Afghanistan three times has maxed out all his ABA therapies to treat 
his 11-year-old autistic son Joshua. Joshua is nonverbal and his safety 
is a key concern for his family. So Joshua is prescribed 35 hours of 
ABA therapy per week. Because of the severity of Joshua's symptoms, the 
family is basically faced with the impossible decision of either 
foregoing the recommended care the doctor has prescribed for their son 
or paying these bills out of pocket for as long as they are actually 
able.
  I don't believe this should ever happen to our military families. I 
don't believe it should happen to any child, and that is why I am 
introducing my amendment to require TRICARE to cover the recommended 
ABA therapies that a doctor prescribes. It would be a matter that is 
consistent with the best practices across this country and in the rest 
of the Federal Government.
  Our children need this kind of support--Shane and Joshua need this 
kind

[[Page S7157]]

of support--and we should be standing by our men and women who serve in 
the military because they stand by us. Every parent who has a child 
with autism or another disability faces challenges to ensure their 
child has access to the treatments they require. For these military 
families, the challenges are even greater and often compounded by 
frequent deployments overseas, the frequent moves to different bases 
across State lines, and sometimes significant gaps in their coverage.
  Today, TRICARE coverage of ABA is severely limited. It is capped at 
$36,000 per year for an Active-Duty member, which falls far below what 
is medically recommended for so many of these children.
  This care is limited to Active-Duty servicemembers only. Guard and 
Reserve families receive intermittent care, and children of retirees 
can't even get coverage at all. As a consequence, military 
servicemembers often must turn to State Medicaid Programs to help 
provide these services to their children. But the problem is that these 
services are often unavailable because of long--years--wait lists. In 
Maryland, for example, the wait list is 7 years, essentially 
eliminating ABA coverage during the early developmental years when a 
child needs it most. The wait list in Virginia is 10 years long.
  Even more remarkable than TRICARE not covering these treatments is 
that the Office of Personnel Management has determined that such 
treatments may be covered as medical therapies for Federal civilian 
employees. A recent court decision, which the 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 
requires TRICARE to provide coverage and deliver services in a manner 
that is consistent with the best practices, thereby improving access to 
care for our military families and aligning the TRICARE policy with 
coverage that is basically available to anybody else in the civilian 
sector.
  I believe we have a duty to stand by our military families. We have 
to address this difficult medical issue. We ask so much of our men and 
women who serve in the military. We must support their families. This 
amendment simply fulfills that promise.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, first, I wish to announce that I agree 
with the assessment of the Senator from New York in terms of the 
treatment that should be offered. I have no problems with that. I think 
she is right. There are a lot of other things in TRICARE that aren't 
right. And what the Senator from New York is doing is admirable, but 
there is a portion of it that is not.
  With the modification to her amendment, she has now raised the total 
cost of this amendment over the next 10 years to $1.9 billion. And it 
is true that she has managed to insert with some excess funds that will 
be spent before the end of the year that won't be there by the time the 
money for this is used to pay for it. So she does meet that standard, 
but she doesn't meet the standard for the next 10 years.
  So we are in the midst of this large discussion about how we are 
going to get out of this fiscal mess. I take her at her word that she 
really does want to reform TRICARE and fix it. But realize that TRICARE 
hasn't had a premium increase since 1995, and all it would take to pay 
for this is a $2-per-month increase in premiums for those on TRICARE. 
And it is just TRICARE Prime; it is not TRICARE Standard and TRICARE 
For Life. It is just $2. Madam President, $550 per year covers your 
whole family, with no deductibles and no copays right now. It hasn't 
been increased since 1995.
  So one of the things we ought to do is we ought to work to bring 
TRICARE standards up to make sure they meet the needs of everybody. I 
don't disagree with that. But the other thing we ought to do is we 
ought to pay for it. Now, where is the money going to come from to pay 
for this, this very well-intentioned and proper thing? The way it is 
written now by the Senator from New York, this will come out of the 
operations and maintenance fund. So the very father of an autistic 
child will have less flight time, less drill time, less shooting time, 
less preparation time to go out and be a warfighter. And as we think 
about the 10-percent across-the-board cut that is coming or the $500 
billion that is proposed to come out of the Defense Department, none of 
it is going to come out of TRICARE.
  So what we ought to do is we ought to fix these things, but we ought 
to fix them without digging our hole deeper.
  Before Secretary Gates left, he said the biggest thing that is eating 
the lunch in the Defense Department is the department of health within 
it that manages the health care because we have not done an appropriate 
job of having a slight rise in premiums to cover some of the tremendous 
benefits. Nobody else in the country gets the benefits we give with 
TRICARE--nobody--$550 a year per family, $275 if you are single, and no 
copay and no deductible. All it would take is $24 a year by our TRICARE 
Prime to pay to make sure that the people with disabilities and the 
people with autism have the appropriate therapies and they are covered 
under TRICARE.
  So I would ask my colleague from New York if she would mind 
withdrawing her amendment, to be voted on later, that I might be able 
to offer a second-degree amendment and maybe in that way or another way 
pay for this out of things that we know are going on, that we could 
find $1.9 billion over the next 10 years to actually pay for the cost 
of this over the next 10 years. We didn't have time to do that 
beforehand. I don't know if she would be willing to do that. But there 
is no way you should justify taking another $1.9 billion out of the 
operation and maintenance program for our troops to health care. We 
ought to eliminate something that doesn't take away from their training 
time, flying time, shooting time, or sailing time. We ought to be 
taking it from somewhere else, but that is where this is going to come 
from.
  I applaud what she is doing. She is right about fixing the problem. 
She is totally opposite of what we should be doing in terms of paying 
for it, and I would offer to work in good faith in the next hour to try 
to come up with a second-degree amendment that would be acceptable to 
my colleague and to the chairman and ranking member of this committee 
that would actually pay for it.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 5 minutes for Senator Coburn and 6 
minutes for Senator Gillibrand remaining.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield 2 minutes to me?
  Mr. COBURN. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, there is no one I know of in this body 
at any time who would not want to assist and provide the best care, 
especially for our disabled children who have autism. It is one of the 
most compelling stories any of us have ever heard. But I think it is 
also important for us to recognize that when we continue to add on 
benefits without a hearing, without any scrutiny, without balancing 
where they are in the array of priorities we have, and without paying 
for them--it seems to me that in the budget we have and the 
expenditures we have, to just say, as the distinguished Senator from 
New York just stated, that we will address it next year, we will get 
that taken care of--we all know the hardest thing around here is to 
find funds for programs.
  So I appreciate more than I can say the dedication of the Senator 
from New York on this issue, but here we go again--we are going to now 
bestow another entitlement that is not paid for. With all due respect, 
I say to the Senator from New York, why don't she give us something to 
pay for it with? Why don't she come up with an offset that would then 
not have us increase the debt by $1.9 billion? We are now adding a cost 
of $1.9 billion in the name of one of the most humane and compelling 
causes any of us know. But don't we have an obligation to the 
taxpayers? We have an obligation to the taxpayers to say that we are 
going to take care of these special needs Americans but we are going to 
pay for it. Instead, we are going to lay an additional

[[Page S7158]]

burden on the taxpayers of America which someday is going to have to be 
paid for--someday. It may not be in this bill, but someday it is going 
to have to be paid for.
  Obviously this amendment is going to pass, but I would love to see 
the Senator from New York tell us how we are going to pay for it. I 
don't think that is an outrageous demand.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I thank my colleagues for their statements of 
support for meeting the needs of the children who do suffer from autism 
and other developmental disorders, and I do appreciate and believe 
their sincerity in wanting to make sure they are covered with the 
treatments they need.
  I think we can work together to reform the TRICARE system. It is one 
that has not had the kind of reform it needs. But this is just an 
authorization for 1 year to meet the needs of these kids now because I 
don't want to wait until we figure it out and figure out the rest of 
the program.
  In addition, we did have a hearing. We had scientists and doctors and 
those who are medical professionals come to testify in front of the 
Armed Services subcommittee. Through that testimony we established that 
the only reason the DOD wasn't covering this was because they believed 
it was an educational program. And what we established and what the 
medical literature says is that it is actually a medically necessary 
treatment in the same way you would give a child who is sick a 
medicine.
  I want to address the needs of these kids now. I will commit to 
working with the Senators to reforming TRICARE so we can actually pay 
for programs over the long term and reform it in a way that is 
consistent with the benefits our troops so desperately need.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, might I ask through the Chair the 
Senator from New York if she would consider for a short period of time 
withdrawing her amendment and allowing me to develop a second-degree 
amendment that would actually pay for this so that we would accomplish 
her goal--and I think all of our goals--of making sure the proper 
treatment is there but won't handicap the armed services in terms of 
delayed training, less training, less flying time? Because it is going 
to come out of the operations and maintenance funds. I wonder if she 
would do that with the assurance of the chair and the assurance of the 
ranking member and chairman of the committee that the amendment would 
still be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I urge my colleagues to take a more lengthy time to 
consider how to reform TRICARE and pay for this program than just 1 or 
2 hours.
  I would like to pass this amendment now. Right now operations and 
maintenance has $174 billion a year in it. This is $45 million for 1 
year just to get the treatments in place for these families. In 1 
year's time, we will have more accountability and transparency on what 
the real cost is. This is just an estimate. So what we want to do is be 
able to have more facts and then go to reform the TRICARE system 
properly, and I commit to Senators that I will work with you on that. 
This is only authorized for 1 year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I believe it was Ronald Reagan who said 
that the closest thing to eternal life here on Earth is a government 
program.
  Again, the complaint that we continue to hear from our constituents 
is that we have mortgaged our children's and our grandchildren's 
futures. And to somehow say, well, we are only authorizing this program 
for 1 year--does the Senator from New York really believe that once we 
start treating children with autism, we are going to terminate that 
program? Does she really believe that? Of course not. Of course not.
  We have an obligation to the men and women, the citizens of this 
country whom we have saddled with a $16 trillion debt to find ways to 
sacrifice ourselves fiscally to pay for worthwhile programs. So I 
support a second-degree amendment from the Senator from Oklahoma, which 
is his right. It is his right to do so. And I don't see how we fulfill 
our obligation to our citizens by continuing to authorize and 
appropriate expenditure of their tax dollars without a way to pay for 
it except to take it out of our taxpayers' pockets.
  That is not right. That is not right. The Senator from New York knows 
it is not right for us, no matter how worthy the cause, for us to 
continue this continued spend, spend, spend, debt, debt, debt that the 
American people are saddled with. I probably will not be paying for the 
national debt but my kids will, my grandkids will. Can't we for once 
say: Look, this is a worthwhile program, we all support taking care of 
people with autism, and here is how we are going to pay for it. That 
would be a unique experience around this body.
  I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COBURN. I yield the remaining portion of my time.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I yield my time.
  Mr. COBURN. I think my colleague from New York would like to ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I request a voice vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is there anyone seeking the yeas and nays?
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I request a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. I think we ought to have a recorded vote on this since we 
are not paying for it and we are taking $1.9 billion out of the O&M 
budget of the Defense Department. I ask we have a recorded vote.
  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 assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), 
and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 211 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Akaka
     Ayotte
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--29

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Graham
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     McCain
     Nelson (NE)
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--5

     DeMint
     Heller
     Kirk
     Lautenberg
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 3058) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe Senator Portman may be ready with 
an amendment that has been cleared and, I believe, can be voice-voted. 
I am wondering if my friend from Ohio could confirm my understanding 
that he is ready to proceed and that he is willing to take a voice vote 
on this amendment?

[[Page S7159]]

  Mr. PORTMAN. Yes. That would be great. I am willing to take a voice 
vote, and I believe it is going to be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ohio seek recognition?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I do seek recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                           Amendment No. 2956

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and call up amendment No. 2956.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Portman], for himself and Mr. 
     Akaka, proposes an amendment numbered 2956.

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To require a report on Department of Defense efforts to 
standardize educational transcripts issued to separating members of the 
                             Armed Forces)

       At the end of subtitle F of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 561. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EFFORTS TO 
                   STANDARDIZE EDUCATIONAL TRANSCRIPTS ISSUED TO 
                   SEPARATING MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives a report on the efforts of the 
     Department of Defense to standardize the educational 
     transcripts issued to members of the Armed Forces on their 
     separation from the Armed Forces.
       (b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A description of the similarities and differences 
     between the educational transcripts issued to members 
     separating from the various Armed Forces.
       (2) A description of any assessments done by the 
     Department, or in conjunction with educational institutions, 
     to identify shortcomings in the transcripts issued to 
     separating members in connection with their ability to 
     qualify for civilian educational credits.
       (3) A description of the implementation plan for the Joint 
     Services Transcript, including a schedule and the elements of 
     existing educational transcripts to be incorporated into the 
     Transcript.

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this is a pretty simple amendment. It has 
to do with correcting a problem that we have found in Ohio and around 
the country. Amendment No. 2956 simply calls on the Secretary of 
Defense to work to standardize the educational transcripts of 
separating servicemembers. I appreciate Senator Akaka's leadership and 
cosponsorship of this amendment.
  It is an important issue to a lot of our veterans as they are seeking 
to pursue their educational opportunities after being in the service. 
If they seek to use the GI bill or other benefits to further their 
education after taking off the uniform, they sometimes find they have 
an issue of getting credit for work they have done in the service.
  Each servicemember is issued a transcript upon leaving Active Duty. 
The transcript equates military training and instruction to academic 
credits. Colleges and universities then use these transcripts to award 
transfer credit to veteran students.
  Unfortunately, there is a significant difference in the types of 
transcripts issued by each of the military services. As a result, two 
veterans from different services who took the exact same military 
courses could receive significantly different academic credit at the 
same school. If we multiply that across all the services, all of our 
veteran students, and across all the colleges and universities in this 
country, we end up with some real issues. We end up with many veterans 
losing out on credit they deserve, as well as very well-intentioned 
colleges and universities spending a lot of time and resources trying 
to make sense of all these differences to help this process for 
veterans. It often falls on the Veterans Service Offices in these 
schools, and as my colleagues know, these Veterans Service Offices 
should be spending their time assisting veterans with their transition 
to academic life, which is sometimes a challenge.
  Ohio has been leading on this issue and has organized public and 
private schools, our State board of regents, and even the Ohio National 
Guard to try to bring some sense to this. That has been helpful, but it 
would be far easier and far better to standardize the military 
transcripts themselves. It would avoid, again, a lot of the issues, a 
lot of the bureaucracy.
  The Defense Department has recognized some of these issues, and I 
think they have started down the path of developing a joint services 
transcript. This is an important first step, and through this amendment 
we seek an understanding of those requirements and their implementation 
plan for this kind of initiative, should it be in place, in order to 
see it on a path to a swift and thorough resolution.
  So I think this is one that, again, as the chairman was asking, could 
be voice-voted. I hope it will be.
  So, Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote on the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2956) was agreed to.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if we could get a unanimous consent that Senator 
Casey be allowed to proceed as in morning business to comment on filed 
amendments for--I am sorry, was it 10 minutes?--10 minutes. I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Casey be allowed to proceed as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our Nation's 
military in light of the legislation we are considering. I commend 
Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain and all those who are working 
on it. I just have some comments on a number of amendments and a few 
issues.
  For more than a decade now our Nation has been at war. In that time 
period, the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces have courageously 
served in Afghanistan and Iraq, assisted communities after disasters, 
and continued to provide stability across the world. As the military 
draws down from foreign engagements and strategic directions are 
reassessed, the Senate should do the same with regard to these issues.
  Unlike previous debates on the National Defense Authorization Act, 
this year the bill before us seeks to clarify the role of the military 
for the next decade or more.
  We are being asked to evaluate how large our military needs to be as 
we assess our near- and long-term threats. We are being asked to 
evaluate what equipment and resources this fighting force will need to 
keep the peace and to combat new aggressors, all while we are being 
asked to evaluate programs we have introduced over the past decade to 
support our servicemembers and their families.
  There are just a couple issues that are relevant to this debate, one 
which has particular significance for southwestern Pennsylvania. This 
is with regard to the military's force structure. I have been alarmed 
at two proposals submitted by the Air Force as it seeks to restructure.
  In Pennsylvania, the Air Force has sought to eliminate the Pittsburgh 
Air Reserve Station where approximately 1,500 Reservists and civilians 
are committed to serving our Nation. After numerous briefings and 
hearings, the Air Force has yet to provide us--to provide my office and 
I think other offices as well--with a thorough analysis of several of 
their proposals. These proposals, as presented, have failed to reflect 
the low overhead costs, efficiencies, and the value of the 911th 
Airlift Wing.
  For example, the 911th has developed an aircraft maintenance program 
that has resulted in more aircraft availability days while saving the 
Department more than $42 million over the last 5 years. The Air Force 
continues to reiterate that they must find savings in this tight budget 
environment.

[[Page S7160]]

If this is true, I am not convinced the closing of one of their most 
efficient bases meets this objective of cost savings.
  I am also disturbed to see how the Air Force Reserve continues to be 
treated during this process. While the Guard and Active components have 
been mostly protected, the Air Force Reserve, including the 911th in 
Pittsburgh, has borne the brunt of these proposed cuts. Therefore, I am 
pleased Chairman Levin and the members of the Armed Services Committee 
have worked to prevent the Air Force from moving forward with these 
proposals in fiscal year 2013.
  I ask other colleagues to join Senators Begich, Gillibrand, and me on 
amendment No. 2952 that seeks to prevent the military from using a 
backdoor BRAC process to substantially reduce or close bases, 
especially without justifying to Congress their intentions. On behalf 
of Pennsylvania's Air Force Reserve, I will continue to fight for a 
reasoned and balanced restructuring of the Air Force.
  The second issue I wish to raise is the so-called TAA Program. We 
know our long-term strategic interests must also secure the future of 
servicemembers and veterans alike. Today, I have introduced an 
amendment that provides assistance to our servicemembers and their 
families. It is amendment No. 2297, the Transition Assistance Advisors 
Program, the so-called TAA Program.
  It seeks to make permanent and increase the numbers of transition 
assistance advisors in every State. These advisors coordinate resources 
for the Reserve component members and their families to help these 
individuals navigate the myriad of service programs provided by the VA, 
TRICARE, veterans service organizations, and other supporting agencies.
  These advisors are considered a force multiplier by the National 
Guard Bureau. The TAA assistance advisors enhance the Bureau's outreach 
capabilities, serve as a vital link between servicemembers and the 
benefits to which they are entitled. In the last 2 years, since this 
initiative was launched, 62 of these advisors have reached more than 
194,000 veterans and their families. Yet 62 advisors can only do so 
much. All too often, I hear from my National Guard constituents and 
their spouses about how confusing it is to navigate military procedures 
and benefits, especially as they go on and off duty every 2 years.
  Our citizen soldiers have answered the call to serve our Nation in 
times of need. Should we not be doing everything we can to help them 
navigate these complicated measures when they return home? I think the 
answer to that question is a resounding yes.
  Last year, Congress authorized end strengths of 464,900 guardsmen and 
women in the Army and Air National Guard. On average, this comes to an 
average of 1 transition assistance advisor--just 1--per 7,498 
servicemembers and their families, obviously not enough advisors to 
help our families.
  I believe this ratio does a disservice to citizen soldiers and to 
airmen as well as others and their families. I ask my colleagues to 
support and strengthen this program as our veterans of Iraq and 
Afghanistan try to reintegrate back into their lives. I thank Senators 
Leahy, Blumenthal, Tester, Mikulski, and Wyden for cosponsoring this 
important amendment.
  Finally, my last issue. This involves women in Afghanistan. In 
addition to making important adjustments to the size and strength of 
our military, the authorization act also helps to shape strategic 
priorities in critical regions. In Afghanistan, we are reducing the 
U.S. presence and transitioning security responsibilities to Afghan 
forces. It is critical this process protects the gains that have been 
made over the last 10 years, particularly with regard to the rights and 
opportunities of Afghan women and girls. I am concerned that as our 
international forces draw down, extremists threaten to once again 
restrict Afghan women's mobility and opportunities for participation in 
public life.
  Women who are active in public life face serious threats to their 
personal safety in Afghanistan. Girls have been the targets of 
extremist violence simply for going to school. We all know the story 
that was written about the acid thrown in the face of two young girls. 
That was repeated numerous times across the country. Afghan forces are 
not doing enough to counter these influences and protect women in their 
communities. This just does not threaten Afghan women and Afghan girls, 
it threatens the success of the security transition in Afghanistan that 
we are paying for, that we have invested in, that our fighting men and 
women have fought and died for.
  We know that when women's security deteriorates, it can be an early 
indicator of a worsening security condition overall. I am very 
concerned that if we neglect women's security in Afghanistan during 
this transition period and if we stand by while women are forced out of 
public life and have their voice silenced by extremists, we will see a 
less stable and a less secure Afghanistan in 2014 and beyond.
  That is why Senator Hutchison and I have introduced the Afghan Women 
and Girls Security Promotion Act and offered it as an amendment to the 
National Defense Authorization Act. We are proud to be joined by 
Senators Mikulski, Feinstein, Gillibrand, Murkowski, Snowe, Lautenberg, 
Cardin, and Boxer.

  Here is what the legislation does: It requires the Department of 
Defense to produce a plan--just a plan--to produce a plan to promote 
the security of Afghan women and girls during the transition process, 
including monitoring and responding to changes in women's security.
  Second, the Department of Defense must work to improve gender 
sensitivity and responsiveness among Afghan national security forces 
personnel. Third, it increases recruitment and retention of women in 
the Afghan national security forces. It will also require that the 
Department of Defense report on the implementation of this strategy and 
its results in semiannual reports that are filed.
  When I last visited Afghanistan, leading a CODEL in August of 2011, I 
was privileged to meet with a group of Afghan women leaders. I was 
impressed and inspired--that is an understatement--inspired by their 
determination to continue to fight for women's rights even in the face 
of extraordinary oppression and violence.
  One member of Parliament, Fawzia Kofi, lost her father and her 
husband as a result of her family's involvement in politics. But she is 
still determined to be a leader in protecting women's rights and 
advancing Afghanistan's democratic development. She and her colleagues, 
along with women across Afghanistan, are prepared to do whatever it 
takes to make sure their rights are protected and that they have a 
voice in their country's future. Supporting them is not only in line 
with our American values, it is critical to discouraging extremism and 
laying a foundation for a peaceful future in Afghanistan.
  I am glad several of my colleagues have joined us as cosponsors in 
this important amendment. I hope we can see more support as we move 
forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the chairman has asked me to 
manage the bill in the meantime while he is working out with the 
leadership a list of amendments.
  Seeing no other Senator who wants to speak at this point, if I may, 
then I will talk about an amendment that would be offered in the 
future.
  I am going to offer an amendment to repeal the offset in the 
Department of Defense and the VA benefits for military widows and 
widowers. The standalone bill, S. 260, has widespread support from 
military organizations and has 51 cosponsors in the Senate. This is the 
ninth time that I have and will bring this amendment to the Defense 
Authorization Act.
  It has passed the Senate six times over the past decade, including 
last year by voice vote. The Senate has supported eliminating this 
offset for years. I hope this body will remain steadfast in its support 
for military widows and survivors.
  The Presiding Officer will recall in a number of addresses that 
President Lincoln gave he spoke of the responsibility the government 
has to take care of the veteran and his widow and orphans. That is an 
ingrained principle within the law. That is an ingrained

[[Page S7161]]

principle as we uphold the finest fighting force in the world, which is 
our military.
  What this amendment does is it addresses the longstanding problems 
faced by those survivors of people who are killed in action or whose 
death is related to the service in the military. The requirement for 
the dollar-for-dollar reduction of the Department of Defense Survivor 
Benefit Plan--it is an annuity--is offset by the amount of dependency 
and indemnity compensation that is received from another department, 
the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  The Survivor Benefit Plan from the Department of Defense is an 
optional program for military retirees offered by the Department of 
Defense. Military retirees pay premiums out of their retirement pay to 
ensure that their survivors will have adequate income upon that 
servicemember's death. That is an insurance plan paid for by the 
military retiree.
  On the other hand, the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation is a 
completely different survivor benefit. It is administered by the VA. 
When military service caused the servicemember's death, either due to 
service-connected disability or illness or Active-Duty death, surviving 
spouses are entitled to a monthly compensation. Most recently that has 
been $1,154. That comes from the VA. That is as a result of death with 
a service-connected disability or illness or Active-Duty death.
  Now, of the 270,000 survivors that are receiving, under the insurance 
plan, the Survivor Benefit Plan, about 54,000 of those widows and 
orphans are subject to the offset.
  According to the Defense Actuary, 31,000 survivors' SBP, the 
insurance plan, is completely offset by the dependency and indemnity 
compensation, meaning that the widow or the widower must live just on 
the DIC, which is $1,154. Well, that is simply not fair because if you 
engage in an insurance contract and you pay premiums to give you a 
certain return upon the happening of an event--in this case, the death 
of a retired military member--then that contract ought to be offered. 
But because this has been an expensive item in the past, what has 
happened over the years that this Senator has been trying to eliminate 
this offset is we have whittled it down but not completely done the 
complete offset. The fact is that the group of people affected, the 
group of widowers or widows, is getting smaller and smaller and 
therefore is going to cost less. I know of no purchased annuity plan 
that would deny payout based on the receipt of a different benefit, 
which is the case here.
  Retirees bought into the SBP, the insurance plan, in good faith, 
these military families planned for the future, and the government 
failed to hold up its end of the bargain.
  The military has a longstanding tradition never to leave a comrade 
behind, but that is what we are doing to the military survivors, the 
widows and the orphans. We are not taking care of those who are left 
behind.
  We must meet our obligation to the widow and the orphan with the same 
sense of honor as was the service their loved one rendered. We must 
eliminate this SBP-DIC offset. It is the right thing to do, and it is 
going to cost a lot less than when I tried this 11 years ago, but there 
will be costs. But we have to start by setting the policy of what is 
right.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, just in the lull here--and if there is any 
legislative business to take place, I will immediately give up the 
floor--I wish to make the point that I am so proud to be in this 
Senate, so proud to have been here for a long time now. I came here in 
1993. There were 2 women, then we went to 6 women, and now we are going 
to 20 women. I have seen changes, I have seen good things, and I have 
seen rough things.
  I have to say one of the things that keeps coming up continually here 
is folks trying to use these debates on bills to add irrelevant 
amendments, amendments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
  I think we all agree that defending our Nation is our No. 1 priority, 
and therefore having a defense authorization bill is very important. I 
am sure we don't agree with every single sentence of this bill, but in 
general we all want to make sure that our military is prepared, that 
they are paid well, that they get good benefits. We must ensure we have 
a strong military that can meet every threat. Again, we are going to 
disagree on what all that means, but at least when we legislate, we 
ought to make sure that when we offer amendments, they are either 
noncontroversial and committee chairs have signed off if they are in 
their jurisdiction or we shouldn't offer them.
  The reason I rise today is that we may be facing two environmental 
riders on this bill, and I want to go on record as saying I am not 
going to let that happen. Now, if colleagues want to override and stay 
here through the night and the weekend, that is fine, but I am going to 
be staying right here because one of these amendments would say that 
the EPA, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, could never regulate 
the ingredients in ammunition. This means they could never regulate 
lead and they could never regulate perchlorate. Lead and perchlorate 
kill, they harm, they do damage to the thyroid, to brain development, 
and to the behavior of children. Pregnant women are harmed.
  So I am not going to allow an environmental rider to get onto this 
floor and pass this Senate when we are doing a defense bill which is 
meant to protect our people. I can tell you right now, you don't put a 
harmful environmental rider in the Defense bill when you are trying to 
pass a bill to protect our people, not make it easier for them to be 
exposed to dangerous lead, dangerous perchlorate, and other chemicals. 
There is a place and a time to do those amendments, and that would be 
on a relevant bill, a bill that comes out of the Environment Committee. 
That is fine. We can debate it then and have a vote when everyone 
understands the ramifications.
  Now there is threat here to have another environmental rider that 
deals with coal ash, the regulation of coal ash. What does that have to 
do with the military bill? Zero. The components of coal ash are a huge 
danger to people. We have seen the coal ash pile up and get loose. In 
the East, it just goes down in a rainstorm and destroys whole 
communities. There is an environmental rider waiting to be offered that 
would weaken the EPA's ability to go to that threat and get rid of it.
  I am very distressed, and I am sure you can hear it in my voice. I 
know there are differences around here, but I take my job seriously. As 
chairman of the Environment Committee, my job is to protect the public 
health from toxins such as lead, perchlorate, and the amazing 
collection of chemicals in coal ash that kill and harm and maim.
  I know people want to get this bill done, and, believe me, I want to 
get this bill done. I have several amendments in this bill that are so 
important, and I thank colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 
particularly Senator Cornyn and Senator Snowe, who helped me with an 
amendment that would say that if someone has been convicted of a sexual 
assault, they can no longer join the military. That is in this bill. 
That is very important.
  We have other amendments we have worked on, and I thank Senator Levin 
and Senator McCain. They have reached out to the committee chairs, and 
they have said: Look, we are trying to protect your jurisdiction. They 
have now said they have no agreement that our jurisdiction will be 
protected.
  As much as I don't want to sit here and stand guard, I am going to do 
it because I think that is my role and that is my job.
  I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this moment to express the reason I 
have been on the floor all afternoon and will continue to be on floor 
until we adjourn this evening.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S7162]]

  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. Franken). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we are now going to turn to an amendment of 
Senator Whitehouse which has been cleared. We have worked to make sure 
everybody understands that he is going to proceed to the amendment. And 
then I understand there is not going to be a need for rollcall vote on 
it.
  I ask the Senator from Rhode Island, about how much time does he 
believe he would need on his amendment before we hopefully voice vote?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I would say just 2 or 3 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. But I do believe that the Senator from Oklahoma 
wishes to respond.
  Mr. LEVIN. And I appreciate that.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 10 minutes on 
the Whitehouse amendment, equally divided between Senator Whitehouse 
and Senator Coburn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, may I ask the chairman if he wishes 
the amendment called up now and made pending or are we simply going to 
have discussion on it?
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator, we expect now, will be calling up his 
amendment. And may I, though, correct what I said before. It is 
possible that there will be a need for a rollcall vote on the 
Whitehouse amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3180

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside in order to call up amendment No. 3180.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Whitehouse] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3180.

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense 
with further reading of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To provide for scientific frameworks with respect to 
                         recalcitrant cancers)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SCIENTIFIC FRAMEWORK FOR RECALCITRANT CANCERS.

       Subpart 1 of part C of title IV of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 417G. SCIENTIFIC FRAMEWORK FOR RECALCITRANT CANCERS.

       ``(a) Development of Scientific Framework.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each recalcitrant cancer identified 
     under subsection (b), the Director of the Institute shall 
     develop (in accordance with subsection (c)) a scientific 
     framework for the conduct or support of research on such 
     cancer.
       ``(2) Contents.--The scientific framework with respect to a 
     recalcitrant cancer shall include the following:
       ``(A) Current status.--
       ``(i) Review of literature.--A summary of findings from the 
     current literature in the areas of--

       ``(I) the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of such 
     cancer;
       ``(II) the fundamental biologic processes that regulate 
     such cancer (including similarities and differences of such 
     processes from the biological processes that regulate other 
     cancers); and
       ``(III) the epidemiology of such cancer.

       ``(ii) Scientific advances.--The identification of relevant 
     emerging scientific areas and promising scientific advances 
     in basic, translational, and clinical science relating to the 
     areas described in subclauses (I) and (II) of clause (i).
       ``(iii) Researchers.--A description of the availability of 
     qualified individuals to conduct scientific research in the 
     areas described in clause (i).
       ``(iv) Coordinated research initiatives.--The 
     identification of the types of initiatives and partnerships 
     for the coordination of intramural and extramural research of 
     the Institute in the areas described in clause (i) with 
     research of the relevant national research institutes, 
     Federal agencies, and non-Federal public and private entities 
     in such areas.
       ``(v) Research resources.--The identification of public and 
     private resources, such as patient registries and tissue 
     banks, that are available to facilitate research relating to 
     each of the areas described in clause (i).
       ``(B) Identification of research questions.--The 
     identification of research questions relating to basic, 
     translational, and clinical science in the areas described in 
     subclauses (I) and (II) of subparagraph (A)(i) that have not 
     been adequately addressed with respect to such recalcitrant 
     cancer.
       ``(C) Recommendations.--Recommendations for appropriate 
     actions that should be taken to advance research in the areas 
     described in subparagraph (A)(i) and to address the research 
     questions identified in subparagraph (B), as well as for 
     appropriate benchmarks to measure progress on achieving such 
     actions, including the following:
       ``(i) Researchers.--Ensuring adequate availability of 
     qualified individuals described in subparagraph (A)(iii).
       ``(ii) Coordinated research initiatives.--Promoting and 
     developing initiatives and partnerships described in 
     subparagraph (A)(iv).
       ``(iii) Research resources.--Developing additional public 
     and private resources described in subparagraph (A)(v) and 
     strengthening existing resources.
       ``(3) Timing.--
       ``(A) Initial development and subsequent update.--For each 
     recalcitrant cancer identified under subsection (b)(1), the 
     Director of the Institute shall--
       ``(i) develop a scientific framework under this subsection 
     not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this section; and
       ``(ii) review and update the scientific framework not later 
     than 5 years after its initial development.
       ``(B) Other updates.--The Director of the Institute may 
     review and update each scientific framework developed under 
     this subsection as necessary.
       ``(4) Public notice.--With respect to each scientific 
     framework developed under subsection (a), not later than 30 
     days after the date of completion of the framework, the 
     Director of the Institute shall--
       ``(A) submit such framework to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce and Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions and Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate; and
       ``(B) make such framework publically available on the 
     Internet website of the Department of Health and Human 
     Services.
       ``(b) Identification of Recalcitrant Cancer.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this section, the Director of the 
     Institute shall identify two or more recalcitrant cancers 
     that each--
       ``(A) have a 5-year relative survival rate of less than 20 
     percent; and
       ``(B) are estimated to cause the death of at least 30,000 
     individuals in the United States per year.
       ``(2) Additional cancers.--The Director of the Institute 
     may, at any time, identify other recalcitrant cancers for 
     purposes of this section. In identifying a recalcitrant 
     cancer pursuant to the previous sentence, the Director may 
     consider additional metrics of progress (such as incidence 
     and mortality rates) against such type of cancer.
       ``(c) Working Groups.--For each recalcitrant cancer 
     identified under subsection (b), the Director of the 
     Institute shall convene a working group comprised of 
     representatives of appropriate Federal agencies and other 
     non-Federal entities to provide expertise on, and assist in 
     developing, a scientific framework under subsection (a). The 
     Director of the Institute (or the Director's designee) shall 
     participate in the meetings of each such working group.
       ``(d) Reporting.--
       ``(1) Biennial reports.--The Director of NIH shall ensure 
     that each biennial report under section 403 includes 
     information on actions undertaken to carry out each 
     scientific framework developed under subsection (a) with 
     respect to a recalcitrant cancer, including the following:
       ``(A) Information on research grants awarded by the 
     National Institutes of Health for research relating to such 
     cancer.
       ``(B) An assessment of the progress made in improving 
     outcomes (including relative survival rates) for individuals 
     diagnosed with such cancer.
       ``(C) An update on activities pertaining to such cancer 
     under the authority of section 413(b)(7).
       ``(2) Additional one-time report for certain frameworks.--
     For each recalcitrant cancer identified under subsection 
     (b)(1), the Director of the Institute shall, not later than 6 
     years after the initial development of a scientific framework 
     under subsection (a), submit a report to the Congress on the 
     effectiveness of the framework (including the update required 
     by subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii)) in improving the prevention, 
     detection, diagnosis, and treatment of such cancer.
       ``(e) Recommendations for Exception Funding.--The Director 
     of the Institute shall consider each relevant scientific 
     framework developed under subsection (a) when making 
     recommendations for exception funding for grant applications.
       ``(f) Definition.--In this section, the term `recalcitrant 
     cancer' means a cancer for which the five-year relative 
     survival rate is below 50 percent.''.

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Levin and Ranking

[[Page S7163]]

Member McCain for their patience and persistence in allowing us to get 
to this vote. I think once I have discussed the bill for a moment, it 
might not seem as though it would have required much patience or 
persistence to get here, but it did. They have been very kind and very 
attentive, and I appreciate it.
  The history of this amendment is that it began as a bill in the 
Senate. This bill passed out of the Health, Education, Labor and 
Pensions Committee by unanimous consent. An identical bill passed 
through the House of Representatives under suspension. So in many 
respects it is noncontroversial.
  I also thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Enzi of the HELP 
Committee for their help getting it through the HELP Committee 
unanimously and for clearing it for a vote here today on the floor.
  The bill at this point has nearly 60 cosponsors. It has 18 Republican 
cosponsors, and I thank them individually and by name: Senators Blunt, 
Boozman, Brown of Massachusetts, Chambliss, Cochran, Collins, Crapo, 
Grassley, Heller, Hutchison, Isakson, Kirk, Lugar, Moran, Murkowski, 
Rubio, Snowe, and Wicker, in addition to all my Democratic cosponsors.
  This is a bill that also has the support of the American Cancer 
Society, the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, the Lung Cancer 
Alliance, and the American Association for Medical Research, as well as 
the American Association of Medical Colleges.
  What the bill does is asks that the National Institutes of Health 
convene and evaluate a discussion about what we call recalcitrant 
cancers. This actually began as a pancreatic cancer research bill, but 
it became apparent that there were some other cancers that we group now 
as what we call recalcitrant cancers in that they have not responded to 
treatment and research, and they remain cancers for which there has 
been little progress and survivability. And because they are so deadly 
and so lethal, we are trying to direct a little more attention out of 
NIH toward research on these cancers.
  For me, this has a personal component, as I know it does for many 
people who have been touched by pancreatic cancer. My mom died of 
pancreatic cancer, and I have a number of friends who have been touched 
by it in their families as well.
  I know the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has opposition to 
this. If he would like to state his piece, I will be delighted to yield 
the floor so he may do so now. I hope at the conclusion of his remarks 
we could move this by a voice vote rather than calling all of our 
colleagues back for another vote. But if he objects to that, then that 
is within his prerogatives.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we have made remarkable progress in this 
country in terms of research into diseases. Since Francis Collins and 
his great work on the genome complex became successful, the way we 
research disease has totally changed. I have my favorite aunt who died 
of pancreatic cancer. I diagnosed it hundreds of times in my own 
practice of patients who were dear to me and whom I love. The problem 
with pancreatic cancer is it is diagnosed late. It is an adenocarcinoma 
of the pancreas, much like an adenocarcinoma of the colon. The reason 
we do so well on colon cancer is we do colonoscopies and we can treat 
the disease early. What is well-intended by this recalcitrant cancer 
bill will actually delay the cure for pancreatic cancer and other 
recalcitrant diseases.
  Let me take a few minutes to explain why I am saying that.
  We no longer look at diseases to cure them by looking at the base 
disease. There is translational and neurocommunicative and peptide and 
small markers of communication on an intracellular basis. Now, when we 
do research and we find that, what we find is we find cures for 
multiple diseases.
  The other thing is we can take 100 people with a recalcitrant cancer, 
and every one of them, when we look at the genetics of cancer, will 
have to be treated differently. In other words, it is going to take a 
different approach, even though we might classify it as a neuroblastoma 
of the kidney or a pancreatic cancer--but looking at the genetics of 
the cancer, which is what we are doing now, is going to require totally 
different treatments.
  This is very well intended. I understand. This is a big disease, and 
it is terrible that we diagnose it at a time where we cannot end up--
less than 10 percent, around 5 percent survival rates, 5-year survival 
rates on this disease.
  I would like to have printed in the Record a letter I received from 
Dr. Francis Collins. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            Department of Health &


                                               Human Services,

                            Bethesda, Maryland, November 16, 2012.
     Hon. Tom Coburn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Tom Coburn: Thank you for your September 17 letter 
     requesting that I address four questions about how disease-
     specific legislation affects the ability of the National 
     Institutes of Health (NIH) to plan and perform research.
       First you asked if the NIH already has the ability to 
     create strategic plans and working groups without a 
     legislative mandate to do so. The Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services and leaders of the Institutes and Centers of 
     the NIH have the authorities needed to constitute standing 
     advisory committees, create working groups, and develop plans 
     for research programs; as a result, they do not need 
     legislative mandates to take such actions. The NIH Institutes 
     and Centers have senior advisory councils that oversee the 
     research portfolio of each component. Individually or in 
     collaboration, the NIH Institutes and Centers frequently form 
     other advisory groups charged with planning research on 
     Institute-specific or trans-NIH subjects. These many 
     activities, in conjunction with our peer review panels, are 
     part of our ongoing effort to evaluate the current scientific 
     landscape and to protect and advance our investments in 
     research for public benefit.
       Let me provide a recent example of how these planning 
     processes work. The National Institute of Allergy and 
     Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has used working groups to 
     identify scientific opportunities in areas where there are 
     pressing public health needs. One example is influenza--both 
     seasonal influenza, which kills up to 49,000 Americans each 
     year, as well as pandemic influenza such as the recent 2009 
     H1N1 pandemic. In early 2006 NIAID convened a Blue Ribbon 
     Panel on Influenza Research to help identify areas in which 
     progress was needed. This panel recommended eight areas in 
     which there were opportunities for scientific advancement, 
     including research on improved influenza vaccines. To 
     continue and build upon these efforts, NIAID released NIAID 
     Influenza Research: 2009 Progress Report, which identified 
     the development of ``universal'' influenza vaccines as an 
     expanding area of scientific opportunity.
       Currently, the NIAID's extramural researchers are pursuing 
     multiple vaccine strategies for the development of a 
     universal influenza vaccine. In addition, researchers at the 
     NIAID Vaccine Research Center are making significant progress 
     towards the development of such a vaccine. They have tested 
     in animals a two-step, prime-boost vaccine that generates 
     neutralizing antibodies against many strains of influenza 
     virus. Animal studies of this technique have proven 
     promising, and researchers will soon study the approach in 
     human clinical trials. This past summer, NIAID sponsored, 
     with the Food and Drug Administration, a scientific meeting 
     to revisit progress and challenges with regard to the 
     development of universal influenza vaccines. This 
     comprehensive NIAID effort is just one example of how the NIH 
     constantly examines scientific opportunities and conducts 
     research evaluation and planning activities within its 
     current statutory authority.
       You next asked me to address the NIH's ability to foster 
     groundbreaking discoveries without legislation that directs 
     it to address a specific disease or group of diseases. While 
     we seek always to be responsive to the concerns of the 
     public, often expressed through ``report language'' in 
     appropriations bills, the NIH has considerable statutory 
     authority to plan and oversee the research that leads to 
     important discoveries. Because our science often produces new 
     and unexpected findings and because medicine is often 
     confronted with altered or unyielding threats to public 
     health, the NIH Institutes and Centers must constantly assess 
     their research plans and portfolios. For example, the 
     National Cancer Institute recently organized a group to 
     perform a ``horizon scan'' of pancreatic ductal 
     adenocarcinoma (PDAC) research, building on previous planning 
     exercises in 2001 and 2008. This new group will examine 
     current research efforts, benchmark our scientific under 
     aiding, and identify promising and possibly underexplored 
     areas for future research in hopes of improving the still 
     dire outcome of this dreaded disease.
       You further asked me to address the impact of disease-
     specific legislation on the NIH's ability to allocate 
     resources freely and to study basic biology and mechanisms. 
     When providing technical assistance to the Congress on 
     possible legislation, the NIH generally suggests that 
     Congress provide the maximum flexibility for our mission. 
     Basic

[[Page S7164]]

     research that may lack any overt connection to specific 
     diseases is the foundation for disease-specific translational 
     and clinical research, and it must be preserved to ensure the 
     discoveries that later drive applied work on individual 
     diseases. If Congress is too proscriptive when it directs the 
     NIH to focus on specific diseases, the agency loses its 
     valued flexibility to allocate resources in a manner that 
     optimizes the likelihood that the scientists we support will 
     discover the underlying disease mechanisms that must be 
     understood to achieve our goal of improving the health of our 
     nation.
       Let me provide an example of basic research that addresses 
     several specific types of cancer. As early as the 1980s, 
     cancer researchers observed mutations in a certain critical 
     gene, the KRAS gene, in a variety of human cancers, including 
     about a third of lung cancers, about half of colon cancers, 
     and as many as 95 percent of PDACs. Basic research on a wide 
     variety of cell types, from yeast to human, has taught us 
     that the KRAS gene encodes an unusual signaling protein that 
     acts in conjunction with other proteins as a molecular ``on/
     off' switch for signals promoting cellular growth. Mutations 
     in this gene leave the switch ``on'', resulting in persistent 
     cell growth and division. Despite what we know about KRAS 
     mutations, and despite extensive efforts in both industrial 
     and academic research sectors, we have not yet been able to 
     counter these mutations therapeutically. In order to treat 
     PDAC and many other cancers exhibiting KRAS mutations, we 
     must focus on research that increases our understanding of 
     how such mutations drive the biological effects that cause 
     these devastating diseases. Given what we have learned about 
     molecular mechanisms, it would be counterproductive to limit 
     that effort to a specific cell type. In other words, if 
     Congress directs the NIH to study specific diseases without 
     flexibility, it can limit our ability to follow the best 
     leads in science and to pursue discoveries that move an 
     entire research field forward in a way that produces maximum 
     benefit to the public.
       Finally, you asked me to address how genomics has 
     revolutionized the study of underlying mechanisms of disease. 
     Recent advances in genomics are transforming the way science 
     is conducted. Our understanding of basic mechanisms has 
     increased exponentially with the widespread adoption of high-
     throughput screening, genome sequencing, and advances in 
     bioinformatics. This transformation of the biosciences is 
     profoundly affecting the practice of medicine. Advances in 
     the biological sciences have changed the way we view disease. 
     We now recognize that dysfunction of specific biochemical 
     pathways that govern cell behavior may be similar in 
     superficially disparate diseases or quite different in 
     patients with the same category of diagnosis.
       When you and I were in medical school, all patients with 
     cancers of a given organ were treated with the same 
     combination of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or surgery. 
     With today's application of high-throughput screening and 
     genomics, we are now shifting to treating an individual's 
     cancer with a kind of ``precision medicine'' that is based 
     upon the patient's genome and the genome of his or her 
     individual tumor. As an industry scientist recently told the 
     New York Times, ``[t]he old way of doing clinical trials 
     where patients are only tied together by the organ where 
     their cancer originated, those days are passing.'' This is 
     just one more reason why directing research resources toward 
     a particular disease without flexibility, as defined in the 
     pre-genomic era, can run counter to scientific opportunity.
       In closing, let me be clear that the NIH is not permitted 
     to take a position on the recalcitrant cancer legislation 
     being considered by the Congress. Such statements can only be 
     issued by the Office of Management and Budget as a Statement 
     of Administration Policy.
       Thank you for your continued support of the NIH.
           Sincerely yours, with best personal regards,
                                  Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.,
                                                          Director

  Mr. COBURN. It is outlining NIH's and specifically the National 
Cancer Institute's concerns with this type of directive from us. I 
think they care about whether we solve these problems associated with 
these recalcitrant cancers. I think people who want to get it solved 
are true in their motives to try to solve it.
  But there are some significant things in his letter that I would like 
to quote for my colleagues because I think it might just change your 
mind about us micromanaging what they are doing.
  First, he says:

       We have all the authorities to do whatever we need to do 
     with the money that you have given us. We can do all these 
     things you want us to do. If you tell us to do them, we will 
     do them. But we already have the authority to go where we 
     think we are going to get the best results in the quickest 
     way.
       NIH constantly examines scientific opportunities and 
     conducts research evaluation and planning opportunities 
     within its current statutory

  In other words they are looking, trying to figure out how they 
change, where they go now

       The national cancer institute recently organized a group to 
     provide a ``horizon scan'' of pancreatic ductal 
     adenocarcinoma ad carcinoma, building on previous planning

  They just did all this. They have just been through a total review of 
pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and they have just shifted where they are 
spending funds to address this issue.

       Basic research that may lack any overt connection to 
     specific diseases is the foundation for disease-specific 
     translational and clinical research.

  We must preserve this translational research if in fact we will want 
to eventually apply it to specific diseases. So I would say this bill, 
``pre'' the genomic age, would be a right thing for us to do. It is the 
wrong thing for us to do because what we are actually going to do is we 
are going to force the NIH to do things that are not going to benefit 
the results--the outcome of these diseases and waste money on what is 
being directed.
  Do we have a time limit?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Evidently; 10 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent to continue until I finish my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. I am distracted. What is the unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COBURN. I wanted to finish my remarks.
  Mr. LEVIN. I understand. Was it an additional 5 minutes?
  Mr. COBURN. It will not be much longer than that. I am certainly not

  Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. ``Advances in the biological sciences have changed the 
way we view disease. We now recognize the dysfunction of specific 
biochemical pathways''--not disease-specific pathways--``biochemical 
pathways that govern cell behavior that may be similar in superficially 
disparate diseases or quite different in patients with the same 
disease.
  What they are saying to us, through this letter, is that, of course, 
they are going to do what we tell them to do. But the very intent of 
what we are wanting to accomplish is we are going to delay the outcome 
because we have not significantly, in the last 3 years, significantly 
increased NIH's budget. So limited dollars are going to be spent as 
directed through this recalcitrant bill that are not going to direct 
the translational research and biochemical pathway research they are 
in.
  I would just tell my colleagues in the next 10 years we are going to 
see such phenomenal changes in our approach to disease, and the 
treatments for that, and the reason we are going to see it is because 
we stop looking at diseases and started looking at translational 
genomics and biochemical pathways.
  I will be one of the few who vote against this. I am fine with a 
voice vote if no other colleagues object. I have no problems with that. 
But in the name of doing good I suggest that we are actually going to 
limit our ability to achieve, at a sooner time, the cures that 
everybody who is supporting this bill would like to see.
  I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. With the permission of the chairman, may I ask for a 
voice vote at this time?
  Mr. LEVIN. I know of nobody else who wishes to speak on this 
amendment--I withhold that so we can hold off and see if anybody else 
wishes to speak.
  Mr. President, I know of no further debate on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3180) was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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. Senator Portman, I believe, wishes to speak relative to an 
amendment? I believe the Senator from Ohio wishes to speak relative to 
an amendment? I ask Senator Portman be recognized for--how many 
minutes, may I ask the Senator?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Seven minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. For up to 10 minutes, to speak up to 10 minutes.

[[Page S7165]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Partisan Rule Change

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I commend the chairman and ranking member 
for the way they are handling this bill. As we have seen on the floor 
today, Democrats and Republicans alike are able to offer amendments and 
have an honest debate on the issues, which is exactly how we ought to 
be operating.
  As the fiscal cliff approaches we should not only be working together 
across the aisle to address issues like we are today with the Defense 
authorization bill, but we should also be working to address other 
critical issues, including tax issues and spending issues. That is what 
I wanted to address.
  We have a lot of challenges. Instead of pulling together we seem to 
be pulling apart, and I am specifically referring to some of the 
suggestions by some in the majority that we consider a controversial 
and partisan rule change that would marginalize minority Members and in 
a way that breaks the current rules to change the rules.
  What I mean by that is it takes 67 votes to change a rule in the 
Senate. That is a rule, by the way, that dates back to 1917. The reason 
that is in place is because, obviously, folks wanted to force the 
majority and minority to work together to make those rule changes. We 
don't get a two-thirds vote without that. I think it is important that 
the basic rules are ones that are agreed on.
  The party in the majority tends to change a lot around here. In fact, 
we have shifted back and forth between Republicans and Democrats 7 
times in the past 30 years. So at one point we are in the majority, one 
point in the minority, and that is why having these basic rules in 
place make sense.
  There are some proposing we get around the 67-vote majority by some 
procedure where, instead of having a two-thirds vote, we would just 
have a majority vote to change a rule. Regardless of what rule that 
might be--some would say it would be on the motion to proceed and other 
aspects of the filibuster. Of course it would set a precedent that 
could change the rules for other things as well. I think that would 
prove counterproductive in the short term. I also think it would prove 
counterproductive in the long run for the Senate.
  All of us are focused, I hope, on the serious economic challenges 
that we face with the fiscal cliff impending. I think this would be the 
wrong time for us to put this body into an even more partisan 
environment by changing these rules.
  Again, I commend the chairman and ranking member for what we are 
doing today because this is an example of how the Senate can work and 
has worked on several bills in my short time here. But in other cases 
we have not been able to do that. I think that involves both parties, 
again, working together to solve these problems.
  The issue before us is the fiscal cliff, and I also want to address 
briefly, if I may, the ongoing discussion about taxes and what we 
should do regarding taxes. I want to take this opportunity to talk a 
little about why some of us believe that raising tax rates would be 
counterproductive at a time when our economy is so weak, and that there 
is another opportunity, and that is for tax reform.
  The jobs crisis and the debt crisis are linked, and the President has 
made that point. He has said his priority in the grand bargain 
discussions, the fiscal cliff discussions, is to ensure that we 
encourage economic growth and jobs. So we should use this as an 
opportunity to address the underlying problems that are holding back 
our economy, an economy that is in tough shape today. Unemployment is 
still stuck just below 8 percent. The projections CBO has given us for 
the next year, by the way, are continued anemic growth in the economy 
and, in fact, unemployment going up, not down.
  The economic case against imposing higher taxes is overwhelming. We 
all know if we tax something, people tend to do less of it and that is 
one reason why smoking is taxed, to get people to quit smoking. So why 
do we want to raise taxes on working, saving, and investing? Instead, 
we should encourage policies that create jobs, not discourage them 
through higher taxes.
  Don't take it from me. There are others who have commented on this on 
both sides of the aisle. Christina Romer, President Obama's former 
Chief Economic Adviser, has written that in most circumstances, a tax 
increase that equals about 1 percent of GDP actually lowers GDP by 
about 3 percent. Harvard economist Marty Feldstein has written that a 
$1 increase in tax rates tends to cost the economy about 76 cents of 
growth.
  There is a global perspective on this as well because other countries 
have gone through these fiscal problems and they have chosen to cut 
spending in some cases and raise taxes in other cases. There is a 
Harvard economist, Alberto Alesina, who has recently studied the 
experience of 17 countries in the developed world, such as the United 
States. Over the past 25 years, he has looked at how they have 
attempted to reduce their budget deficits. Based on IMF data, which is 
the International Monetary Fund, he concluded that ``tax-based deficit 
reduction'' was, in his words, ``always recessionary.'' By contrast, 
reducing deficits by cutting spending and enacting pro-growth reforms, 
including tax reform, actually spurred economic growth, according to 
the same study.
  I think that this is consistent with our own economic history. 
Between 1948 and 1961, a period when the highest income tax rate rose 
from 82 to 91 percent, we went through some tough times. We had four 
recessions. Thankfully, our exports that helped rebuild Europe 
following World War II helped keep the economy moving. Reducing the top 
tax rate to 70 percent also helped, but the 1970s were still a period 
of stagnation, recession, double-digit unemployment, double-digit 
interest rates, double-digit inflation. It was when Ronald Reagan 
reduced rates to 28 percent that we saw this impressive period of 
growth, maybe the most impressive ever.
  It is something we saw again in 1997 when capital gains taxes that 
were cut under President Clinton and the Republican leadership in 
Congress were followed by a surge of investment and growth into the 
late 1990s. Again, after the 2003 tax rate cuts, we saw another example 
of the power of low tax rates. This was the 2003 tax cuts. In the six 
quarters before those rate cuts, the economy lost 1 million jobs. In 
the six quarters after those tax rate reductions, in 2003, economic 
growth nearly doubled and 2.3 million jobs were added.
  Some tax increase advocates may assert a willingness to accept slower 
economic growth in the cause of deficit reduction and that is a 
legitimate point of view, that we need to have slower economic growth 
because deficit reduction is so important. But I would also point out 
some statistics. Slow growth also means less tax revenue. The White 
House's own data suggests that even a .26-percent reduction in economic 
growth--which is likely with big tax hikes--would wipe out the entire 
$800 billion in promised deficit reduction from higher tax rates. 
Growth is so incredibly important to reducing our debt and deficit and 
getting in control of our fiscal situation. So tax rate increases are 
not only bad economic policy, but they tend to be bad budget policy.
  Tax reform is needed, and through tax reform we could have higher 
revenues. But both theory and practice make a convincing case that 
keeping rates low is better for the economy and jobs. Structural 
spending reforms combined with pro-growth tax reform, in my view, are 
the right approach and I think historically that has proven to be true. 
I will speak for myself as one Republican, although other Republicans 
as well are willing to accept new revenues, but the right way to do it 
is through reforming our outdated Tax Code and having these structural 
reforms that everybody feels are necessary.
  Both the corporate and individual sides of the Code are marked by 
relatively high marginal rates and a complex maze of tax preferences 
that distort economic decisions, misallocate capital, and allow some 
taxpayers to avoid paying their share. Tax reform can kill two birds 
with one stone. By capping or eliminating inefficient tax

[[Page S7166]]

preferences, we can avoid raising corporate and individual rates, 
without adding a dime to the deficit, by the way. In fact, if done 
right, tax reform will increase revenues by spurring growth, job 
creation and, therefore, bigger tax receipts.
  Tax reform is both a fiscal and competitive necessity for our 
country. It has been more than 25 years since we substantially reformed 
the Tax Code and twice as long--about 50 years--since we did a bottom-
up review of our international tax laws. The world has changed a lot in 
that time period, yet America has not kept up. The underlying 
assumptions in our Tax Code are, frankly, out of step with today's 
complex global economy. This is especially evident in our corporate Tax 
Code. The United States is now the highest corporate tax country among 
all the developed countries in the developed world. Canada has lowered 
its federal corporate rate from 16.5 percent to 15 percent, bringing 
its combined rate to 25 percent--nearly 15 points lower than the U.S. 
combined rate. Our rate is 39.2 percent when we combine the State and 
Federal burden. The Federal burden is 35 percent and the State burden 
is closer to 36 percent. So right now the average among all of the 
developed countries in the world is 25.1 percent, and the U.S. rate 
stands at 39.2 percent when we combine the State and Federal burdens.
  A similar trend, by the way, has played out with respect to 
international tax rules, as our trading partners, including Japan and 
Britain, have moved to a more competitive, territorial-like tax regime 
over the past 10 years, which encourages movement of investment, 
capital, and jobs overseas. So there is a simple point here which is, 
by standing still, the United States is falling behind. The resulting 
drag on American competitiveness and job creation is real and 
substantial.
  The solution is tax reform that broadens the tax base by scaling back 
tax preferences and cutting the corporate rate. We could cut it to 25 
percent and scale back the deductions, credits, and exemptions, and 
have a competitive, territorial system and have it all be revenue 
neutral. There is such a proposal by the Joint Committee on Taxation 
here in Congress.
  I am not saying it is easy. Some of these preferences, of course, and 
loopholes are ones that are very difficult to reduce or eliminate, but 
it would be the right thing to do for our economy. I think we have seen 
some signs of developing bipartisan consensus on this issue and I am 
hopeful we will see the same movement for pro-growth individual tax 
reform, because reforming the entire Tax Code is critical to regaining 
competitiveness, spurring growth, and producing the revenues we need to 
pay for important public priorities.
  The smart way to raise revenue is not through tax hikes that will 
shrink our economy, but rather through tax reform designed to help grow 
the economy and help make American workers and businesses more 
competitive so we can compete and win in the global economy.
  Again, today as we are approaching the fiscal cliff I hope this 
Senate works together on a bipartisan basis to work toward tax reform 
in a way to increase revenues and grow our economy while we look at the 
important structural reforms we have to make in order to solve the 
fiscal crisis we face.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me elaborate a little bit on what the 
Senator from Ohio just said. I think it is important to remember that 
the whole idea was a Democratic idea and not a Republican idea. Some of 
us remember. We were not actually here at the time, but in the 1960s 
during the Kennedy administration--of course, the last time I checked 
he was a Democrat--he was the one who made this statement. I have 
quoted him very often. He said, We need more revenue to take care of 
the great society programs that he had kind of inherited and was 
furthering. He said, The best way to increase revenue is to decrease 
marginal rates. He did that. I remember the top rate went down from 90 
percent to 70 percent, and during his period of time, the total amount 
of revenue that came from marginal rates raised from $94 billion to 
$153 billion.
  Then, a few years later, along came Ronald Reagan and the total 
amount of revenue that was raised for marginal rates in the year 1980 
was $244 billion and in 1990 it was $466 billion, which almost doubled 
in the decade that had the most streamlining and reduced reduction in 
marginal rates in our history.
  So I think it is interesting to observe that this is not--it wasn't 
all a Republican idea, but it is something that has worked every time 
it has been tried.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma. I wish to follow up 
briefly on that and say that in 1997, when we decided to move toward a 
balanced budget agreement when President Clinton was President, there 
was also an agreement to cut the capital gains rate. We sometimes 
forget the capital gains rate cut produced a lot of revenue that was 
not expected. As a result, we got to a unified balanced budget on a 
unified basis more rapidly than anybody thought we would. It came 2 or 
3 years sooner than projected, in part because there was about $100 
billion of new revenue that showed up the next year from the fact that 
we did reduce the capital gains rates.
  I understand the need for us to deal with the deficit and to have 
revenue. There is no question that this is necessary, but to do it by 
raising rates alone, which is what is being proposed by some people, is 
going to result in lower economic growth, it is going to result in job 
loss, and it is not going to have the intended benefit on the revenue 
side. The alternative is clear, which is, for the first time in a 
couple of decades, we need to get busy on reforming this Tax Code as 
Ronald Reagan did with Democratic help, including Democratic Senators 
such as Phil Bradley here in the U.S. Senate, to encourage growth and 
to encourage the kind of economic growth that is going to result in 
more revenue coming in. We should not miss this opportunity to do that.
  As I said earlier, I believe there is a building consensus around 
that. We saw it in the Simpson-Bowles Commission. We have seen it in 
the Rivlin-Domenici work, and other outside groups have looked at this, 
at our Tax Code. And by broadening the base, we can be more competitive 
and through growth have additional revenues coming in.
  Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Ohio. I 
would go a little farther and say this obsession that the only way to 
do these things is to raise taxes, I think that flies in the face of 
history.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask that the quorum call be dispensed 
with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I listened to the Senator from Ohio and I 
want to be heard because he is talking about the fiscal cliff and how 
upset he is at the thought that the wealthiest people in America might 
go back to the tax rates we had under Bill Clinton when we had the 
greatest prosperity, we had 23 million new jobs, and we balanced the 
budget to the point where we even had a surplus. My friend comes down 
here and complains that the proposal on the table would give 98 percent 
of the people a tax cut and he is upset that 2 percent of the people 
might have to go back to the rates under Bill Clinton.
  I want to say something. We just had an election. We had a big 
election. We had a tough election. We had an expensive election. One of 
the major parts of that election revolved around what do we do about 
the deficits, what do we do about economic growth, what do we do about 
spending. We discussed it in the Senate races, we discussed it in the 
House races, and, of course, President Obama and candidate Governor 
Romney discussed it again and again.
  My friend talks about consensus. Let me tell my colleagues the 
consensus. More than 60 percent of the people agree with President 
Obama and the Democrats that we ought to climb down off this fiscal 
cliff in the next 5 minutes and pass what the Senate passed, which is 
to renew all the Bush tax cuts and go back to those over $250,000 to 
the rates of Bill Clinton. That is what we passed here. That

[[Page S7167]]

would bring us almost $1 trillion over 10 years. That will get us to 
climb down that cliff.
  Then we have other parts of the cliff, there is no question about it, 
including the automatic sequester. I think it is easy to deal with that 
by bringing home some of the overseas account money and applying it to 
the sequester and getting rid of at least half of that sequester, and 
maybe all of the sequester. But, no, people are going to listen to 
these speeches every day about how we are obsessed with taxes.
  What are people talking about when they say obsessed with taxes? I 
will tell my colleagues what I am obsessed about. I am obsessed with 
the fact that we passed a tax cut for 98 percent of the American people 
and our friends are so worried about the millionaires and the 
billionaires that they will not allow that bill to be voted on in the 
House. So people can stand up here morning, noon, and night, and I want 
them to and I respect their views, believe me, but I do not agree with 
them.
  It is no wonder that the American people are confused. We know we 
have the fiscal cliff. We know we don't want to see tax rates go up for 
the middle class. Yet the Republicans say they are going to hold up all 
those tax breaks for 98 percent of our people because they want to hold 
on to the tax breaks for billionaires and for millionaires. We had an 
election about that.
  People agreed with us. I suppose we are going to have to hear these 
speeches every day about how we are going to grow our way out of the 
deficit. We are going to grow our way out of the deficit? Really? Look 
what happened under George W. Bush. He inherited surpluses. He turned 
it into deficits as far as the eye can see, with huge tax cuts to the 
millionaires and billionaires--huge--the very tax cuts our friends are 
defending right now. He did two wars on the credit card and we wound up 
in a mess.
  So we have to come together with the best ideas that we can have. I 
know we can reach agreement. But let's do the first step, which is to 
take care of 98 percent of the people. The Republicans want to have tax 
breaks for 100 percent of the people. We are saying: Can you take 98 
percent?
  If I stopped you on the street and said: I am willing to give you 98 
percent of what you say you want, and you walk away from me, and you 
attack me, and you say I am not ready to do anything, I honestly think 
people would scratch their heads.
  So I think it is clear. The Senate passed a bill to renew the tax 
breaks for 98 percent of the people. We are saying up to $250,000 in 
income, we go right back to those Bush tax cut rates. But over 
$250,000, we go to the Clinton years, pay a little bit more, so we can 
attack this deficit, so we can make the investments we need to make in 
this great country of ours.
  I will tell you, if the Republicans can do this, we are going to see 
smiles on the faces of the people. I was very happy to see that Tom 
Cole over in the House, who was the head of the RCC, the Republican 
Congressional Committee over there, says it is time to come to an 
agreement on that proposal.
  So I say to the Republicans: We are giving you 98 percent. Take it. 
Then let's sit down and debate the rest of it. There are a lot of other 
things we have to do. There is the AMT. We have to do a doc fix. We 
have to do a lot of other things. I am willing to compromise on those 
things. But let's at least get those tax cuts in place right now before 
this holiday season so that the middle class knows they are not going 
to face a tax increase. I can say honestly that the American people 
would think we were doing the right thing if we were to see the House 
take up the Senate bill and pass it.
  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. LIEBERMAN. 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. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a broadly bipartisan 
amendment that I have filed, and that I hope and believe will be called 
up at some point. Obviously, I would like it to be adopted by unanimous 
consent but, if not, it merits a rollcall vote, and I am confident it 
will be addressed on a rollcall vote.
  This amendment is amendment No. 3090 to this National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. It will reauthorize two very 
important and very broadly supported programs--the Assistance to 
Firefighters, AFG, Program--which otherwise used to be known as FIRE, 
the FIRE Act--and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response 
Program, known as SAFER. This amendment also reauthorizes the U.S. Fire 
Administration for 5 years, an agency which is a component of FEMA that 
is focused on supporting firefighters and EMS personnel.
  This amendment reauthorizes AFG and SAFER for 5 years but it also 
takes much needed steps to ensure that the firefighters not only have 
the equipment, vehicles, and personnel that we need them to have to do 
the jobs they do for us in our country every day, the amendment also 
helps departments in communities struggling with economic difficulties, 
creating a hardship waiver for both of these fire programs--AFG and 
SAFER--that allows FEMA to waive requirements in communities that have 
been hard hit in these tough economic times.
  Some people might say: Well, why has the Federal Government 
established these programs to support firefighting? Aren't those local 
responsibilities? Well, of course, the Federal Government has partnered 
with many local and State responsibilities that we deem to have 
national importance.
  There is no question since 9-11-2001, as we witnessed those 
firefighters putting their lives on the line, running into danger to 
save people as opposed to running away from it--and we contemplated 
after 9-11-2001, as we have consistently in the Senate Homeland 
Security Committee, how we would respond--are we ready to respond to, 
God forbid, another mass terrorist attack on the United States? The 
first line of defense will be the local firefighters, the local law 
enforcers, and the local emergency medical personnel.
  So these brave and skillful firefighters around America now become 
part of the first line of response to the kind of threats in this 
unconventional age in which we live that our homeland security is 
threatened by.
  As important as it is to help our firefighters, obviously, many of us 
on both sides of the aisle, who have cosponsored both of these bills, 
understand we have to demand accountability as we spend taxpayer 
dollars in a time when we are trying to reduce our deficit and debt.
  For this reason, the amendment does a couple of things. It includes 
provisions to prevent earmarks from being attached to these programs. 
AFG and SAFER actually have never been earmarked, which is an 
impressive accomplishment. In other words, these are formula programs 
in that sense and decided on a merit basis, decided on applications, 
never earmarked from Congress. We should keep it that way.
  But this amendment, recognizing the tough economic times we are in, 
also reduces the authorizations for these two programs, AFG and SAFER, 
by more than 30 percent--more than 30 percent. So we are meeting a 
national need with the authorization of these programs, but we are 
doing it in a way that is mindful of the tough fiscal times we are in.
  Supporting our Nation's firefighters and emergency medical service 
responders is a national priority. It is, in my opinion, one that is 
not only broadly supported by Members of both parties and an occasional 
Independent here in the Senate, but is broadly supported by the 
American people regardless of where they live all over this country.
  So, Mr. President, I will, with the cooperation and support of the 
two managers of the bill, who are supporters of these two pieces of 
legislation--Chairman Levin and Senator McCain--look forward to the 
time when I can ask that this amendment be the pending business and 
that we can either adopt it by consent or bring it up for a rollcall 
vote.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S7168]]

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
speak as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in support of an Ayotte 
amendment, No. 3245, an amendment that makes permanent the current 
prohibition on the use of defense funds to transfer or release 
Guantanamo Bay detainees into the United States. This amendment is 
identical in substance to section 1027 of the Fiscal Year 2012 National 
Defense Authorization Act, except that it prohibits the use of the 
funds permanently.
  We know the President said he would close Guantanamo almost 4 years 
ago. I thought it was a bad idea then; I think it is an even worse idea 
today. We should move beyond campaign promises and think about what 
makes sense on this issue. The stubborn refusal to increase the Gitmo 
detainee population has been the key stumbling block in establishing an 
effective long-term detention policy.
  The American people have been pretty unified in their opposition to 
bringing Gitmo detainees to the United States, and I believe we should 
listen to them.
  I understand that Senator Feinstein just released the GAO report she 
requested regarding facilities and factors to consider if Gitmo 
detainees were brought to the United States. I have reviewed this 
report, and I have to respectfully disagree that this report offers any 
support whatsoever for the idea that Gitmo detainees can or should be 
moved to the United States.
  The very first page of the GAO report lays out in stark terms the 
serious problems that would come into play if detainees from Guantanamo 
were transferred to the United States: legal and cost considerations, 
compliance with U.S. and international laws, collecting intelligence 
information, and ensuring the safety and security of the general public 
and personnel at these facilities.
  The report makes very clear that the Department of Justice does not 
have the authority to maintain custody of detainees under the AUMF. In 
other words, even without the prohibition on transfers of detainees to 
the United States, it would be illegal for the Bureau of Prisons or the 
Marshals Service to take custody of Guantanamo detainees.
  Moreover, the Department of Justice told the GAO--and I quote--it 
``does not plan to transfer detainees to the United States,'' saying it 
raises legal, policy, and resource issues that descriptions of current 
policies and practices contained in the GAO report cannot fully 
address.
  Essentially, the Department of Justice is saying that on top of those 
issues already described in the GAO report, such as insufficient 
standards for law or war detention, severe overcrowding, and 
``implications for the public safety,'' there would be even more issues 
that are not mentioned at all. And that is from a Department of Justice 
that has fully supported the idea of moving Gitmo detainees into the 
United States.
  Housing these detainees in DOD corrections facilities does not seem 
to be the answer either because of equally troubling legal and safety 
issues for detention of these individuals, including the Geneva 
Conventions' prohibition on detaining prisoners of war in 
penitentiaries.
  These are just some of the reasons Congress has prohibited the 
transfer of these detainees to the United States and why those 
prohibitions must continue.
  This prohibition made sense last year and it still makes sense today. 
The GAO report only confirms that. The detainees who remain at Gitmo 
include the ones who have been determined to be too dangerous to 
transfer, including the individuals who were responsible for the 
masterminding of the attack on September 11, which we just celebrated 
the 11th anniversary of.
  So if that is the case, why on Earth would we put these detainees 
whom we will not send to other countries in cities and towns across the 
United States of America? The Federal Government's primary 
responsibility is to keep the American people safe. Keeping these 
detainees at Gitmo accomplishes that goal.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Ayotte amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I also ask to be recognized as in morning 
business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Senator from Georgia is exactly right. 
I do not think, in the years I have been here, I have ever seen one 
issue where everyone is in agreement. If we go back to 2007, 94 Members 
of this Senate got together and they said--and this is all documented--
that: Detainees housed at Guantanamo Bay should not be released into 
American society, nor should they be transferred stateside into 
facilities.
  We all agreed on that. Then we agreed again in 2009 and every year 
since then, as the Senator from Georgia has said. But a lot of people 
have forgotten. We have had this issue for so many years now, they have 
forgotten some of the original reasons why. One of the obvious 
reasons--there are three reasons. One was that prisons that hold these 
detainees become magnets. I do not think people understand that a 
terrorist is not a criminal. He is a terrorist. His job is to train 
people to kill other people, to engage in terrorist activities.
  Do we truly want them in there talking to all our prisoners? That was 
one of the major reasons people were all coalescing around the idea 
that we have a great place to put these guys; that is, Guantanamo Bay.
  The second reason is the prison guards. They have to be specially 
trained in order to guard a prison that has terrorists as opposed to 
the normal criminal element.
  The third is what FBI Director Robert Mueller has said; that there is 
a very real possibility that Gitmo detainees will recruit more 
terrorists from among the Federal inmate population and continue al-
Qaida operations from the inside, which is how the New York synagogue 
bombers were recruited.
  We should not even be debating this. The Ayotte amendment is one that 
will take care of this so we do not have to worry about it from year to 
year, we do not have to stand here and anguish over this thing that we 
have decided several times.
  I can remember--I guess it was back in the early administration of 
Obama--when he identified 17 areas in the United States that would be 
appropriate for incarcerating terrorists whom we would take out of 
Gitmo. One of those places happened to be Fort Sill in my State of 
Oklahoma. So I went down to Fort Sill. I looked at the facility we had 
that was within the Fort Sill facility.
  There was a lady there whose name is Sergeant Major Carter. I can 
remember when she came up to me she said: Senator, why in the world? Go 
back and tell those people back there that they do not understand what 
is going on. This is coming from a sergeant major. She happened to be a 
Black lady. She had been down there for some time. She said: Go back 
and tell them I had two tours in Gitmo. There is no place that is more 
humane. There is no place that is taking care of them, no place where 
we can secure the area so we protect our prison guards like Gitmo.
  She even went on to say one of the biggest problems we had with the 
inmates in Gitmo is an overweight problem because they are eating 
better than they have ever eaten in their lives. They had medical 
attention for diseases they did not know existed.
  So we have an opportunity there to do it. I applaud Senator Ayotte 
for wanting to address this so we do not have to go through this every 
year. Nothing has changed. We know it is a revolving door. People who 
go out from there, many of them return to the battleground, and there 
is no place else that offers this security and the confinement.
  The last thing I would say, we do not have many good deals in 
government, and let's see anyone here find a better deal. We have had 
this--it was either

[[Page S7169]]

since 1901 or 1904. I cannot remember the year. But as I do recall we 
are still under the same lease agreement. That whole facility that we 
have at Gitmo, along with the court system down there, all we pay is 
$4,000 a year.
  Ever heard of a better deal than that? About half the time Castro 
does not bill us. So let's take advantage of one of the few good deals 
we have, one of the few security deals we have, and make this a 
permanent arrangement. I hope we have the chance to vote on it. It is 
my understanding we are going to be able to address these and bring 
them up, put them in the queue and have votes. Hopefully, that will 
even be tonight.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
for the Lieberman amendment, No. 3090, to be called up with the 
modification that is at the desk; that the amendment, as modified, be 
agreed to; that following disposition of the Lieberman amendment, it be 
in order for the following amendments to be called up: Ayotte No. 3245 
on Guantanamo and Feinstein amendment No. 3018 on detainees; that there 
be up to 20 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form on the 
Ayotte amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of time on the 
Ayotte amendment, there be up to 60 minutes of debate equally divided 
in the usual form on the Feinstein amendment; further, that at 9:30 
p.m. this evening, the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the 
Ayotte and Feinstein amendments in the order listed and that no 
amendments be in order to the amendments prior to the votes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I 
believe we will have a package, also, following this, of amendments 
that have been cleared by both sides.
  I would like to express my personal appreciation for the cooperative 
and compromising fashion in which this unanimous consent agreement was 
entered. I would like to thank all parties, including the chairperson 
of the Intelligence Committee and others. I think this will allow us to 
move forward and complete this legislation sooner rather than later.
  There are still a lot of amendments that have been filed, and at some 
point that has to stop and at some point we are going to have to finish 
all these. Many of them are duplicative and many of them are not 
particularly necessary, but I think we have made a giant step forward. 
I am confident we can complete this authorization bill and we will 
continue the record of now some 51 years of having completed an 
authorization bill.
  I thank the chairman for his leadership.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any further 
amendments must be filed no later than 7:30 tonight.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, does this 
apply to second-degree amendments?
  Mr. LEVIN. If there is an amendment filed tonight by 7:30. It could 
be offered as a second degree at some later time, but it has to be 
filed tonight by 7:30.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would indulge my colleague, apparently 
there are two people on our side we would have to check with. I ask if 
our colleague could withhold that request to see if we can work it out.
  I would also ask, is it not possible that if further amendments can 
be worked out to be voted on tonight after the two that are scheduled 
to be voted on, there could be other votes tonight to try to continue 
to dispose of amendments on the bill; is that correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct. These are not the last two votes 
tonight necessarily at all. As of now, we are still planning on having 
votes tomorrow.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard to the filing 
deadline request.
  Mr. LEVIN. I withdraw that request.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is withdrawn.


               Lieberman Amendment No. 3090, as Modified

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the Lieberman 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Lieberman, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3090, as modified.

  The amendment (No. 3090), as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of division A, add the following:

          TITLE XVIII--FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO FIRE DEPARTMENTS

                Subtitle A--Fire Grants Reauthorization

     SEC. 1801. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Fire Grants 
     Reauthorization Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 1802. AMENDMENTS TO DEFINITIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 4 of the Federal Fire Prevention 
     and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2203) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, except as otherwise 
     provided,'' after ``means'';
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking `` `Director' means'' and 
     all that follows through ``Agency;'' and inserting `` 
     `Administrator of FEMA' means the Administrator of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency;'';
       (3) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) by inserting ``Indian tribe,'' after ``county,''; and
       (B) by striking ``and `firecontrol' '' and inserting ``and 
     `fire control' '';
       (4) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (9) as 
     paragraphs (7) through (10), respectively;
       (5) by inserting after paragraph (5), the following:
       ``(6) `Indian tribe' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b) and `tribal' means of or 
     pertaining to an Indian tribe;'';
       (6) by redesignating paragraphs (9) and (10), as 
     redesignated by paragraph (4), as paragraphs (10) and (11);
       (7) by inserting after paragraph (8), as redesignated by 
     paragraph (4), the following:
       ``(9) `Secretary' means, except as otherwise provided, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security;''; and
       (8) by amending paragraph (10), as redesignated by 
     paragraph (6), to read as follows:
       ``(10) `State' has the meaning given the term in section 2 
     of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Administrator of fema.--The Federal Fire Prevention and 
     Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) is amended by 
     striking ``Director'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``Administrator of FEMA''.
       (2) Administrator of fema's award.--Section 15 of such Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 2214) is amended by striking ``Director's Award'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``Administrator's 
     Award''.

     SEC. 1803. ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANTS.

       Section 33 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act 
     of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 33. FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Administrator of fema.--The term `Administrator of 
     FEMA' means the Administrator of FEMA, acting through the 
     Administrator.
       ``(2) Available grant funds.--The term `available grant 
     funds', with respect to a fiscal year, means those funds 
     appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations 
     in subsection (q)(1) for such fiscal year less any funds used 
     for administrative costs pursuant to subsection (q)(2) in 
     such fiscal year.
       ``(3) Career fire department.--The term `career fire 
     department' means a fire department that has an all-paid 
     force of firefighting personnel other than paid-on-call 
     firefighters.
       ``(4) Combination fire department.--The term `combination 
     fire department' means a fire department that has--
       ``(A) paid firefighting personnel; and
       ``(B) volunteer firefighting personnel.
       ``(5) Firefighting personnel.--The term `firefighting 
     personnel' means individuals, including volunteers, who are 
     firefighters, officers of fire departments, or emergency 
     medical service personnel of fire departments.
       ``(6) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     `institution of higher education' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1001).
       ``(7) Nonaffiliated ems organization.--The term 
     `nonaffiliated EMS organization' means a public or private 
     nonprofit emergency medical services organization that is not 
     affiliated with a hospital and does not serve a geographic 
     area in which the Administrator of FEMA finds that emergency 
     medical services are adequately provided by a fire 
     department.
       ``(8) Paid-on-call.--The term `paid-on-call' with respect 
     to firefighting personnel means

[[Page S7170]]

     firefighting personnel who are paid a stipend for each event 
     to which they respond.
       ``(9) Volunteer fire department.--The term `volunteer fire 
     department' means a fire department that has an all-volunteer 
     force of firefighting personnel.
       ``(b) Assistance Program.--
       ``(1) Authority.--In accordance with this section, the 
     Administrator of FEMA may award--
       ``(A) assistance to firefighters grants under subsection 
     (c); and
       ``(B) fire prevention and safety grants and other 
     assistance under subsection (d).
       ``(2) Administrative assistance.--The Administrator of FEMA 
     shall--
       ``(A) establish specific criteria for the selection of 
     grant recipients under this section; and
       ``(B) provide assistance with application preparation to 
     applicants for such grants.
       ``(c) Assistance to Firefighters Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator of FEMA may, in 
     consultation with the chief executives of the States in which 
     the recipients are located, award grants on a competitive 
     basis directly to--
       ``(A) fire departments, for the purpose of protecting the 
     health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel 
     throughout the United States against fire, fire-related, and 
     other hazards;
       ``(B) nonaffiliated EMS organizations to support the 
     provision of emergency medical services; and
       ``(C) State fire training academies for the purposes 
     described in subparagraphs (G), (H), and (I) of paragraph 
     (3).
       ``(2) Maximum grant amounts.--
       ``(A) Population.--The Administrator of FEMA may not award 
     a grant under this subsection in excess of amounts as 
     follows:
       ``(i) In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction 
     with 100,000 people or fewer, the amount of the grant awarded 
     to such recipient shall not exceed $1,000,000 in any fiscal 
     year.
       ``(ii) In the case of a recipient that serves a 
     jurisdiction with more than 100,000 people but not more than 
     500,000 people, the amount of the grant awarded to such 
     recipient shall not exceed $2,000,000 in any fiscal year.
       ``(iii) In the case of a recipient that serves a 
     jurisdiction with more than 500,000 but not more than 
     1,000,000 people, the amount of the grant awarded to such 
     recipient shall not exceed $3,000,000 in any fiscal year.
       ``(iv) In the case of a recipient that serves a 
     jurisdiction with more than 1,000,000 people but not more 
     than 2,500,000 people, the amount of the grant awarded to 
     such recipient shall not exceed $6,000,000 for any fiscal 
     year.
       ``(v) In the case of a recipient that serves a jurisdiction 
     with more than 2,500,000 people, the amount of the grant 
     awarded to such recipient shall not exceed $9,000,000 in any 
     fiscal year.
       ``(B) Aggregate.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B) and except as provided under clause (ii), the 
     Administrator of FEMA may not award a grant under this 
     subsection in a fiscal year in an amount that exceeds the 
     amount that is one percent of the available grant funds in 
     such fiscal year.
       ``(ii) Exception.--The Administrator of FEMA may waive the 
     limitation in clause (i) with respect to a grant recipient if 
     the Administrator of FEMA determines that such recipient has 
     an extraordinary need for a grant in an amount that exceeds 
     the limit under clause (i).
       ``(3) Use of grant funds.--Each entity receiving a grant 
     under this subsection shall use the grant for one or more of 
     the following purposes:
       ``(A) To train firefighting personnel in--
       ``(i) firefighting;
       ``(ii) emergency medical services and other emergency 
     response (including response to natural disasters, acts of 
     terrorism, and other man-made disasters);
       ``(iii) arson prevention and detection;
       ``(iv) maritime firefighting; or
       ``(v) the handling of hazardous materials.
       ``(B) To train firefighting personnel to provide any of the 
     training described under subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) To fund the creation of rapid intervention teams to 
     protect firefighting personnel at the scenes of fires and 
     other emergencies.
       ``(D) To certify--
       ``(i) fire inspectors; and
       ``(ii) building inspectors--

       ``(I) whose responsibilities include fire safety 
     inspections; and
       ``(II) who are employed by or serving as volunteers with a 
     fire department.

       ``(E) To establish wellness and fitness programs for 
     firefighting personnel to ensure that the firefighting 
     personnel are able to carry out their duties as firefighters, 
     including programs dedicated to raising awareness of, and 
     prevention of, job-related mental health issues.
       ``(F) To fund emergency medical services provided by fire 
     departments and nonaffiliated EMS organizations.
       ``(G) To acquire additional firefighting vehicles, 
     including fire trucks and other apparatus.
       ``(H) To acquire additional firefighting equipment, 
     including equipment for--
       ``(i) fighting fires with foam in remote areas without 
     access to water; and
       ``(ii) communications, monitoring, and response to a 
     natural disaster, act of terrorism, or other man-made 
     disaster, including the use of a weapon of mass destruction.
       ``(I) To acquire personal protective equipment, including 
     personal protective equipment--
       ``(i) prescribed for firefighting personnel by the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the 
     Department of Labor; or
       ``(ii) for responding to a natural disaster or act of 
     terrorism or other man-made disaster, including the use of a 
     weapon of mass destruction.
       ``(J) To modify fire stations, fire training facilities, 
     and other facilities to protect the health and safety of 
     firefighting personnel.
       ``(K) To educate the public about arson prevention and 
     detection.
       ``(L) To provide incentives for the recruitment and 
     retention of volunteer firefighting personnel for volunteer 
     firefighting departments and other firefighting departments 
     that utilize volunteers.
       ``(M) To support such other activities, consistent with the 
     purposes of this subsection, as the Administrator of FEMA 
     determines appropriate.
       ``(d) Fire Prevention and Safety Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--For the purpose of assisting fire 
     prevention programs and supporting firefighter health and 
     safety research and development, the Administrator of FEMA 
     may, on a competitive basis--
       ``(A) award grants to fire departments;
       ``(B) award grants to, or enter into contracts or 
     cooperative agreements with, national, State, local, tribal, 
     or nonprofit organizations that are not fire departments and 
     that are recognized for their experience and expertise with 
     respect to fire prevention or fire safety programs and 
     activities and firefighter research and development programs, 
     for the purpose of carrying out--
       ``(i) fire prevention programs; and
       ``(ii) research to improve firefighter health and life 
     safety; and
       ``(C) award grants to institutions of higher education, 
     national fire service organizations, or national fire safety 
     organizations to establish and operate fire safety research 
     centers.
       ``(2) Maximum grant amount.--A grant awarded under this 
     subsection may not exceed $1,500,000 for a fiscal year.
       ``(3) Use of grant funds.--Each entity receiving a grant 
     under this subsection shall use the grant for one or more of 
     the following purposes:
       ``(A) To enforce fire codes and promote compliance with 
     fire safety standards.
       ``(B) To fund fire prevention programs, including programs 
     that educate the public about arson prevention and detection.
       ``(C) To fund wildland fire prevention programs, including 
     education, awareness, and mitigation programs that protect 
     lives, property, and natural resources from fire in the 
     wildland-urban interface.
       ``(D) In the case of a grant awarded under paragraph 
     (1)(C), to fund the establishment or operation of a fire 
     safety research center for the purpose of significantly 
     reducing the number of fire-related deaths and injuries among 
     firefighters and the general public through research, 
     development, and technology transfer activities.
       ``(E) To support such other activities, consistent with the 
     purposes of this subsection, as the Administrator of FEMA 
     determines appropriate.
       ``(4) Limitation.--None of the funds made available under 
     this subsection may be provided to the Association of 
     Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) or any of its 
     affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations.
       ``(e) Applications for Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--An entity seeking a grant under this 
     section shall submit to the Administrator of FEMA an 
     application therefor in such form and in such manner as the 
     Administrator of FEMA determines appropriate.
       ``(2) Elements.--Each application submitted under paragraph 
     (1) shall include the following:
       ``(A) A description of the financial need of the applicant 
     for the grant.
       ``(B) An analysis of the costs and benefits, with respect 
     to public safety, of the use for which a grant is requested.
       ``(C) An agreement to provide information to the national 
     fire incident reporting system for the period covered by the 
     grant.
       ``(D) A list of other sources of funding received by the 
     applicant--
       ``(i) for the same purpose for which the application for a 
     grant under this section was submitted; or
       ``(ii) from the Federal Government for other fire-related 
     purposes.
       ``(E) Such other information as the Administrator of FEMA 
     determines appropriate.
       ``(3) Joint or regional applications.--
       ``(A) In general.--Two or more entities may submit an 
     application under paragraph (1) for a grant under this 
     section to fund a joint program or initiative, including 
     acquisition of shared equipment or vehicles.
       ``(B) Nonexclusivity.--Applications under this paragraph 
     may be submitted instead of or in addition to any other 
     application submitted under paragraph (1).
       ``(C) Guidance.--The Administrator of FEMA shall--
       ``(i) publish guidance on applying for and administering 
     grants awarded for joint programs and initiatives described 
     in subparagraph (A); and
       ``(ii) encourage applicants to apply for grants for joint 
     programs and initiatives described in subparagraph (A) as the 
     Administrator of FEMA determines appropriate to

[[Page S7171]]

     achieve greater cost effectiveness and regional efficiency.
       ``(f) Peer Review of Grant Applications.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator of FEMA shall, after 
     consultation with national fire service and emergency medical 
     services organizations, appoint fire service personnel to 
     conduct peer reviews of applications received under 
     subsection (e)(1).
       ``(2) Applicability of federal advisory committee act.--The 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not 
     apply to activities carried out pursuant to this subsection.
       ``(g) Prioritization of Grant Awards.--In awarding grants 
     under this section, the Administrator of FEMA shall consider 
     the following:
       ``(1) The findings and recommendations of the peer reviews 
     carried out under subsection (f).
       ``(2) The degree to which an award will reduce deaths, 
     injuries, and property damage by reducing the risks 
     associated with fire-related and other hazards.
       ``(3) The extent of the need of an applicant for a grant 
     under this section and the need to protect the United States 
     as a whole.
       ``(4) The number of calls requesting or requiring a fire 
     fighting or emergency medical response received by an 
     applicant.
       ``(h) Allocation of Grant Awards.--In awarding grants under 
     this section, the Administrator of FEMA shall ensure that of 
     the available grant funds in each fiscal year--
       ``(1) not less than 25 percent are awarded under subsection 
     (c) to career fire departments;
       ``(2) not less than 25 percent are awarded under subsection 
     (c) to volunteer fire departments;
       ``(3) not less than 25 percent are awarded under subsection 
     (c) to combination fire departments and fire departments 
     using paid-on-call firefighting personnel;
       ``(4) not less than 10 percent are available for open 
     competition among career fire departments, volunteer fire 
     departments, combination fire departments, and fire 
     departments using paid-on-call firefighting personnel for 
     grants awarded under subsection (c);
       ``(5) not less than 10 percent are awarded under subsection 
     (d); and
       ``(6) not more than 2 percent are awarded under this 
     section to nonaffiliated EMS organizations described in 
     subsection (c)(1)(B).
       ``(i) Additional Requirements and Limitations.--
       ``(1) Funding for emergency medical services.--Not less 
     than 3.5 percent of the available grant funds for a fiscal 
     year shall be awarded under this section for purposes 
     described in subsection (c)(3)(F).
       ``(2) State fire training academies.--
       ``(A) Maximum share.--Not more than 3 percent of the 
     available grant funds for a fiscal year may be awarded under 
     subsection (c)(1)(C).
       ``(B) Maximum grant amount.--The Administrator of FEMA may 
     not award a grant under subsection (c)(1)(C) to a State fire 
     training academy in an amount that exceeds $1,000,000 in any 
     fiscal year.
       ``(3) Amounts for purchasing firefighting vehicles.--Not 
     more than 25 percent of the available grant funds for a 
     fiscal year may be used to assist grant recipients to 
     purchase vehicles pursuant to subsection (c)(3)(G).
       ``(j) Further Considerations.--
       ``(1) Assistance to firefighters grants to fire 
     departments.--In considering applications for grants under 
     subsection (c)(1)(A), the Administrator of FEMA shall 
     consider--
       ``(A) the extent to which the grant would enhance the daily 
     operations of the applicant and the impact of such a grant on 
     the protection of lives and property; and
       ``(B) a broad range of factors important to the applicant's 
     ability to respond to fires and related hazards, such as the 
     following:
       ``(i) Population served.
       ``(ii) Geographic response area.
       ``(iii) Hazards vulnerability.
       ``(iv) Call volume.
       ``(v) Financial situation, including unemployment rate of 
     the area being served.
       ``(vi) Need for training or equipment.
       ``(2) Applications from nonaffiliated ems organizations.--
     In the case of an application submitted under subsection 
     (e)(1) by a nonaffiliated EMS organization, the Administrator 
     of FEMA shall consider the extent to which other sources of 
     Federal funding are available to the applicant to provide the 
     assistance requested in such application.
       ``(3) Awarding fire prevention and safety grants to certain 
     organizations that are not fire departments.--In the case of 
     applicants for grants under this section who are described in 
     subsection (d)(1)(B), the Administrator of FEMA shall give 
     priority to applicants who focus on--
       ``(A) prevention of injuries to high risk groups from fire; 
     and
       ``(B) research programs that demonstrate a potential to 
     improve firefighter safety.
       ``(4) Awarding grants for fire safety research centers.--
       ``(A) Considerations.--In awarding grants under subsection 
     (d)(1)(C), the Administrator of FEMA shall--
       ``(i) select each grant recipient on--

       ``(I) the demonstrated research and extension resources 
     available to the recipient to carry out the research, 
     development, and technology transfer activities;
       ``(II) the capability of the recipient to provide 
     leadership in making national contributions to fire safety;
       ``(III) the recipient's ability to disseminate the results 
     of fire safety research; and
       ``(IV) the strategic plan the recipient proposes to carry 
     out under the grant;

       ``(ii) give special consideration in selecting recipients 
     under subparagraph (A) to an applicant for a grant that 
     consists of a partnership between--

       ``(I) a national fire service organization or a national 
     fire safety organization; and
       ``(II) an institution of higher education, including a 
     minority-serving institution (as described in section 371(a) 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1067q(a))); 
     and

       ``(iii) consider the research needs identified and 
     prioritized through the workshop required by subparagraph 
     (B)(i).
       ``(B) Research needs.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2012, 
     the Administrator of FEMA shall convene a workshop of the 
     fire safety research community, fire service organizations, 
     and other appropriate stakeholders to identify and prioritize 
     fire safety research needs.
       ``(ii) Publication.--The Administrator of FEMA shall ensure 
     that the results of the workshop are made available to the 
     public.
       ``(C) Limitations on grants for fire safety research 
     centers.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Administrator of FEMA may award 
     grants under subsection (d) to establish not more than 3 fire 
     safety research centers.
       ``(ii) Recipients.--An institution of higher education, a 
     national fire service organization, and a national fire 
     safety organization may not directly receive a grant under 
     subsection (d) for a fiscal year for more than 1 fire safety 
     research center.
       ``(5) Avoiding duplication.--The Administrator of FEMA 
     shall review lists submitted by applicants pursuant to 
     subsection (e)(2)(D) and take such actions as the 
     Administrator of FEMA considers necessary to prevent 
     unnecessary duplication of grant awards.
       ``(k) Matching and Maintenance of Expenditure 
     Requirements.--
       ``(1) Matching requirement for assistance to firefighters 
     grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     an applicant seeking a grant to carry out an activity under 
     subsection (c) shall agree to make available non-Federal 
     funds to carry out such activity in an amount equal to not 
     less than 15 percent of the grant awarded to such applicant 
     under such subsection.
       ``(B) Exception for entities serving small communities.--In 
     the case that an applicant seeking a grant to carry out an 
     activity under subsection (c) serves a jurisdiction of--
       ``(i) more than 20,000 residents but not more than 
     1,000,000 residents, the application shall agree to make 
     available non-Federal funds in an amount equal to not less 
     than 10 percent of the grant awarded to such applicant under 
     such subsection; and
       ``(ii) 20,000 residents or fewer, the applicant shall agree 
     to make available non-Federal funds in an amount equal to not 
     less than 5 percent of the grant awarded to such applicant 
     under such subsection.
       ``(2) Matching requirement for fire prevention and safety 
     grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--An applicant seeking a grant to carry 
     out an activity under subsection (d) shall agree to make 
     available non-Federal funds to carry out such activity in an 
     amount equal to not less than 5 percent of the grant awarded 
     to such applicant under such subsection.
       ``(B) Means of matching.--An applicant for a grant under 
     subsection (d) may meet the matching requirement under 
     subparagraph (A) through direct funding, funding of 
     complementary activities, or the provision of staff, 
     facilities, services, material, or equipment.
       ``(3) Maintenance of expenditures.--An applicant seeking a 
     grant under subsection (c) or (d) shall agree to maintain 
     during the term of the grant the applicant's aggregate 
     expenditures relating to the uses described in subsections 
     (c)(3) and (d)(3) at not less than 80 percent of the average 
     amount of such expenditures in the 2 fiscal years preceding 
     the fiscal year in which the grant amounts are received.
       ``(4) Waiver.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph 
     (C)(ii), the Administrator of FEMA may waive or reduce the 
     requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) in cases of 
     demonstrated economic hardship.
       ``(B) Guidelines.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Administrator of FEMA shall 
     establish and publish guidelines for determining what 
     constitutes economic hardship for purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(ii) Consultation.--In developing guidelines under clause 
     (i), the Administrator of FEMA shall consult with individuals 
     who are--

       ``(I) recognized for expertise in firefighting, emergency 
     medical services provided by fire services, or the economic 
     affairs of State and local governments; and
       ``(II) members of national fire service organizations or 
     national organizations representing the interests of State 
     and local governments.

       ``(iii) Considerations.--In developing guidelines under 
     clause (i), the Administrator of FEMA shall consider, with 
     respect to relevant communities, the following:

       ``(I) Changes in rates of unemployment from previous years.

[[Page S7172]]

       ``(II) Whether the rates of unemployment of the relevant 
     communities are currently and have consistently exceeded the 
     annual national average rates of unemployment.
       ``(III) Changes in percentages of individuals eligible to 
     receive food stamps from previous years.
       ``(IV) Such other factors as the Administrator of FEMA 
     considers appropriate.

       ``(C) Certain applicants for fire prevention and safety 
     grants.--The authority under subparagraph (A) shall not apply 
     with respect to a nonprofit organization that--
       ``(i) is described in subsection (d)(1)(B); and
       ``(ii) is not a fire department or emergency medical 
     services organization.
       ``(l) Grant Guidelines.--
       ``(1) Guidelines.--For each fiscal year, prior to awarding 
     any grants under this section, the Administrator of FEMA 
     shall publish in the Federal Register--
       ``(A) guidelines that describe--
       ``(i) the process for applying for grants under this 
     section; and
       ``(ii) the criteria that will be used for selecting grant 
     recipients; and
       ``(B) an explanation of any differences between such 
     guidelines and the recommendations obtained under paragraph 
     (2).
       ``(2) Annual meeting to obtain recommendations.--
       ``(A) In general.--For each fiscal year, the Administrator 
     of FEMA shall convene a meeting of qualified members of 
     national fire service organizations and, at the discretion of 
     the Administrator of FEMA, qualified members of emergency 
     medical service organizations to obtain recommendations 
     regarding the following:
       ``(i) Criteria for the awarding of grants under this 
     section.
       ``(ii) Administrative changes to the assistance program 
     established under subsection (b).
       ``(B) Qualified members.--For purposes of this paragraph, a 
     qualified member of an organization is a member who--
       ``(i) is recognized for expertise in firefighting or 
     emergency medical services;
       ``(ii) is not an employee of the Federal Government; and
       ``(iii) in the case of a member of an emergency medical 
     service organization, is a member of an organization that 
     represents--

       ``(I) providers of emergency medical services that are 
     affiliated with fire departments; or
       ``(II) nonaffiliated EMS providers.

       ``(3) Applicability of federal advisory committee act.--The 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not 
     apply to activities carried out under this subsection.
       ``(m) Accounting Determination.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, for purposes of this section, equipment 
     costs shall include all costs attributable to any design, 
     purchase of components, assembly, manufacture, and 
     transportation of equipment not otherwise commercially 
     available.
       ``(n) Eligible Grantee on Behalf of Alaska Native 
     Villages.--The Alaska Village Initiatives, a non-profit 
     organization incorporated in the State of Alaska, shall be 
     eligible to apply for and receive a grant or other assistance 
     under this section on behalf of Alaska Native villages.
       ``(o) Training Standards.--If an applicant for a grant 
     under this section is applying for such grant to purchase 
     training that does not meet or exceed any applicable national 
     voluntary consensus standards, including those developed 
     under section 647 of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management 
     Reform Act of 2006 (6 U.S.C. 747), the applicant shall submit 
     to the Administrator of FEMA an explanation of the reasons 
     that the training proposed to be purchased will serve the 
     needs of the applicant better than training that meets or 
     exceeds such standards.
       ``(p) Ensuring Effective Use of Grants.--
       ``(1) Audits.--The Administrator of FEMA may audit a 
     recipient of a grant awarded under this section to ensure 
     that--
       ``(A) the grant amounts are expended for the intended 
     purposes; and
       ``(B) the grant recipient complies with the requirements of 
     subsection (k).
       ``(2) Performance assessment.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator of FEMA shall develop 
     and implement a performance assessment system, including 
     quantifiable performance metrics, to evaluate the extent to 
     which grants awarded under this section are furthering the 
     purposes of this section, including protecting the health and 
     safety of the public and firefighting personnel against fire 
     and fire-related hazards.
       ``(B) Consultation.--The Administrator of FEMA shall 
     consult with fire service representatives and with the 
     Comptroller General of the United States in developing the 
     assessment system required by subparagraph (A).
       ``(3) Annual reports to administrator of fema.--Not less 
     frequently than once each year during the term of a grant 
     awarded under this section, the recipient of the grant shall 
     submit to the Administrator of FEMA an annual report 
     describing how the recipient used the grant amounts.
       ``(4) Annual reports to congress.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than September 30, 2013, and 
     each year thereafter through 2017, the Administrator of FEMA 
     shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Science and Technology of the House of Representatives a 
     report that provides--
       ``(i) information on the performance assessment system 
     developed under paragraph (2); and
       ``(ii) using the performance metrics developed under such 
     paragraph, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the grants 
     awarded under this section.
       ``(B) Additional information.--The report due under 
     subparagraph (A) on September 30, 2016, shall also include 
     recommendations for legislative changes to improve grants 
     under this section.
       ``(q) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this section--
       ``(A) $750,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
       ``(B) for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2017, an amount 
     equal to the amount authorized for the previous fiscal year 
     increased by the percentage by which--
       ``(i) the Consumer Price Index (all items, United States 
     city average) for the previous fiscal year, exceeds
       ``(ii) the Consumer Price Index for the fiscal year 
     preceding the fiscal year described in clause (i).
       ``(2) Administrative expenses.--Of the amounts appropriated 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, the 
     Administrator of FEMA may use not more than 5 percent of such 
     amounts for salaries and expenses and other administrative 
     costs incurred by the Administrator of FEMA in the course of 
     awarding grants and providing assistance under this section.
       ``(3) Congressionally directed spending.--Consistent with 
     the requirements in subsections (c)(1) and (d)(1) that grants 
     under those subsections be awarded on a competitive basis, 
     none of the funds appropriated pursuant to this subsection 
     may be used for any congressionally directed spending item 
     (as defined under the rules of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives).
       ``(r) Sunset of Authorities.--The authority to award 
     assistance and grants under this section shall expire on the 
     date that is 5 years after the date of the enactment of the 
     Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2012.''.

     SEC. 1804. STAFFING FOR ADEQUATE FIRE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE.

       (a) Improvements to Hiring Grants.--
       (1) Term of grants.--Subparagraph (B) of section 34(a)(1) 
     of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 
     U.S.C. 2229a(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) Grants made under this paragraph shall be for 3 years 
     and be used for programs to hire new, additional 
     firefighters.''.
       (2) Limitation of portion of costs of hiring 
     firefighters.--Subparagraph (E) of such section is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(E) The portion of the costs of hiring firefighters 
     provided by a grant under this paragraph may not exceed--
       ``(i) 75 percent in the first year of the grant;
       ``(ii) 75 percent in the second year of the grant; and
       ``(iii) 35 percent in the third year of the grant.''.
       (b) Clarification Regarding Eligible Entities for 
     Recruitment and Retention Grants.--The second sentence of 
     section 34(a)(2) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2229a(a)(2)) is 
     amended by striking ``organizations on a local or statewide 
     basis'' and inserting ``national, State, local, or tribal 
     organizations''.
       (c) Maximum Amount for Hiring a Firefighter.--Paragraph (4) 
     of section 34(c) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2229a(c)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(4) The amount of funding provided under this section to 
     a recipient fire department for hiring a firefighter in any 
     fiscal year may not exceed--
       ``(A) in the first year of the grant, 75 percent of the 
     usual annual cost of a first-year firefighter in that 
     department at the time the grant application was submitted;
       ``(B) in the second year of the grant, 75 percent of the 
     usual annual cost of a first-year firefighter in that 
     department at the time the grant application was submitted; 
     and
       ``(C) in the third year of the grant, 35 percent of the 
     usual annual cost of a first-year firefighter in that 
     department at the time the grant application was 
     submitted.''.
       (d) Waivers.--Section 34 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2229a) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (d) through (i) as 
     subsections (e) through (j), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Waivers.--
       ``(1) In general.--In a case of demonstrated economic 
     hardship, the Administrator of FEMA may--
       ``(A) waive the requirements of subsection (c)(1); or
       ``(B) waive or reduce the requirements in subsection 
     (a)(1)(E) or subsection (c)(2).
       ``(2) Guidelines.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator of FEMA shall 
     establish and publish guidelines for determining what 
     constitutes economic hardship for purposes of paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Consultation.--In developing guidelines under 
     subparagraph (A), the Administrator of FEMA shall consult 
     with individuals who are--
       ``(i) recognized for expertise in firefighting, emergency 
     medical services provided by fire services, or the economic 
     affairs of State and local governments; and
       ``(ii) members of national fire service organizations or 
     national organizations representing the interests of State 
     and local governments.
       ``(C) Considerations.--In developing guidelines under 
     subparagraph (A), the Administrator of FEMA shall consider, 
     with respect to relevant communities, the following:
       ``(i) Changes in rates of unemployment from previous years.

[[Page S7173]]

       ``(ii) Whether the rates of unemployment of the relevant 
     communities are currently and have consistently exceeded the 
     annual national average rates of unemployment.
       ``(iii) Changes in percentages of individuals eligible to 
     receive food stamps from previous years.
       ``(iv) Such other factors as the Administrator of FEMA 
     considers appropriate.''.
       (e) Improvements to Performance Evaluation Requirements.--
     Subsection (e) of section 34 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2229a), 
     as redesignated by subsection (d)(1) of this section, is 
     amended by inserting before the first sentence the following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator of FEMA shall 
     establish a performance assessment system, including 
     quantifiable performance metrics, to evaluate the extent to 
     which grants awarded under this section are furthering the 
     purposes of this section.
       ``(2) Submittal of information.--''.
       (f) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (f) of section 34 of such Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 2229a), as redesignated by subsection (d)(1) of 
     this section, is amended by striking ``The authority'' and 
     all that follows through ``Congress concerning'' and 
     inserting the following: ``Not later than September 30, 2014, 
     the Administrator of FEMA shall submit to the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of 
     Representatives a report on''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The heading for subsection (f) 
     of section 34 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2229a), as redesignated 
     by subsection (d)(1) of this section, is amended by striking 
     ``Sunset and Reports'' and inserting ``Report''.
       (g) Additional Definitions.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (i) of section 34 of such Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 2229a), as redesignated by subsection (d)(1) of 
     this section, is amended--
       (A) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking ``In 
     this section, the term--'' and inserting ``In this 
     section:'';
       (B) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by inserting ``The term'' before `` `firefighter' 
     has''; and
       (ii) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period;
       (C) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (D) by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(2) The terms `Administrator of FEMA', `career fire 
     department', `combination fire department', and `volunteer 
     fire department' have the meanings given such terms in 
     section 33(a).''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 34(a)(1)(A) of such Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 2229a(a)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``career, 
     volunteer, and combination fire departments'' and inserting 
     ``career fire departments, combination fire departments, and 
     volunteer fire departments''.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (j) of section 34 of such Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 2229a), as redesignated by subsection (d)(1) of 
     this section, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) $750,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
       ``(9) for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2017, an amount 
     equal to the amount authorized for the previous fiscal year 
     increased by the percentage by which--
       ``(A) the Consumer Price Index (all items, United States 
     city average) for the previous fiscal year, exceeds
       ``(B) the Consumer Price Index for the fiscal year 
     preceding the fiscal year described in subparagraph (A).''.
       (2) Administrative expenses.--Such subsection (j) is 
     further amended--
       (A) in paragraph (9), as added by paragraph (1) of this 
     subsection, by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as 
     clauses (i) and (ii), respectively, and moving the left 
     margin of such clauses, as so redesignated, 2 ems to the 
     right;
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (9) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (I), respectively, and moving the 
     left margin of such subparagraphs, as so redesignated, 2 ems 
     to the right;
       (C) by striking ``There are'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--There are''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Administrative expenses.--Of the amounts appropriated 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, the 
     Administrator of FEMA may use not more than 5 percent of such 
     amounts to cover salaries and expenses and other 
     administrative costs incurred by the Administrator of FEMA to 
     make grants and provide assistance under this section.''.
       (3) Congressionally directed spending.--Such subsection (j) 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Congressionally directed spending.--Consistent with 
     the requirement in subsection (a) that grants under this 
     section be awarded on a competitive basis, none of the funds 
     appropriated pursuant to this subsection may be used for any 
     congressionally direct spending item (as defined under the 
     rules of the Senate and the House of Representatives).''.
       (i) Technical Amendment.--Section 34 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2229a) is amended by striking ``Administrator'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``Administrator of FEMA''.
       (j) Clerical Amendment.--Such section is further amended in 
     the heading by striking ``EXPANSION OF PRE-SEPTEMBER 11, 
     2001, FIRE GRANT PROGRAM'' and inserting the following: 
     ``STAFFING FOR ADEQUATE FIRE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE''.
       (k) Sunset of Authority to Award Hiring Grants.--Such 
     section is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(k) Sunset of Authorities.--The authority to award 
     assistance and grants under this section shall expire on the 
     date that is 5 years after the date of the enactment of the 
     Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2012.''.

     SEC. 1805. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON VALUE AND FUNDING OF 
                   ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS AND STAFFING FOR 
                   ADEQUATE FIRE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAMS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the grants and assistance awarded under sections 33 and 
     34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 
     U.S.C. 2229 and 2229a) have proven equally valuable in 
     protecting the health and safety of the public and 
     firefighting personnel throughout the United States against 
     fire and fire-related hazards; and
       (2) providing parity in funding for the awarding of grants 
     and assistance under both such sections will ensure that the 
     grant and assistance programs under such sections can 
     continue to serve their complementary purposes.

     SEC. 1806. REPORT ON AMENDMENTS TO ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS 
                   AND STAFFING FOR ADEQUATE FIRE AND EMERGENCY 
                   RESPONSE PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than September 30, 2016, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Science and Technology of the 
     House of Representatives a report on the effect of the 
     amendments made by this title.
       (b) Contents.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) An assessment of the effect of the amendments made by 
     sections 1803 and 1804 on the effectiveness, relative 
     allocation, accountability, and administration of the grants 
     and assistance awarded under sections 33 and 34 of the 
     Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 
     2229 and 2229a) after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) An evaluation of the extent to which the amendments 
     made by sections 1803 and 1804 have enabled recipients of 
     grants and assistance awarded under such sections 33 and 34 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act to mitigate fire 
     and fire-related and other hazards more effectively.

     SEC. 1807. STUDIES AND REPORTS ON THE STATE OF FIRE SERVICES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the United States Fire Administration.
       (2) Career fire department, combination fire department, 
     volunteer fire department.--The terms ``career fire 
     department'', ``combination fire department'', and 
     ``volunteer fire department'' have the meanings given such 
     terms in section 33(a) of the Federal Fire Prevention and 
     Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229(a)), as amended by 
     section 1803.
       (3) Fire service.--The term ``fire service'' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 4 of the Federal Fire 
     Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2203).
       (b) Study and Report on Compliance With Staffing 
     Standards.--
       (1) Study.--The Administrator shall conduct a study on the 
     level of compliance with national voluntary consensus 
     standards for staffing, training, safe operations, personal 
     protective equipment, and fitness among the fire services of 
     the United States.
       (2) Survey.--
       (A) In general.--In carrying out the study required by 
     paragraph (1), the Administrator shall carry out a survey of 
     fire services to assess the level of compliance of such fire 
     services with the standards described in such paragraph.
       (B) Elements.--The survey required by subparagraph (A) 
     shall--
       (i) include career fire departments, volunteer fire 
     departments, combination fire departments, and fire 
     departments serving communities of different sizes, and such 
     other distinguishing factors as the Administrator considers 
     relevant;
       (ii) employ methods to ensure that the survey accurately 
     reflects the actual rate of compliance with the standards 
     described in paragraph (1) among fire services; and
       (iii) determine the extent of barriers and challenges to 
     achieving compliance with the standards described in 
     paragraph (1) among fire services.
       (C) Authority to carry out survey with nonprofit.--If the 
     Administrator determines that it will reduce the costs 
     incurred by the United States Fire Administration in carrying 
     out the survey required by subparagraph (A), the 
     Administrator may carry out such survey in conjunction with a 
     nonprofit organization that has substantial expertise and 
     experience in the following areas:
       (i) The fire services.
       (ii) National voluntary consensus standards.
       (iii) Contemporary survey methods.
       (3) Report on findings of study.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to 
     Congress

[[Page S7174]]

     a report on the findings of the Administrator with respect to 
     the study required by paragraph (1).
       (B) Contents.--The report required by subparagraph (A) 
     shall include the following:
       (i) An accurate description, based on the results of the 
     survey required by paragraph (2)(A), of the rate of 
     compliance with the standards described in paragraph (1) 
     among United States fire services, including a comparison of 
     the rates of compliance among career fire departments, 
     volunteer fire departments, combination fire departments, and 
     fire departments serving communities of different sizes, and 
     such other comparisons as Administrator considers relevant.
       (ii) A description of the challenges faced by different 
     types of fire departments and different types of communities 
     in complying with the standards described in paragraph (1).
       (c) Task Force to Enhance Firefighter Safety.--
       (1) Establishment.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall establish a task force to be known as the 
     ``Task Force to Enhance Firefighter Safety'' (in this 
     subsection referred to as the ``Task Force'').
       (2) Membership.--
       (A) In general.--Members of the Task Force shall be 
     appointed by the Secretary from among the general public and 
     shall include the following:
       (i) Representatives of national organizations representing 
     firefighters and fire chiefs.
       (ii) Individuals representing standards-setting and 
     accrediting organizations, including representatives from the 
     voluntary consensus codes and standards development 
     community.
       (iii) Such other individuals as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       (B) Representatives of other departments and agencies.--The 
     Secretary may invite representatives of other Federal 
     departments and agencies that have an interest in fire 
     services to participate in the meetings and other activities 
     of the Task Force.
       (C) Number; terms of service; pay and allowances.--The 
     Secretary shall determine the number, terms of service, and 
     pay and allowances of members of the Task Force appointed by 
     the Secretary, except that a term of service of any such 
     member may not exceed 2 years.
       (3) Responsibilities.--The Task Force shall--
       (A) consult with the Secretary in the conduct of the study 
     required by subsection (b)(1); and
       (B) develop a plan to enhance firefighter safety by 
     increasing fire service compliance with the standards 
     described in subsection (b)(1), including by--
       (i) reviewing and evaluating the report required by 
     subsection (b)(3)(A) to determine the extent of and barriers 
     to achieving compliance with the standards described in 
     subsection (b)(1) among fire services; and
       (ii) considering ways in which the Federal Government, 
     States, and local governments can promote or encourage fire 
     services to comply with such standards.
       (4) Report.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date on 
     which the Secretary submits the report required by subsection 
     (b)(3)(A), the Task Force shall submit to Congress and the 
     Secretary a report on the activities and findings of the Task 
     Force.
       (B) Contents.--The report required by subparagraph (A) 
     shall include the following:
       (i) The findings and recommendations of the Task Force with 
     respect to the study carried out under subsection (b)(1).
       (ii) The plan developed under paragraph (3)(B).
       (d) Study and Report on the Needs of Fire Services.--
       (1) Study.--The Administrator shall conduct a study--
       (A) to define the current roles and activities associated 
     with fire services on a national, State, regional, and local 
     level;
       (B) to identify the equipment, staffing, and training 
     required to fulfill the roles and activities defined under 
     subparagraph (A);
       (C) to conduct an assessment to identify gaps between what 
     fire services currently possess and what they require to meet 
     the equipment, staffing, and training needs identified under 
     subparagraph (B) on a national and State-by-State basis; and
       (D) to measure the impact of the grant and assistance 
     program under section 33 of the Federal Fire Prevention and 
     Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229) in meeting the needs of 
     fire services and filling the gaps identified under 
     subparagraph (C).
       (2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this title, the Administrator shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the findings of the Administrator with 
     respect to the study conducted under paragraph (1).
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this 
     section--
       (1) $600,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
       (2) $600,000 for fiscal year 2014.

    Subtitle B--Reauthorization of United States Fire Administration

     SEC. 1811. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``United States Fire 
     Administration Reauthorization Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 1812. CLARIFICATION OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UNITED 
                   STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION AND FEDERAL 
                   EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY.

       Section 5(c) of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act 
     of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2204) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Deputy Administrator.--The Administrator may appoint 
     a Deputy Administrator, who shall--
       ``(1) perform such functions as the Administrator shall 
     from time to time assign or delegate; and
       ``(2) act as Administrator during the absence or disability 
     of the Administrator or in the event of a vacancy in the 
     office of Administrator.''.

     SEC. 1813. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY OF ADMINISTRATOR TO 
                   EDUCATE PUBLIC ABOUT FIRE AND FIRE PREVENTION.

       Section 6 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 
     1974 (15 U.S.C. 2205) is amended by striking ``to take all 
     steps'' and all that follows through ``fire and fire 
     prevention.'' and inserting ``to take such steps as the 
     Administrator considers appropriate to educate the public and 
     overcome public indifference as to fire, fire prevention, and 
     individual preparedness.''.

     SEC. 1814. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 17(g)(1) of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control 
     Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2216(g)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (H), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon;
       (3) by adding after subparagraph (H) the following:
       ``(I) $76,490,890 for fiscal year 2013, of which $2,753,672 
     shall be used to carry out section 8(f);
       ``(J) $76,490,890 for fiscal year 2014, of which $2,753,672 
     shall be used to carry out section 8(f);
       ``(K) $76,490,890 for fiscal year 2015, of which $2,753,672 
     shall be used to carry out section 8(f);
       ``(L) $76,490,890 for fiscal year 2016, of which $2,753,672 
     shall be used to carry out section 8(f); and
       ``(M) $76,490,890 for fiscal year 2017, of which $2,753,672 
     shall be used to carry out section 8(f).''; and
       (4) in subparagraphs (E) through (H), by moving each margin 
     2 ems to the left.

     SEC. 1815. REMOVAL OF LIMITATION.

       Section 9(d) of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act 
     of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2208(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Update.--'' and all that follows through 
     ``The Administrator'' and inserting ``Update.--The 
     Administrator''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (2).

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues we have been on the 
bill now for 2 days, so it might be time to stop filing amendments. I 
don't think that is an outrageous request on the part of the managers 
of the bill. I hope we can have those objections or concerns removed so 
we can at least bring the filing of amendments to a close.
  I would ask the distinguished chairman, are we going to move with the 
managers' package now?
  Mr. LEVIN. We could. Let us report this amendment first and then why 
don't we do that. It will just take us a couple minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, amendment 
No. 3090, as modified, is 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.


 Amendments Nos. 2929, 2942, 3230, 2966, 2973, 2980, 2994, 3059, 3072, 
                            3086, 3098, 3186

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I call up a list of 12 amendments which 
have been cleared by myself and Senator McCain:
  McCaskill amendment No. 2929, McCaskill amendment No. 2942, Boxer 
amendment No. 3230, Hatch amendment No. 2966, Inhofe amendment No. 
2973, Boxer amendment No. 2980, Casey amendment No. 2994, Toomey 
amendment No. 3059, Inhofe amendment No. 3072, Vitter amendment No. 
3086, Shaheen amendment No. 3098, Coburn amendment No. 3186.
  I understand from Senator McCain that these amendments have been 
cleared on his side.
  Mr. McCAIN. Those amendments are cleared.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
consider these amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, and the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

[[Page S7175]]

                           Amendment No. 2929

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Monday, November 26, 2012, 
under ``Text of amendments.'')


                           amendment no. 2942

(Purpose: To expand whistleblower protections to non-Defense contractor 
                         and grantee employees)

       On page 248, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

     SEC. 844A. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS FOR NON-DEFENSE 
                   CONTRACTORS.

       (a) Whistleblower Protections.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 47 of title 41, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 4712. CONTRACTOR AND GRANTEE EMPLOYEES: PROTECTION 
                   FROM REPRISAL FOR DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN 
                   INFORMATION.

       ``(a) Prohibition of Reprisals.--
       ``(1) In general.--An employee of a contractor, 
     subcontractor, or grantee may not be discharged, demoted, or 
     otherwise discriminated against as a reprisal for disclosing 
     to a person or body described in paragraph (2) information 
     that the employee reasonably believes is evidence of gross 
     mismanagement of a Federal contract or grant, a gross waste 
     of Federal funds, an abuse of authority relating to a Federal 
     contract or grant, a substantial and specific danger to 
     public health or safety, or a violation of law, rule, or 
     regulation related to a Federal contract (including the 
     competition for or negotiation of a contract) or grant.
       ``(2) Persons and bodies covered.--The persons and bodies 
     described in this paragraph are the persons and bodies as 
     follows:
       ``(A) A Member of Congress or a representative of a 
     committee of Congress.
       ``(B) An Inspector General.
       ``(C) The Government Accountability Office.
       ``(D) A Federal employee responsible for contract or grant 
     oversight or management at the relevant agency.
       ``(E) An authorized official of the Department of Justice 
     or other law enforcement agency.
       ``(F) A court or grand jury.
       ``(G) A management official or other employee of the 
     contractor, subcontractor, or grantee who has the 
     responsibility to investigate, discover, or address 
     misconduct.
       ``(3) Rules of construction.--For the purposes of paragraph 
     (1)--
       ``(A) an employee who initiates or provides evidence of 
     contractor, subcontractor, or grantee misconduct in any 
     judicial or administrative proceeding relating to waste, 
     fraud, or abuse on a Federal contract or grant shall be 
     deemed to have made a disclosure covered by such paragraph; 
     and
       ``(B) a reprisal described in paragraph (1) is prohibited 
     even if it is undertaken at the request of an executive 
     branch official, unless the request takes the form of a non-
     discretionary directive and is within the authority of the 
     executive branch official making the request.
       ``(b) Investigation of Complaints.--
       ``(1) Submission of complaint.--A person who believes that 
     the person has been subjected to a reprisal prohibited by 
     subsection (a) may submit a complaint to the Inspector 
     General of the executive agency involved. Unless the 
     Inspector General determines that the complaint is frivolous, 
     fails to allege a violation of the prohibition in subsection 
     (a), or has previously been addressed in another Federal or 
     State judicial or administrative proceeding initiated by the 
     complainant, the Inspector General shall investigate the 
     complaint and, upon completion of such investigation, submit 
     a report of the findings of the investigation to the person, 
     the contractor or grantee concerned, and the head of the 
     agency.
       ``(2) Inspector general action.--
       ``(A) Determination or submission of report on findings.--
     Except as provided under subparagraph (B), the Inspector 
     General shall make a determination that a complaint is 
     frivolous, fails to allege a violation of the prohibition in 
     subsection (a), or has previously been addressed in another 
     Federal or State judicial or administrative proceeding 
     initiated by the complainant or submit a report under 
     paragraph (1) within 180 days after receiving the complaint.
       ``(B) Extension of time.--If the Inspector General is 
     unable to complete an investigation in time to submit a 
     report within the 180-day period specified in subparagraph 
     (A) and the person submitting the complaint agrees to an 
     extension of time, the Inspector General shall submit a 
     report under paragraph (1) within such additional period of 
     time, up to 180 days, as shall be agreed upon between the 
     Inspector General and the person submitting the complaint.
       ``(3) Prohibition on disclosure.--The Inspector General may 
     not respond to any inquiry or disclose any information from 
     or about any person alleging the reprisal, except to the 
     extent that such response or disclosure is--
       ``(A) made with the consent of the person alleging the 
     reprisal;
       ``(B) made in accordance with the provisions of section 
     552a of title 5 or as required by any other applicable 
     Federal law; or
       ``(C) necessary to conduct an investigation of the alleged 
     reprisal.
       ``(4) Time limitation.--A complaint may not be brought 
     under this subsection more than three years after the date on 
     which the alleged reprisal took place.
       ``(c) Remedy and Enforcement Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after receiving 
     an Inspector General report pursuant to subsection (b), the 
     head of the executive agency concerned shall determine 
     whether there is sufficient basis to conclude that the 
     contractor or grantee concerned has subjected the complainant 
     to a reprisal prohibited by subsection (a) and shall either 
     issue an order denying relief or shall take one or more of 
     the following actions:
       ``(A) Order the contractor or grantee to take affirmative 
     action to abate the reprisal.
       ``(B) Order the contractor or grantee to reinstate the 
     person to the position that the person held before the 
     reprisal, together with compensatory damages (including back 
     pay), employment benefits, and other terms and conditions of 
     employment that would apply to the person in that position if 
     the reprisal had not been taken.
       ``(C) Order the contractor or grantee to pay the 
     complainant an amount equal to the aggregate amount of all 
     costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees and expert 
     witnesses' fees) that were reasonably incurred by the 
     complainant for, or in connection with, bringing the 
     complaint regarding the reprisal, as determined by the head 
     of the executive agency.
       ``(2) Exhaustion of remedies.--If the head of an executive 
     agency issues an order denying relief under paragraph (1) or 
     has not issued an order within 210 days after the submission 
     of a complaint under subsection (b), or in the case of an 
     extension of time under paragraph (b)(2)(B), not later than 
     30 days after the expiration of the extension of time, and 
     there is no showing that such delay is due to the bad faith 
     of the complainant, the complainant shall be deemed to have 
     exhausted all administrative remedies with respect to the 
     complaint, and the complainant may bring a de novo action at 
     law or equity against the contractor or grantee to seek 
     compensatory damages and other relief available under this 
     section in the appropriate district court of the United 
     States, which shall have jurisdiction over such an action 
     without regard to the amount in controversy. Such an action 
     shall, at the request of either party to the action, be tried 
     by the court with a jury. An action under this paragraph may 
     not be brought more than two years after the date on which 
     remedies are deemed to have been exhausted.
       ``(3) Admissibility of evidence.--An Inspector General 
     determination and an agency head order denying relief under 
     paragraph (2) shall be admissible in evidence in any de novo 
     action at law or equity brought pursuant to this subsection.
       ``(4) Enforcement of orders.--Whenever a person fails to 
     comply with an order issued under paragraph (1), the head of 
     the executive agency concerned shall file an action for 
     enforcement of such order in the United States district court 
     for a district in which the reprisal was found to have 
     occurred. In any action brought under this paragraph, the 
     court may grant appropriate relief, including injunctive 
     relief, compensatory and exemplary damages, and attorney fees 
     and costs. The person upon whose behalf an order was issued 
     may also file such an action or join in an action filed by 
     the head of the executive agency.
       ``(5) Judicial review.--Any person adversely affected or 
     aggrieved by an order issued under paragraph (1) may obtain 
     review of the order's conformance with this subsection, and 
     any regulations issued to carry out this section, in the 
     United States court of appeals for a circuit in which the 
     reprisal is alleged in the order to have occurred. No 
     petition seeking such review may be filed more than 60 days 
     after issuance of the order by the head of the executive 
     agency. Review shall conform to chapter 7 of title 5. Filing 
     such an appeal shall not act to stay the enforcement of the 
     order of the head of an executive agency, unless a stay is 
     specifically entered by the court.
       ``(6) Burdens of proof.--The legal burdens of proof 
     specified in section 1221(e) of title 5 shall be controlling 
     for the purposes of any investigation conducted by an 
     Inspector General, decision by the head of an executive 
     agency, or judicial or administrative proceeding to determine 
     whether discrimination prohibited under this section has 
     occurred.
       ``(7) Rights and remedies not waivable.--The rights and 
     remedies provided for in this section may not be waived by 
     any agreement, policy, form, or condition of employment, 
     including by any predispute arbitration agreement, other than 
     an arbitration provision in a collective bargaining 
     agreement.
       ``(d) Notification of Employees.--The head of each 
     executive agency shall ensure that contractors, 
     subcontractors, and grantees of the agency inform their 
     employees in writing of the rights and remedies provided 
     under this section, in the predominant native language of the 
     workforce.
       ``(e) Construction.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed to authorize the discharge of, demotion of, or 
     discrimination against an employee for a disclosure other 
     than a disclosure protected by subsection (a) or to modify or 
     derogate from a right or remedy otherwise available to the 
     employee.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `abuse of authority' means an arbitrary and 
     capricious exercise of authority that is inconsistent with 
     the mission of the executive agency concerned or the 
     successful performance of a contract or grant of such agency.

[[Page S7176]]

       ``(2) The term `Inspector General' means an Inspector 
     General appointed under the Inspector General Act of 1978 and 
     any Inspector General that receives funding from, or has 
     oversight over contracts or grants awarded for or on behalf 
     of, the executive agency concerned.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``4712. Contractor and grantee employees: protection from reprisal for 
              disclosure of certain information.''.

       (b) Allowability of Legal Fees.--Section 4310 of title 41, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``commenced by the 
     Federal Government or a State'' and inserting ``commenced by 
     the Federal Government, by a State, or by a contractor or 
     grantee employee submitting a complaint under section 4712 of 
     this title''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(3), by striking ``the imposition of a 
     monetary penalty'' and inserting ``the imposition of a 
     monetary penalty or an order to take corrective action under 
     section 4712 of this title''.
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to--
       (A) all contracts and grants awarded on or after such date;
       (B) all task orders entered on or after such date pursuant 
     to contracts awarded before, on, or after such date; and
       (C) all contracts awarded before such date that are 
     modified to include a contract clause providing for the 
     applicability of such amendments.
       (2) Revision of federal acquisition regulation.--Not later 
     than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the Federal Acquisition Regulation shall be revised to 
     implement the requirements arising under the amendments made 
     by this section.
       (3) Inclusion of contract clause in contracts awarded 
     before effective date.--At the time of any major modification 
     to a contract that was awarded before the date that is 180 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the head of 
     the contracting agency shall make best efforts to include in 
     the contract a contract clause providing for the 
     applicability of the amendments made by this section to the 
     contract.


                           amendment no. 3230

(Purpose: To reauthorize and modify the responsibilities of the United 
  States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy through fiscal year 
                                 2014)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. UNITED STATES ADVISORY COMMISSION ON PUBLIC 
                   DIPLOMACY.

       (a) Technical Amendment.--Section 604(a) of the United 
     States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 
     U.S.C. 1469(a)) is amended by inserting ``(referred to in 
     this section as the `Commission')'' before the period at the 
     end.
       (b) Duties and Responsibilities.--Section 604(c) of such 
     Act is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Duties and Responsibilities.--The Commission shall 
     appraise United States Government activities intended to 
     understand, inform, and influence foreign publics. The 
     activities described in this subsection shall be referred to 
     in this section as `public diplomacy activities'.''.
       (c) Reports.--Section 604(d) of such Act is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(d) Reports.--
       ``(1) Comprehensive annual report.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not less frequently than annually, the 
     Commission shall submit a comprehensive report on public 
     diplomacy and international broadcasting activities to 
     Congress, the President, and the Secretary of State. This 
     report shall include--
       ``(i) a detailed list of all public diplomacy activities 
     funded by the United States Government;
       ``(ii) a description of--

       ``(I) the purpose, means, and geographic scope of each 
     activity;
       ``(II) when each activity was started;
       ``(III) the amount of Federal funding expended on each 
     activity;
       ``(IV) any significant outside sources of funding; and
       ``(V) the Federal department or agency to which the 
     activity belongs;

       ``(iii) the international broadcasting activities under the 
     direction of the Broadcasting Board of Governors;
       ``(iv) an assessment of potentially duplicative public 
     diplomacy and international broadcasting activities; and
       ``(v) for any activities determined to be ineffective or 
     results not demonstrated under subparagraph (B), 
     recommendations on existing effective or moderately effective 
     public diplomacy activities that could be augmented to carry 
     out the objectives of the ineffective activities.
       ``(B) Effectiveness assessment.--In evaluating the public 
     diplomacy and international broadcasting activities described 
     in subparagraph (A), the Commission shall conduct an 
     assessment that considers the public diplomacy target impact, 
     the achieved impact, and the cost of public diplomacy 
     activities and international broadcasting. The assessment 
     shall include, if practicable, an appropriate metric such as 
     `cost-per-audience' or `cost-per-student' for each activity. 
     Upon the completion of the assessment, the Commission shall 
     the assign a rating of--
       ``(i) `effective' for activities that--

       ``(I) set appropriate goals;
       ``(II) achieve results; and
       ``(III) are well-managed and cost efficient;

       ``(ii) `moderately effective' for activities that--

       ``(I) achieve some results;
       ``(II) are generally well-managed; and
       ``(III) need to improve their performance results or cost 
     efficiency, including reducing overhead;

       ``(iii) `ineffective' for activities that--

       ``(I) are not making sufficient use of available resources 
     to achieve stated goals;
       ``(II) are not well-managed; or
       ``(III) have excessive overhead; and

       ``(iv) `results not demonstrated' for activities that--

       ``(I) do not have acceptable performance public diplomacy 
     metrics for measuring results; or
       ``(II) are unable or failed to collect data to determine if 
     they are effective.

       ``(2) Other reports.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Commission shall submit other 
     reports, including working papers, to Congress, the 
     President, and the Secretary of State at least semi-annually 
     on other activities and policies related to United States 
     public diplomacy.
       ``(B) Availability.--The Commission shall make the reports 
     submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) publicly available on 
     the Website of the Commission to develop a better 
     understanding of, and support for, public diplomacy 
     activities.
       ``(3) Access to information.--The Secretary of State shall 
     ensure that the Commission has access to all appropriate 
     information to carry out its duties and responsibilities 
     under this subsection.''.
       (d) Reauthorization.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1334 of the Foreign Affairs Reform 
     and Restructuring Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6553) is amended by 
     striking ``October 1, 2010'' and inserting ``October 1, 
     2014''.
       (2) Retroactivity of effective date.--The amendment made by 
     paragraph (1) shall take effect on October 1, 2010.
       (e) Funding.--From amounts appropriated by Congress under 
     the heading ``Diplomatic and consular programs'', the 
     Secretary of State shall allocate sufficient funding to the 
     United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy to 
     carry out section 604 of the United States Information and 
     Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1469), as amended 
     by this section.


                           amendment no. 2966

  (Purpose: To reauthorize and expand the multi-trades demonstration 
                                project)

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

     SEC. 322. EXPANSION AND REAUTHORIZATION OF MULTI-TRADES 
                   DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

       (a) Expansion.--Section 338 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (10 U.S.C. 5013 note) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(a) Demonstration Project Authorized.--In accordance with 
     section 4703 of title 5, United States Code, the Secretary of 
     a military department may carry out a demonstration project 
     at facilities described in subsection (b) under which workers 
     who are certified at the journey level as able to perform 
     multiple trades shall be promoted by one grade level.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``Logistics Center, Navy 
     Fleet Readiness Center,'' and inserting ``Logistics Complex, 
     Navy Fleet Readiness Center, Navy shipyard, Marine Corps 
     Logistics Base,''.
       (b) Reauthorization.--Such section is further amended--
       (1) in subsection (d), by striking ``2013'' and inserting 
     ``2018''; and
       (2) in subsection (e), by striking ``2014'' and inserting 
     ``2019''.


                           amendment no. 2973

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on training of mental 
health counselors for members of the Armed Forces, veterans, and their 
                               families)

       At the end of subtitle D of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. 735. SENSE OF SENATE ON MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELORS FOR 
                   MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES, VETERANS, AND 
                   THEIR FAMILIES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs should develop a plan to ensure a sustainable flow of 
     qualified counselors to meet the long-term needs of members 
     of the Armed Forces, veterans, and their families for 
     counselors; and
       (2) the plan should include the participation of accredited 
     schools and universities, health care providers, professional 
     counselors, family service or support centers, chaplains, and 
     other appropriate resources of the Department of Defense and 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs.


                           amendment no. 2980

(Purpose: To require an Inspector General of the Department of Defense 
report on allowable costs of compensation of employees of Department of 
                          Defense contractors)

       On page 238. between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       (c) Report on Allowable Costs of Employee Compensation.--
     Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this

[[Page S7177]]

     Act, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the effect of the modification 
     of allowable costs of contractor compensation of employees 
     made by subsection (a). The report shall include the 
     following:
       (1) The total number of contractor employees whose 
     allowable costs of compensation in fiscal year 2012 exceeded 
     the amount of allowable costs under the modification made by 
     subsection (a).
       (2) The total number of contractor employees whose 
     allowable costs of compensation in each of fiscal years 2010, 
     2011, and 2012 would have exceeded the amount of allowable 
     costs under section 2324(e)(1)(P) of title 10, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 803(a) of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81; 
     125 Stat. 1485).
       (3) The total number of contractor employees whose 
     allowable costs of compensation in each of fiscal years 2010, 
     2011, and 2012 exceeded the amount payable to the President 
     under section 102 of title 3, United States Code.
       (4) The total number of contractor employees in fiscal year 
     2012 that could have been characterized as falling within a 
     narrowly targeted exception established by the Secretary of 
     Defense under section 2324(e)(1)(P) of title 10, United 
     States Code, as a result of the amendment made by section 
     803(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2012.
       (5) An assessment whether the compensation amounts provided 
     in fiscal year 2012 to employees who were characterized by 
     their employers as falling within a narrowly targeted 
     exception described in paragraph (4) were provided 
     compensation amounts in that fiscal year in manner consistent 
     with private sector practice.
       (6) The duties and services performed in fiscal year 2012 
     by employees who were characterized by their employers as 
     falling within a narrowly targeted exception described in 
     paragraph (4).
       (7) An assessment whether there are Federal civilian 
     employees who perform duties and services comparable to the 
     duties and services described pursuant to paragraph (6).


                           amendment no. 2994

(Purpose: To require a report on a program on the return of rare earth 
phosphors from Department of Defense fluorescent lighting waste to the 
                   domestic rare earth supply chain)

       At the end of subtitle F of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1064. REPORT ON PROGRAM ON RETURN OF RARE EARTH 
                   PHOSPHORS FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   FLUORESCENT LIGHTING WASTE TO THE DOMESTIC RARE 
                   EARTH SUPPLY CHAIN.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) In its December 2011 report entitled ``Critical 
     Materials Strategy'', the Department of Energy states that 
     the heavy rare earth phosphors, dysprosium, europium, 
     terbium, and yttrium, are particularly important given their 
     relative scarcity and their importance to clean energy, 
     energy efficiency, hybrid and electric vehicles, and advanced 
     defense systems, among other key technologies.
       (2) While new sources of production of rare earth elements 
     show promise, these are focused primarily on the light rare 
     earth elements.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the recycling of end-use technologies that use rare 
     earth elements can provide near-term opportunities to 
     recapture, reprocess, and reuse some of the rare earth 
     elements contained in them;
       (2) fluorescent lighting materials could prove to be a 
     promising recyclable source of heavy rare earth elements;
       (3) a cost-benefit analysis would be helpful in determining 
     the viability of a Department of Defense program to recycle 
     fluorescent lighting waste in order to increase its supplies 
     of heavy rare earth elements; and
       (4) the recycling of heavy rare earth elements may be one 
     component of a long term strategic plan to address the global 
     demand for such elements, without which such elements could 
     be unnecessarily lost.
       (c) Report Required.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than March 1, 2013, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report on the results of a cost-benefit 
     analysis on, and on recommendations concerning, the 
     feasibility and advisability of establishing a program within 
     the Department of Defense to--
       (A) recapture fluorescent lighting waste; and
       (B) make such waste available to entities that have the 
     ability to extract rare earth phosphors, reprocess and 
     separate them in an environmentally safe manner, and return 
     them to the domestic rare earth supply chain.
       (2) Elements.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall 
     include analysis of measures that could be taken to--
       (A) provide for the disposal and mitigation of residual 
     mercury and other hazardous byproducts to be produced by the 
     recycling process; and
       (B) address concerns regarding the potential export of 
     heavy rare earth materials obtained from United States 
     Government sources to non-allied nations.


                           amendment no. 3059

  (Purpose: To require a report on the establishment of a joint Armed 
          Forces historical storage and preservation facility)

       At the end of subtitle F of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1064. REPORT ON ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT ARMED FORCES 
                   HISTORICAL STORAGE AND PRESERVATION FACILITY.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report setting forth an 
     assessment of the feasability and advisability of 
     establishing a joint Armed Forces historical storage and 
     preservation facility. The report shall include a description 
     and assessment of the current capacities and qualities of the 
     historical storage and preservation facilities of each of the 
     Armed Forces, including the following:
       (1) An identification of any excess capacity at any such 
     facility.
       (2) An identification of any shortfalls in the capacity or 
     quality of such facilities of any Armed Force, and a 
     description of possible actions to address such shortfalls.


                           amendment no. 3072

    (Purpose: To express the sense of Senate on increasing the cost-
  effectiveness of training exercises for members of the Armed Forces)

       At the end of subtitle E of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 272. SENSE OF SENATE ON INCREASING THE COST-
                   EFFECTIVENESS OF TRAINING EXERCISES FOR MEMBERS 
                   OF THE ARMED FORCES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) modeling and simulation will continue to play a 
     critical role in the training of the members of the Armed 
     Forces;
       (2) while increased modeling and simulation has reduced 
     overall costs of training of members of the Armed Forces, 
     there are still significant costs associated with the human 
     resources required to execute certain training exercises 
     where role-playing actors for certain characters such as 
     opposing forces, the civilian populace, other government 
     agencies, and non-governmental organizations are required;
       (3) technological advances in areas such as varying levels 
     of autonomy for systems, multi-player gaming techniques, and 
     artificial intelligence could reduce the number of personnel 
     required to support certain training exercises for members of 
     the Armed Forces, and thereby reduce the overall cost of the 
     exercises; and
       (4) the Secretary of Defense should develop a plan to 
     increase the use of emerging technologies in autonomous 
     systems, the commercial gaming sector, and artificial 
     intelligence for training exercises for members of the Armed 
     Forces to increase training effectiveness and reduce costs.


                           amendment no. 3086

  (Purpose: To require assessments by the Air Force of the effects of 
      proposed movements of airframes on joint readiness training)

       At the end of title XVII, add the following:

     SEC. 1711. AIR FORCE ASSESSMENTS OF THE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED 
                   MOVEMENTS OF AIRFRAMES ON JOINT READINESS 
                   TRAINING.

       The Secretary of the Air Force shall--
       (1) undertake an assessment of the effects of currently-
     proposed movements of Air Force airframes on Green Flag East 
     and Green Flag West joint readiness training; and
       (2) if the Secretary determines it appropriate, submit to 
     the congressional defense committees a report setting forth a 
     proposal to make future replacements of capabilities for 
     purposes of augmenting training at the joint readiness 
     training center (JRTC) or for such other purposes as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate.


                           amendment no. 3098

(Purpose: To require a report by the suspension and debarment officials 
     of the military departments and the Defense Logistics Agency)

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

     SEC. 888. REPORT BY THE SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT OFFICIALS OF 
                   THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS AND THE DEFENSE 
                   LOGISTICS AGENCY.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the suspension and debarment 
     official of each agency specified in subsection (b) shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a report on 
     the suspension and debarment activities of such official 
     containing the information specified in subsection (c).
       (b) Covered Agencies.--The agencies specified in this 
     subsection are the following:
       (1) The Department of the Army.
       (2) The Department of the Navy.
       (3) The Department of the Air Force.
       (4) The Defense Logistics Agency.
       (c) Covered Information.--The information specified in this 
     subsection to be included in the report of a suspension and 
     debarment official under subsection (a) is the following:
       (1) The number of open suspension and debarment cases of 
     such official as of the date of such report.
       (2) The current average processing time for suspension and 
     debarment cases.
       (3) The target goal of such official for average processing 
     time for suspension and debarment proposals.

[[Page S7178]]

       (4) If the average time required for such official to 
     process suspension and debarment proposals is more than twice 
     the target goal specified under paragraph (3)--
       (A) an explanation why the average time exceeds the target 
     goal by more than twice the target goal; and
       (B) a description of the actions to be taken by such 
     official to ensure that the average processing time for 
     suspension and debarment proposals meets the target goal.


                           amendment no. 3186

 (Purpose: To require a study on small arms and ammunition acquisition)

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

     SEC. 888. STUDY ON ARMY SMALL ARMS AND AMMUNITION 
                   ACQUISITION.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     enter into a contract with a Federally Funded Research and 
     Development Center to conduct a study on the Army's 
     acquisition of small arms and ammunition to determine each of 
     the following:
       (A) A comparative evaluation of the current military small 
     arms in use by United States general purpose and special 
     operations forces, allied foreign militaries, and those 
     potential candidate small arms not necessarily in use 
     militarily but available commercially.
       (B) An assessment of the Department of Defense's current 
     plans to modernize its small arms capabilities.
       (C) A comparative evaluation of the Army's standard small 
     arms ammunition with other small arms ammunition 
     alternatives.
       (2) Factors to consider.--The study required under 
     subsection (a) shall take into consideration the following 
     factors:
       (A) Current and future operating environments as specified 
     or referred to in Department of Defense strategic guidance 
     and planning documents.
       (B) Modifications and improvements recently applied to 
     United States general purpose and special operations forces 
     small arms as well as their potential for continued 
     modification and improvement.
       (C) Industrial base impacts.
       (3) Access to information.--The Secretary of Defense and 
     the Secretary of the Army shall ensure that the Federally 
     Funded Research and Development Center conducting the study 
     required under subsection (a) has access to all necessary 
     data, records, analysis, personnel, and other resources 
     necessary to complete the study.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than September 30, 2013, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report containing the results of the 
     study conducted under subsection (a), together with the 
     comments of the Secretary of Defense on the findings 
     contained in the study.
       (2) Classified annex.--The report shall be in unclassified 
     form, but may contain a classified annex.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``small arms'' means--
       (A) firearms up to but not including .50 caliber; and
       (B) shotguns.
       (2) The term ``small arms ammunition'' means ammunition or 
     ordnance for--
       (A) firearms up to but not including .50 caliber; and
       (B) shotguns.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, what is the pending matter?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is now in order for the Senator 
from New Hampshire to offer an amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. There is 20 minutes evenly divided?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There will be.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 3245

  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set 
aside the pending amendment so I may call up my amendment No. 3245, 
which is at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Ms. Ayotte] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3245.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for the transfer or release of 
 certain individuals from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 
                                 Cuba)

       At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1032. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR THE TRANSFER OR 
                   RELEASE OF INDIVIDUALS FROM UNITED STATES NAVAL 
                   STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.

       No authorized to be appropriated funds may be used to 
     transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to or 
     within the United States, its territories, or possessions of 
     Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who--
       (1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States; and
       (2) is or was held on or after January 20, 2009, at United 
     States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department 
     of Defense.

  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise in support of my amendment No. 
3245.
  Last year, in the Defense authorization bill we had in it a 
prohibition that would prohibit transferring those who are held in 
military custody at the Guantanamo Bay facility from there to the 
United States of America. This year, as the language of the Defense 
authorization stands, there is no such prohibition, making it possible 
for the administration, should it choose, to transfer from the 
Guantanamo Bay detention facility 166 foreign enemy combatants who are 
being currently detained at Guantanamo. I am deeply concerned that the 
Defense authorization does not include this prohibition of transfer 
language, and that is why I have brought forth this amendment.
  I am also pleased that this amendment is being cosponsored by the 
vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator 
Chambliss, as well as Senators Inhofe, Graham, Kirk, and Sessions.
  We have at Guantanamo Bay a top-rate facility that allows for the 
secure and humane detention and interrogation of foreign terrorist 
detainees, including right now the mastermind of the attacks of our 
country on 9/11.
  I don't think anyone in this body would dispute that when our country 
was attacked on September 11, that was an act of war against the United 
States of America, and we remain, unfortunately, at war with members of 
al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations that want to kill Americans 
and our allies simply for what we believe in and for what we stand for 
in this country. This is a war, and those who were killed on September 
11 were victims of this war.
  One of the concerns I have is that when we are at war, the priority 
always has to be to detain those who are captured, pursuant to that 
war, in military custody.
  We have at Guantanamo Bay a top-rate facility. I have visited it 
personally. Those who are held there are treated humanely. It is a very 
secure facility that is not on our homeland, and it is very well 
protected by our military.
  Also at that facility is a top-rate court, where military commissions 
can be held for those who are charged who are held at Guantanamo Bay. 
Why is that important? Because when you are at war, those aren't mere 
criminals--they are not mere criminals who have committed a burglary in 
our neighborhood. They have committed acts of terror against our 
country, and they are very dangerous individuals, many of whom would 
attempt do so again were they released. That is another reason why I 
have brought this amendment forward, because I think it is very 
important that the American people be safe and secure and that those 
individuals who are being held there--many of them who are tremendously 
dangerous--be held in a secure facility that is not on our soil.
  In 2009, the Attorney General discussed and sought to bring Khalid 
Shaikh Mohammed--the mastermind of 9/11--to trial in New York City. The 
American people and members of both sides of the aisle objected to 
having the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York City. As a 
result, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is being held at Guantanamo Bay. He will 
be tried by a military commission. But that demonstration made it clear 
the American people do not want foreign members of al-Qaida and 
associated terrorist organizations being brought to the United States 
when we have a secure facility at Guantanamo Bay that we have spent 
resources to update, that is very humane.
  In fact, in February of 2012, the Washington Post asked: Do you 
approve of the decision to keep open the Guantanamo Bay prison for 
terror suspects? Seventy percent of the American people who answered 
that survey said: Yes, we approve of it.
  I want people to understand whom we are talking about transferring 
from Guantanamo Bay to the United States of America and understand the 
individuals and some of the background of those who are being held at 
Guantanamo Bay, coming to a neighborhood near you.

[[Page S7179]]

  This is, of course, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, 
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is being held at Guantanamo Bay. He is 
often called KSM. He claims to have personally decapitated American 
journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002, and he admitted to playing a role in 
over 30 terrorist plots. Some of these include a 1995 plot to blow up 
12 U.S. airliners flying from Southeast Asia to the United States for 
which he was indicted the following year; the 1993 World Trade Center 
bombing; a plot to hit towers in Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles, New 
York's Empire State Building, and nuclear power stations. KSM also 
claimed he was involved in a plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II and 
President Bill Clinton. He, of course, met Osama bin Laden in the 
1980s, and in 1999 KSM persuaded Osama bin Laden to support the 
horrible acts that occurred on our soil on September 11.
  Mullah Mohammad Fazil is another individual being held at Guantanamo 
Bay. Fazil is suspected in the death of CIA Officer Johnny ``Mike'' 
Spann in 2001, the first casualty of the Afghanistan war. He was deemed 
by U.S. officials as a high threat to the United States. It was 
assessed that he would likely rejoin the Taliban and participate in 
operations against U.S. and coalition forces if released. He was at one 
time the most senior Taliban leader in northern Afghanistan. In fact, 
he was so senior he once threatened Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Fazil 
has been implicated in the murder of thousands of Shiites in northern 
Afghanistan under Taliban control, and he is wanted by the United 
Nations for possible war crimes.
  Another individual being held at Guantanamo Bay, Mohammad Nabi, is 
tied to a 2002 attack that killed two Americans and maintains loyalty 
to al-Qaida.
  Let's be clear. There is a 28-percent recidivism rate of those we 
have released from Guantanamo Bay back to foreign nationals who have 
gotten back into the battle against our country. These are individuals 
who have not renounced the war on terror. The recidivism record speaks 
for itself. They have gotten into the battle. They still want to be 
involved in terrorist activities. They still want to be a member of al-
Qaida or other terrorist groups and commit acts against our country and 
our allies.
  Again, Mohammed Nabi is tied to the 2002 attack that killed two 
Americans. He maintains loyalty to al-Qaida. Yet some of my colleagues, 
if you think about it, would insist in other amendments we are dealing 
with today that he be treated as a common criminal.
  One of the concerns I have is that if we close Guantanamo and we 
transfer all of those individuals to the U.S. courts, will they then 
claim all of the rights here in the United States? And God forbid any 
of them had to be released here as a result of challenges they would 
bring.
  Nabi was a senior Taliban official also who helped finance the 
Taliban and smuggled weapons used against our troops. Nabi maintained 
weapons stockpiles and helped smuggle fighters and weapons to attack 
our warfighters. He is reportedly loyal to the Pakistan-based Haqqani 
terrorist network. The Haqqani network, of course, has been designated 
by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization, and the 
Haqqanis are loyal to the Taliban and behind some of the largest 
attacks against the United States, Afghan, and coalition troops and 
interests in Afghanistan. He was also a member of a joint al-Qaida/
Taliban cell in Khost, Afghanistan, that was involved in attacks 
against the United States and coalition forces. He continues to have 
issues with his behavior and how he has conducted himself.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Ms. AYOTTE. He is just one of the individuals who, if we do not have 
this prohibition, may be transferred to the United States of America.
  Those are just three of the individuals who are present at Guantanamo 
Bay who could be coming to a neighborhood near you. Some may cite--one 
of the reasons I brought forth this amendment as well is some may cite 
a GAO report saying that we could somehow transfer these individuals 
here. Let's be clear what that GAO report says.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I ask this body to agree to this amendment and not bring 
these terrorists here to the United States of America.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment, and I ask 
Members to vote against it. The distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire just said that any transfer of Guantanamo detainees out of 
that facility essentially endangers Americans. But consider how 
effectively we hold terrorists in the United States today.
  We have 180 terrorists in Federal prisons in the United States of 
America who are in maximum security, and they cannot escape. We have 
supermax prisons. We have prisons where for 23 hours a day individuals 
are in a cell that is all concrete with just a small viewing place.
  What this amendment would do is prevent any flexibility forever in 
how the U.S. government can handle those held in Guantanamo Bay. For 
example, the Guantanamo detainees could not be moved to a supermax 
prison in the United States. I don't think preventing options is the 
right thing to do. No one in all these years has escaped from a 
supermax prison in the United States of America. So clearly, the 
detainees could be held safely and securely.
  Additionally, I believe this amendment could bring on a veto by the 
President. Today, a statement of administration policy was issued that 
indicated concern about restricting the transfer of Guantanamo 
detainees.
  I believe Guantanamo has been a blight on the image of our country 
across this world and it should be closed down. It is important to note 
that there are reasons to have the flexibility that Senator Ayotte's 
amendment would restrict.
  For example, there are detainees at Guantanamo who could be 
transferred to the U.S. to be convicted in federal criminal courts. 
Others try to leave, like the Uighurs, for instance, but there is no 
place for them to go. And this amendment restricts them from being 
transferred here to the United States.
  Many say, why would we let terrorists come to our backyard? Well, 
let's consider the hundreds of terrorists that are already in our 
backyard serving time at 98 facilities across the United States, 
according to a GAO report released yesterday.
  The Blind Sheik is incarcerated in a Federal prison in the U.S. 
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's nephew, Ramzi Yousef, is in a Federal prison 
here. Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber, is in a Federal prison here. 
Najibullah Zazi and Adis Medunjanin, who plotted to bomb New York 
subway system, are both in Federal prison here.
  I have a list of terrorists arrested here, 98 of them since 2009, who 
will go to Federal prisons. Let me describe a few of these arrests. One 
of the examples was earlier this month, Ralph Deleon, with Miguel 
Alejandro Santana Vidriales and Arifeen David Gojali were arrested by 
the FBI. They were planning to travel to Afghanistan to attend 
terrorist training and commit violent jihad. They will do time in a 
Federal prison here. Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis plotted to bomb the New York 
Federal Reserve Bank on October 20, 2012. He will do time in a Federal 
prison here. Adel Daoud plotted to bomb a downtown Chicago bar in 
September 2012, and he will do time in a Federal prison here.
  Our Federal prisons hold terrorists already and they will continue to 
hold them. So to remove any kind of flexibility on Guantanamo and to 
say that you cannot move a detainee out of the facility and into a 
Federal prison in the United States is a mistake. I very strongly 
believe perpetuating Guantanamo forever is a mistake. So I ask my 
colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 2 minutes 
to respond, and then I will defer to my colleague from South Carolina.
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, how much time is left on 
each side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Time in opposition is 5\1/2\ 
minutes.

[[Page S7180]]

The proponents of the amendment have no time remaining.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I don't have any time remaining. OK.
  Mr. LEVIN. Would the Senator from California agree that there be 5 
minutes added to each side?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I do not need additional time. I would be willing to 
add an additional 2 minutes.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Then I defer.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is fine. I think there is no objection.
  Mr. GRAHAM. We thought there was 20 minutes on each side. Apparently, 
it is close enough. Just a few minutes? But I want Senator Ayotte to 
wrap this up.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that 6 additional minutes be added 
to the proponents of this amendment and, if needed, that 6 additional 
minutes be added to the other side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I would like to respond briefly.
  I have great respect for the Senator from California. The distinction 
here in the cases she has been citing--the disposition of them--I think 
is a very important distinction. Certainly we have good Federal court 
systems. They are designed, though, for criminals and for crimes. 
Guantanamo Bay is a secure facility on which we have spent substantial 
resources to make a top-grade facility. I visited there. That is for 
terrorists when there is an act of war against our country, and those 
individuals who are being held there have committed acts that warrant 
them being held in military detention because of the terrorist acts I 
have outlined and the individuals involved. There is a big distinction, 
and the American people do not want those individuals brought here to 
the United States of America.
  With that, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from South 
Carolina.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, long story short, the American people 
believe that the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, isolated from 
the American population, that is being well run by our military and 
monitored by all kinds of organizations, is a satisfactory answer to 
the problem of terrorism. Simply stated, the American people do not 
want to close Guantanamo Bay, which is an isolated, military-controlled 
facility, to bring these crazy bastards who want to kill us all to the 
United States. Most Americans believe that the people at Guantanamo Bay 
are not some kind of burglar or bank robber. They are bent on our 
destruction. I stand with the American people, that we are under siege, 
we are under attack, and we are at war.
  Some of my colleagues in this body have forgotten what 9/11 is all 
about. The people in that prison who attacked us on 9/11 want to 
destroy our way of life. They do not want to steal your car. They don't 
want to break into your house.
  We have a military prison being well run, so I think the American 
people are telling everybody in this body: Have you lost your minds? We 
are at war; act like we are at war.
  I yield.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have heard a lot of hyperbole 
tonight. Of course we are at war. Part of the glory of this country is 
the values we hold dear. We have a Federal court system that has 
worked. We have 373 people connected to terrorism serving time in the 
Federal prisons of the United States of America. They are under an 
entity called the Bureau of Prisons that sees that the facilities are 
run the way they should be. Most are in isolated areas, such as the one 
in Florence in Colorado. It is far from the city--I think some 30 
miles--and is a maximum security prison in part.
  The GAO report just released yesterday showed that the Federal prison 
system can hold Guantanamo detainees safely and securely. To keep 
Guantanamo open forever, to say that there is no flexibility as to what 
you can do with the detainees in terms of transferring them into the 
United States, into Federal custody, I think is wrong.
  I have seen and watched on the Judiciary Committee and the 
Intelligence Committee real problems with military commissions. I think 
Senator Graham understands that and has seen it as well. I do not 
believe the rate of convictions in Military Commissions any way equals 
the rate of convictions in Federal courts and think about how much time 
it has taken to get the Military Commission trials going compared to 
federal courts.
  I really think this is very much a kind of political movement, that 
Guantanamo, isolated from everything, run by the military, has to keep 
people for the rest of their lives. Maybe that is what some people 
think. But a terrorist act is also a criminal act. It is a heinous 
criminal act, but one which our federal criminal courts can provide 
justice. Not just Guantanamo. So I really urge a ``no'' vote on this. 
Hopefully, if it passes, it can be removed in conference.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. How much time remains for the opponents?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Three minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I very much oppose this amendment. We have 
a court system in this country which is second to none. To deny this 
administration or any administration the opportunity, should they 
choose to exercise their discretion, to charge terrorists as criminals 
seems to me to be highly unwise and is not a particularly strong step 
in the war against terrorism.
  This amendment is undesirable. It would create a permanent 
restriction on the administration's options--not, by the way, just this 
administration's options, any administration's options in conducting 
the fight against terrorism. It prevents the administration's ability 
to bring any detainee from Guantanamo for any purpose, including their 
prosecution in court. I think it is unwise and not a strong step at all 
in the war on terror to deprive the President of the tools he might 
need to carry out the protection of this country from the threat of 
terrorism.
  This amendment would permanently cut off the possibility of 
prosecuting these Guantanamo detainees in Federal court. I hope we do 
not do that. I hope we defeat the amendment of my friend from New 
Hampshire, Senator Ayotte.
  Finally, this is what we call veto bait. The administration continues 
to strongly oppose these provisions which intrude upon the executive 
branch's ability to carry out its military, national security, and 
foreign relations activities and to determine when and where to 
prosecute Guantanamo detainees.

  So it is unwise in terms of our national security; it is unwise in 
terms of the rigidity it imposes on the executive branch as to where to 
prosecute terrorists, alleged terrorists, and it also jeopardizes the 
signing of this bill as soon as we can get this bill to a conference 
and get a conference report back to both bodies. So I hope we defeat 
the Ayotte amendment.
  If we have any time left, I yield it back.
  Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Ayotte amendment is pending.
  Mr. LEVIN. Has all time been used?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. So under the existing UC, we are now moving to the 
Feinstein amendment, and that is now the pending business?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. It has not been called up yet by 
the Senator from California.
  Mr. LEVIN. I understand. Let me then ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Inhofe, on behalf of Senator Coons and himself, offer a cleared 
amendment at this point.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3201

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment for the consideration of amendment No. 3201.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page S7181]]


       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for Mr. Coons and 
     himself, proposes an amendment numbered 3201.

  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the 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 express the sense of the Senate on ongoing efforts to 
    apprehend or remove Joseph Kony and his top commanders from the 
  battlefield and end atrocities perpetuated by his Lord's Resistance 
                                 Army)

       At the end of subtitle D of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 1246. EFFORTS TO REMOVE JOSEPH KONY FROM POWER AND END 
                   ATROCITIES COMMITTED BY THE LORD'S RESISTANCE 
                   ARMY.

       Consistent with the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and 
     Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-172), it 
     is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the ongoing United States advise and assist operation 
     to support the regional governments in Africa in their 
     ongoing efforts to apprehend or remove Joseph Kony and his 
     top commanders from the battlefield and end atrocities 
     perpetuated by his Lord's Resistance Army should continue;
       (2) using amounts authorized to be appropriated by section 
     301 and specified in the funding table in section 4301 for 
     Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide for ``Additional ISR 
     Support to Operation Observant Compass'', the Secretary of 
     Defense should provide increased intelligence, surveillance, 
     and reconnaissance assets to support the ongoing efforts of 
     United States Special Operations Forces to advise and assist 
     regional partners as they conduct operations against the 
     Lord's Resistance Army in Central Africa;
       (3) United States and regional African forces should 
     increase their operational coordination; and
       (4) the regional governments should recommit themselves to 
     the operations sanctioned by the African Union Peace and 
     Security Council resolution.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides. This is the one that originally we had several years ago 
concerning the Lord's Resistance Army in Africa and the showing that we 
have a policy in this country to bring this man down, the man called 
Joseph Kony. And we want to renew this so that we will have this 
pending again. It doesn't change anything that is going on at the 
present time except it keeps our policy in effect; that we are after 
the Lord's Resistance Army, and we will do what we have been doing in 
the past until it is completed.
  So I ask my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Let me, first of all, commend Senators Inhofe and Coons. 
This is a very important amendment, and the determination to go after 
Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army is essential not just in terms of 
the values that we so dearly believe in, but also in terms of avoiding 
further slaughter that has been perpetrated by Kony.
  So I commend Senators Inhofe and Coons, and I hope this amendment 
will not only pass but will send a very important statement as to where 
America stands on this subject.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate on the 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3201) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INHOFE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think we may have someone--we want to 
yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Utah.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. The pending business is still the Ayotte amendment. I am 
just wondering if the Senator from Utah might indicate what it is that 
he will speak on.
  Mr. LEE. I wish to speak for 5 minutes regarding the Feinstein-Lee 
amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if we could get to the Feinstein amendment. I am 
sure Senator Feinstein will be happy to yield time to the Senator from 
Utah.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.


                           Amendment No. 3018

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 
3018.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself, 
     Mr. Lee, Mr. Coons, Ms. Collins, Mr. Paul, Mr. Lautenberg, 
     Mrs. Gillibrand, and Mr. Kirk, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3018.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that the 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 clarify that 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)

       At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1032. PROHIBITION ON THE INDEFINITE DETENTION OF 
                   CITIZENS AND LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS.

       Section 4001 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b)(1) 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.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to an authorization to use 
     military force, a declaration of war, or any similar 
     authority enacted before, on, or after the date of the 
     enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act For 
     Fiscal Year 2013.
       ``(3) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to authorize the 
     detention of a citizen of the United States, a lawful 
     permanent resident of the United States, or any other person 
     who is apprehended in the United States.''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I note that Senator Lee is on the floor, and I know 
he wants to speak as he is a cosponsor of this amendment. So I will 
yield to him, and then when he finishes I will speak.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak 
regarding amendment No. 3018, the Feinstein-Lee amendment.
  It has come to my attention that some opponents of the Feinstein-Lee 
amendment have made an argument that habeas corpus is sufficient to 
protect the rights of Americans apprehended on American soil and 
detained by the United States Government. This is nothing more than 
another way of suggesting that the government should be able to detain 
some Americans indefinitely without charge or trial. I disagree and 
believe that our constitutional traditions demand more than this--
significantly more.
  The fifth amendment of our Constitution provides that ``No person . . 
. shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property without due 
process of law.''
  As Supreme Court Justice Antonin 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.

  This right of American persons to due process of law is foundational 
to the very idea of individual liberty from unwarranted government 
intrusion.
  I have worked with Senator Feinstein and other colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to craft an amendment originally entitled the Due 
Process Guarantee Act to ensure that this basic constitutional right is 
indeed protected. I believe even with the serious national security 
threats we now face, America must hold fast to our most fundamental 
constitutional rights and liberties.
  The U.S. Government should not be authorized to detain Americans 
indefinitely without charge and without trial. As Justice Scalia 
explained, the proposition that the Executive lacks indefinite wartime 
detention authority over citizens is consistent with the Founders' 
general mistrust of military power permanently at the Executive's 
disposal.
  I believe it is clear that the Founders of our Constitution were 
acutely aware of this critical tradeoff--the tradeoff

[[Page S7182]]

we still face today--between safety on the one hand and freedom on the 
other. On this very point, Alexander Hamilton was prescient. He wrote:

       Safety from external danger is the most powerful director 
     of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, 
     after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent 
     destruction of life and property incident to war; the 
     continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual 
     danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty, to 
     resort for repose and security to institutions which have a 
     tendency to destroy their civil and their political rights. 
     To be more safe they, at length, become willing to run the 
     risk of being less free.

  Our Nation's Founders warned us about the great danger of sacrificing 
our most basic liberties in the pursuit of security--security at all 
costs. They provided us with a Constitution framed to prevent precisely 
such a tragic outcome.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Feinstein-Lee amendment 
and against the mistaken idea that the government may detain American 
persons indefinitely without charge and without trial.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back the remainder of my time to 
Senator Feinstein.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the amendment before us is cosponsored 
by the distinguished Senator who just spoke, Senator Lee, as well as 
Senators Coons, Collins, Paul, Lautenberg, Gillibrand, Kirk, Tester, 
Johnson, Sanders, Whitehouse, Heller, Baucus, DeMint, Webb, Klobuchar, 
Bingaman, Rockefeller, Begich, and Boxer. An amendment similar to this 
received 45 votes in the last session.
  I wish to spend a moment on the genesis of this amendment because, 
for me, it goes back to April 1942, the day a Western Defense Command 
and Fourth Army Wartime Civil Control order went out in San Francisco 
with instructions to all persons of Japanese ancestry, that: All 
Japanese persons, both alien and nonalien, will be evacuated from the 
above designated areas by 12 o'clock noon on Tuesday, April 7, 1942. No 
Japanese person will be permitted to enter or leave the above described 
area after 8 a.m. Thursday.
  That was in the city of San Francisco.
  What was created was an internment camp near the city which became a 
staging area for the placement of Japanese Americans in detention camps 
without charge or trial for the remainder of World War II.
  This was Tanforan Racetrack, directly south of San Francisco. One 
Sunday afternoon--I was a small child in 1942--my father took me down 
to show it to me. This is what I saw. We see stalls made into bunk 
houses. We see the center of the field made into barracks. We see the 
little places where individuals were kept. We see Japanese-American 
citizens who did nothing wrong who were being interned for years during 
World War II.

  It was shocking. Then it took until 1971 for a bill to be passed and 
then signed by President Nixon reversing the policy. That bill was 
called the Non-Detention Act of 1971, and it repealed a 1950 statute 
that explicitly allowed detention of U.S. citizens. That 1971 bill 
said--and I quote:

       No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the 
     United States except pursuant to an act of Congress.

  Since then and after 9/11, various cases were litigated and went as 
far up as the Supreme Court. One of them in 2004 was Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 
and it addressed a very narrow issue involving a citizen captured on 
the battlefield of Afghanistan. Then a second case, Padilla v. 
Rumsfeld, in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals involved an American 
citizen captured in the U.S.
  So the question is whether the Non-Detention Act of 1971 prevents 
U.S. citizens captured in the U.S. like Padilla from being detained or 
whether the AUMF passed after 9/11 authorizes such law of war detention 
in the U.S.
  What we are trying to do with this simple amendment is what is called 
a clear statement rule, to say once and for all:

       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.

  I know this is a sensitive subject, but I believe we stand on the 
values of our country, and one of the values of our country is justice 
for all. And we have a Constitution that has 7 articles and 27 
amendments that give us fundamental protections.
  This amendment, which builds on the continuing application of the 
principles behind the Non-Detention Act of 1971, would provide very 
clearly that no military authorization allows the indefinite detention 
of U.S. citizens or green card holders who are apprehended inside the 
United States. Some may ask why just include citizens and green card 
holders. Let me be clear, if I could further and add ``all persons'' 
and get as many votes, I would. I do not think it would, and we have 
looked into how to do this for a year now. So we have limited it to 
what we believed could get the maximum number of votes in this body.
  Here is the point of this amendment: What if something happens and 
you are of the wrong race in the wrong place at the wrong time, and you 
are picked up and held without trial or charge in detention ad 
infinitum? We want to clarify so this cannot happen; so that the law 
does not permit an American citizen or a legal permanent resident to be 
picked up and held without end, without charge or trial.
  I want to say that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have 
proven time and time again that they are up to the challenge of 
detecting, stopping, arresting, and convicting terrorists found on U.S. 
soil.
  I have a document that was prepared by the Intelligence Committee 
staff lists 98 terrorists who have been arrested and are on their way 
to conviction and will do time, many of them life sentences, in Federal 
prisons, and these are just those arrested in the last 3 or 4 years.
  Since January of 2009, there are 98 who have been successfully 
arrested. I think it is important to understand that suspected 
terrorists who may be in the United States illegally can be detained 
within the criminal justice system under four options that exist today. 
They can be charged with a Federal or State crime and held. They can be 
held for violating immigration laws. They can be held as material 
witnesses as part of a Federal grand jury proceedings. They can be held 
under section 412 of the PATRIOT Act for up to 12 months.
  This amendment 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 and 
they are.
  It is about the innocent American, again in the wrong place, at the 
wrong time, who gets picked up, like these innocent Japanese Americans 
shown in this picture who just happened to live in a certain part of 
the United States, in my hometown, San Francisco. But this was what 
happened. People were picked up and held for the duration of the war--
just because of their race.
  Finally, I want to quote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote for 
the plurality in the Hamdi decision in 2004:

       As critical as the Government's interest 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.

  So it is my hope we can clarify U.S. law to state unequivocally that 
the government cannot indefinitely detain American citizens or legal 
residents captured inside this country without trial or charge.
  We live with the stain of how we treated some of our own people 
during World War II. It should not be repeated.
  I thank the Acting President pro tempore, and I would like to yield 
to the distinguished Senator Paul, if I may.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Feinstein-Lee 
amendment to prevent the indefinite detention of American citizens 
without a trial by jury. In the year 1215, the English barons gathered 
on the plain at Runnymede. They gathered to protest against King John. 
They gathered for their rights as free men. And they gathered for the 
right to trial by jury.

[[Page S7183]]

We have had it enshrined in both English law and American law for 800 
years. It seems a shame to scrap it now.
  People say: But these terrorists are horrible people. Yes, they are 
horrible people. But every day and every night in our country horrible 
people are accused of crimes, and they are taken to court. They have an 
attorney on their side. They are given a trial. People we despise, 
people who murder and rape, are given trials by juries. We can try and 
we can prosecute terrorists.
  People say: But they are terrorists. Well, the thing is, you are an 
American citizen and you are accused of terrorism. Who is going to 
determine who is a terrorist and who is not a terrorist? They do not 
walk around with a badge. They do not walk around with a card that 
says: I am from al-Qaida. They will be accused of a crime, and there 
will be facts. Someone must judge the facts. That is what a jury does.
  To give up on this because we are afraid of terrorists is to give in 
to the terrorists. If we give up our rights, if we relinquish our 
rights, haven't the terrorists then won?
  Jefferson said the right to trial by jury was the ``anchor,'' it was 
the anchor by which we protect ``the principles of the Constitution.''
  Senator La Follette, a Senator from Wisconsin, said if we give up 
these rights, if we are unable to protect these rights, that ultimately 
the Bill of Rights loses its value.
  He said:

       Let no man think that we can deny civil liberty to others 
     and retain it for ourselves. When zealot agents of the 
     governments 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. . . .

  I would ask today of my colleagues that we have a chance to replace 
fear with confidence--confidence that no terrorist will ever conquer us 
if we remain steadfast to our principles--the principles of our 
Founders. We have nothing to fear except our own unwillingness to 
protect our rights. If we relinquish our right to trial by jury, we 
will have given up so much. Do not let those who would instill fear let 
you give up the most basic of rights--a right that prevents the 
oppression of government and the evolution or devolution into 
despotism.
  So I hope my colleagues will today vote to uphold an 800-year-old 
tradition, a tradition that is enshrined in the body of our 
Constitution, a tradition that is enshrined in our Bill of Rights, and 
a tradition that is in every constitution of all 50 States. Are we to 
give that up because we are fearful? We can and have convicted 
terrorists. We are not talking about terrorists from overseas. We are 
not talking about a battlefield somewhere else. We are talking about 
American citizens accused in our country.
  Why should you be wary? The government has descriptions of who might 
be a terrorist. If you have 7 days' of food in your basement, you might 
be a terrorist. If you have weatherized ammunition, you might be a 
terrorist. This is what your government describes as things you should 
report. Know your neighbor to report your neighbor. If you have 
weatherized ammunition, multiple guns, food in your basement, if you 
like to pay by cash--if these are the characteristics for which you 
might be accused of terrorism, would you not, at the very least, still 
want to retain your right as an American citizen to a right to a trial 
by a jury of your peers?
  I ask that we step up today and support an ancient tradition. And I 
worry about a country that would let a tradition like the right to 
trial by jury go so easily.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity. This is a 
good debate. It is a fascinating discussion. I guess the way I look at 
this issue--and we will talk with Senator Levin in a bit--I have been a 
military lawyer for about 30 years, and the first thing you do in JAG 
school is have a discussion about the difference between the law of war 
and criminal law. Every military lawyer is taught from the very 
beginning of their career that law of war detention is designed to 
neutralize the enemy and to gather intelligence about the enemy.
  There is a reason that when we capture somebody in a war we do not 
give them a trial by jury, and we do not give them a lawyer. We have 
3,000 people in American military custody in Afghanistan who were 
captured on the battlefield, and they are held under the law of war 
because we do not want to let them go back to killing us. And they are 
not given a lawyer because we are not trying to solve a crime; we are 
trying to win a war.
  Here is the question to my good friend from California: I do not want 
anyone to believe that under the law of war construct we have created 
over the last 7 or 8 years that you can be put in jail because you look 
like a Muslim, that you sound like a Muslim, that you have got a name 
Mohammad. What happened to Japanese-American citizens is they were put 
in military custody because we were all afraid and they looked like the 
enemy. That was not a high point in America.
  What are we talking about here? We are talking about detaining people 
under the law of war who are suspected of joining al-Qaida or the 
Taliban and engaging in a belligerent act against the United States. I 
want to make the record clear that some of my colleagues on the 
Republican side have been trying to deny law of war detention to the 
Obama administration, and they have openly said this: If you allow this 
to happen, President Obama is going to put you in jail because of 
political dissent.
  There are people on my side who are afraid of law of war detention 
being in Barack Obama's hands because they think,--they hate him so 
much they think he is going to use a provision to protect us against an 
al-Qaida attack to put them in jail because they disagree with his 
agenda.
  It gets worse. I want you to know this. There has been a statement in 
our conference that habeas corpus review by an independent judiciary 
where the intelligence community, the military, would have to prove in 
court by a preponderance of the evidence that the person in question 
has, in fact, engaged in hostilities against the United States by 
helping the Taliban or al-Qaida--that is the requirement of the 
government--they have to prove that to the judge, that is not really a 
check on government power because the judge could be an Obama 
appointee.
  As much as I disagree with President Obama, as much as I think he has 
been a divisive President, in many ways has failed to lead, I want to 
disassociate myself from the concept that you cannot give this 
Commander in Chief the powers that Commanders in Chief have enjoyed in 
other wars because we hate him so much.
  To my friends who get on the Internet and talk radio and stoke this 
paranoia, we are afraid enough for good reason. This is a dangerous 
world. We are about to walk off the fiscal cliff. We have people out 
there trying to undermine our way of life. There is a lot to be afraid 
of: Al-Qaida coming back to our shores, recruiting American citizens to 
help their endeavors. I hate to say it, in every war we have ever been 
in, there have been occasions when Americans joined the enemy.
  In World War II that happened. You had German saboteurs land on Long 
Island, aided and abetted by American citizens sympathetic to the 
Nazis. All of those American citizens in In Re: Quirin were held in 
military custody and tried by the military because we have long 
understood that when you join the enemy, that is not a crime but an act 
of war.
  We have very bad people who get a right to a jury trial. I will be 
the first one to say that when you go to court, no matter if you are 
the worst terrorist in the world, you will get a jury trial, you will 
get a lawyer, and you will have your due process rights. But the 
difference I am trying to inform the body of when you are fighting a 
war is the goal is not to prosecute people, the goal is to win. And how 
do you win a war? You kill them; you capture them; you interrogate them 
to find out what they are up to next. So I am here to say to my 
colleagues that the al-Qaida-Taliban efforts to do harm to our Nation 
are alive and growing. The narrative that al-Qaida has been decimated 
is a false narrative. What happened in Libya, unfortunately, is going 
to happen again.

[[Page S7184]]

  I know my good friend from California, who is the chairman of the 
Intelligence Committee, knows there are active efforts in our own 
backyard--and Joe Lieberman can tell you, too--to recruit American 
citizens to attack us--not to commit a crime, to join the enemy.
  All I am suggesting is that Barack Obama and every Commander in Chief 
in the future needs to have the tools available to protect us against 
an enemy. And the basic question is: Is fighting al-Qaida fighting a 
crime or fighting a war? I believe with all of my heart and soul that 
they do not want our property, they do not want our cars, they do not 
want our bank accounts, they want to destroy us. They hate what we 
stand for. Just as in World War II, when you decided to help the Nazis, 
you were held in military custody because you did something other than 
commit a crime.
  The goal here is if you capture an American citizen who has sided 
with the enemy that we preserve the ability of our military 
intelligence community to find out what they know about future attacks 
and present attacks. The goal of a criminal prosecution is to find 
justice under a criminal statute. The goal in time of war is to win.
  I do not believe in torturing people to get good information, but I 
do believe in interrogating them for military purposes if they have 
sided with the enemy.
  This is a great debate. But the one thing I do not want to associate 
myself with is as much as I may disagree with this President's agenda, 
there are people on my side of the aisle who are stirring up their 
fellow Americans, making them afraid that Barack Obama could use 
legitimate powers in a time of war to gather intelligence against 
people who sided with the enemy to come after them because they look 
different or they may have a different political belief. I want to 
disassociate myself with those on my side of the aisle who say that 
habeas corpus, an independent judiciary, is not an adequate check 
because Barack Obama may have appointed the judge. That undermines our 
judiciary. That creates paranoia. That creates a fundamental distrust 
of what I think is something we should be all proud of: America.
  This war will last probably longer than most of us. It is an 
ideological struggle. There is no capital to conquer, like Berlin and 
Japan. There is no air force to shoot down. There is no navy to sink. 
It is about an ideology that must be contained and fought, an ideology, 
unfortunately, that will be attractive to some Americans as it was in 
other wars.
  Unfortunately, as I speak today, the enemy is trying to come back to 
our shores and use some American citizens to further their cause. To an 
American citizen: Do not join al-Qaida or the Taliban. Do not turn on 
your country. Do not side with their view of humanity. If you do, you 
have not committed a crime, you have engaged in an act of war against 
the rest of us and we have a right to win this war. We have a right to 
hold you under the law of armed conflict as we have held others in the 
past, to find out why you joined, what you know, and what they are up 
to next. There is no American citizen in law of war custody. This 
President has not rounded up one person and put them in jail using the 
statute that exists today because they disagreed with him. I do not 
believe he will. All I am asking is that we have options available in 
this war that have existed in every war America has fought. Because 
here is my bottom-line belief, that as much as the Nazis represented a 
threat to humanity, al-Qaida represents an equal threat to humanity. 
And nobody in World War II would have entertained the idea that if you 
sided with the Nazis and you helped the saboteurs blow up parts of 
America, you should be considered anything other than an enemy who has 
joined the other side.

  So unlike criminal law, where you are trying to find justice for 
victims, this is about winning a war and marginalizing the enemy. And 
when the enemy is able to turn one of our own, the last thing in the 
world we should do is deny ourselves the ability to interrogate that 
person in a way to help us win the war and keep us safe. That has been 
the law forever when it comes to war. That is the law today, that will 
be the law tomorrow.
  I look forward to talking to Senator Levin, who has been a 100-
percent voice of reason, to talk about authorization to use force and 
the ability to detain.
  I will end with this thought: If you deny the ability to gather 
intelligence and detain, you do not want to put our troops in a 
position where they have to kill everybody they find. We want to 
capture the enemy when we can. Because when you capture the enemy, not 
only do you hurt the enemy, you find out a lot about what they are up 
to. Here is the question: If an American citizen is engaging in helping 
al-Qaida and the Taliban in a terrorist activity on our shores, are 
they the enemy? Yes, they are. We need to know about why they did what 
they did and what they are going to do next.
  With that, I will yield.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 9 minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. How much time is there left on our side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 17 minutes 24 seconds.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will wait until the very end and give the 
distinguished chairman the opportunity.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it would be my intent, if we need 
additional time, unless there is something else that is needed at about 
9:30 or so when this time runs out, to seek additional time for both--
for anyone who needs it, frankly. I do not know about both sides, 
because this is a multifaceted debate that we are going to have here 
tonight on this issue.
  I would yield myself 10 minutes. I would ask to be notified when I 
get to 10 minutes.
  The Feinstein amendment provides that no authorization for the use of 
military force may be construed to authorize the detention of U.S. 
citizens or lawful resident aliens who are captured inside the United 
States, unless--and this is a big ``unless''--an act of Congress 
expressly authorizes such detention.
  As I read the amendment, it says the military detention of U.S. 
citizens may be authorized in accordance with the law of war as long as 
this action is expressly authorized by Congress. Further, the 
amendment's requirement for express authorization applies only to the 
detention of U.S. citizens who are captured inside the United States. 
So no such authorization would be required for the detention of a U.S. 
citizen in the course of military operations overseas. I believe it is 
appropriate that Congress focus on the issue of military detention at 
the time they authorize the use of military force, as would be required 
by the Feinstein amendment.
  As the Supreme Court has stated: Detention is a fundamental and 
accepted incident to armed conflict. Without such authority, our Armed 
Forces could be put in the untenable position of being able to shoot to 
kill but not to capture and detain enemy forces.
  As to the ongoing conflict, I believe the 2001 authorization for the 
use of military force authorized the detention of U.S. citizens when 
appropriate in accordance with the laws of war.
  I base this view on the fact that the Supreme Court has said so.
  In the Hamdi case, the Supreme Court considered the relationship 
between the AUMF and the nondetention act which prohibits the detention 
of a U.S. citizen except where authorized by an act of Congress. The 
Supreme Court held in Hamdi that this statute does not preclude the 
detention of U.S. citizens on the battlefield in Afghanistan because 
the 2000 authorization for the use of military force, quoting the 
Supreme Court, ``is explicit congressional authorization for the 
detention of individuals'' in such circumstances. The Court explained 
that such detention is so fundamental and accepted as an incident to 
war as to be an exercise of the ``necessary and appropriate force'' 
that Congress authorized the President to use in the AUMF. In other 
words, the Supreme Court has already concluded that the authorization 
to use necessary and appropriate force is an explicit authorization to 
detain enemy combatants in accordance with the law of war, and that 
meets the test of the Feinstein amendment.
  Any other conclusion would lead to absurd results, under which we 
would tie the hands of our Armed Forces even

[[Page S7185]]

in the face of an actual invasion. For example, if a group of 
terrorists were to approach one of our Navy bases in boats loaded with 
bombs, our sailors protecting those ships at that base would be in the 
untenable position of being able to shoot to kill, but not to capture 
the enemy forces if Hamdi did not reach the conclusion it did.
  Similarly, in the unthinkable event that we were to experience a 9/
11-type attack, our military would be in the untenable position of 
having the authority to shoot down the hijacked aircraft but not to 
force them to land and to capture the enemy hijacker. Of course, we 
could not expect our military to inquire as to whether any of the enemy 
force were American citizens before deciding on the level of force to 
be applied.
  As the Supreme Court explained in its Hamdi decision, ``the capture, 
detention, and trial of unlawful combatants, by 'universal agreement 
and practice,' are 'important incidents of war''' and a ``fundamental 
and accepted incident to war.''
  What the Supreme Court said in Hamdi is explicit in the AUMF, in the 
authorization for use of military force, the core ``law of war'' 
authority for our military to capture and detain those who join enemy 
forces at a time of war and plan or participate in attacks against us. 
This core authority to use less than lethal force, rather than lethal 
force, in appropriate circumstances must be available to our military 
whenever and wherever it engages with the enemy.
  Again, Senator Feinstein's amendment does not prohibit the military 
detention of U.S. citizens who are captured or apprehended inside the 
United States because a U.S. citizen who joins a foreign army and 
attacks the United States should be subject to detention as an enemy 
combatant if it does not prohibit military detention and if it is 
expressly authorized by law. I read this as a statute authorizing the 
use of military force itself or some other act of Congress.
  This is a major difference between or from the amendment Senator 
Feinstein offered last year, which included no exception for 
congressional authorization. This new approach is appropriate because I 
believe that Congress ought to address the issue of detention of U.S. 
citizens when captured in the United States at the time that we 
authorize the use of force.
  The Supreme Court in Hamdi held that the existing authorization for 
use of military force does address this issue and does explicitly, in 
their words, authorize detention of U.S. citizens in that situation 
which was on the battlefield in Afghanistan, but that it explicitly, 
again in the words of the Hamdi Court, authorized the detention of U.S. 
citizens in the case of an individual who was captured in Afghanistan 
who was attacking U.S. forces.
  I believe the same reasoning applies to persons who join foreign 
armies and attack us militarily here in the United States when they 
bring the war here to the United States and attack us here. If they 
attack a Navy base and are captured by sailors defending their ships, 
the same logic that Hamdi applied to an attack in Afghanistan against 
our forces applies here. That is the same reason they used in that case 
to find that there was an explicit authorization for the detention of 
U.S. citizens in the Afghanistan circumstance; that it is an inherent 
fundamental function of war, that you be able to capture and detain 
people who are at war with you, applies when that act of war is carried 
out here in the United States, such as in the attack on a Navy base.
  I request 1 additional minute.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Feinstein amendment provides an appropriate signal to 
Congress that in an authorizing context they should be aware of 
detention authority issues. Therefore, I intend to vote for the 
Feinstein amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, may I ask how much time remains on our 
side and on the other side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 17 minutes remaining.
  Ms. AYOTTE. There is 17 minutes remaining in opposition?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise to agree with my colleague Senator 
Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, in his 
interpretation of the Hamdi decision with regard to the review of the 
current amendment pending before us. The Feinstein amendment includes 
different language than the amendment that was brought forward and 
defeated in this body last year. The language says in 2(b)(1) that 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.
  I do view, as does my colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, the 
Hamdi decision that was decided before our U.S. Supreme Court as 
rendering an opinion that the current authorization for the use of 
military force that is in effect for our country gives explicit 
congressional authority for the detention of individuals such as in the 
case of Hamdi. He was an American citizen engaged in the battle against 
our country and would fall underneath the authorization for military 
force. In the Hamdi decision, the Court said that the AUMF, which has 
currently been approved by Congress, having the full force and effect 
of law, gives explicit congressional authorization for such detention.

  I too believe, as Senator Levin has said, under that authorization, 
the Hamdi decision would be interpreted similarly if an individual who 
was a covered individual--a member who was covered by the authorization 
for military force but was nevertheless a United States citizen--was 
caught here committing an act of terrorism in this country. Our Supreme 
Court has already interpreted that in Hamdi in such a way. I wanted to 
add my support for his interpretation of the current Feinstein language 
in that way.
  I wish also to say in response to the arguments of some of my 
colleagues that if the argument that is being made is this, that if you 
are an American citizen who is captured in this country committing an 
act of terrorism against our country and collaborating with al-Qaida, 
committing belligerent acts in this country, then you should be held 
under the law of war. If you are not, then we will have to give you 
Miranda rights. We will have to tell you you have the right to remain 
silent.
  Let me remind you, in those situations, can you imagine if an 
American citizen had been one of the collaborators of 9/11, would we 
want to tell a member of someone who had committed an act like 9/11 
against us--an act of war against this country--the first thing you 
hear is you have the right to be silent? Our goal is we have to be 
there to gather intelligence to see if there is another attack coming. 
Is it coming to the Pentagon, is it coming to the White House, is it 
coming to that second tower? Then we can protect American lives.
  That is the difference between war and common crime. That is an 
important distinction that has been recognized long before--with all 
respect to my colleague from Kentucky--in World War II in In Re: 
Quirin. Our U.S. Supreme Court in World War II recognized this 
authority, the difference between the law of war. In that case an 
American citizen who collaborated with the Nazis was held under the law 
of war because our country was at war.
  I would also wish to point out that this would only cover under the 
current law authorized by this Congress. It would not apply to someone 
who is holding ammunition or someone who is paying with cash. It only 
applies to a person who has planned, authorized, committed, or aided 
the terrorist attack that occurred on 9/11 or harbored those 
responsible for the attacks, or a person who has a part or 
substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban, or associated forces 
that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its 
coalition partner, including any person who has committed a belligerent 
act or directly supported such hostilities in aid of enemy forces 
against our country.
  That is very different than some of the examples that were cited 
here. It is

[[Page S7186]]

called being a member of al-Qaida, being involved in September 11, 
being a member of the Taliban and committing belligerent acts against 
this country. That is terrorism.
  Let me point out what I think is the most absurd distinction of all. 
This is Anwar al-Awlaki. He is someone who is a U.S. citizen. He is 
someone who was an influential leader in al-Qaida in the Arabian 
Peninsula. He advocated for violent jihad. He was involved in a dozen 
terror investigations. He was alleged to be involved in killing 
Americans and collaborating to kill our allies. On September 30, 2011, 
it was reported that al-Awlaki was killed by the CIA in a drone strike 
in Yemen. Yet it is being interpreted, as we have heard by some of my 
colleagues represented here, if the Feinstein amendment were 
interpreted the way they have interpreted, if al-Awlaki made it to 
America to commit these terrorist acts, he gets his Miranda rights. He 
gets all his rights here. But yet if he is in Yemen to do these acts, 
to try to kill Americans and our allies, then we can use a drone attack 
to him. But if he makes it to America--which, by the way, the 
terrorists want to make it to America; 9/11 is Exhibit A of that--why 
do we want to be in a position to read them their Miranda rights, tell 
them you have the right to remain silent? Our priority there has to be 
protecting American lives. That is the distinction between the law of 
war and a common criminal in this country.
  By the way, there are protections under the law. It is the right of 
habeas corpus where you do have a right to challenge your detention 
before the Federal court through appeals with counsel. That is 
certainly a protection that we have respected in this country for a 
long time.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to inform the body that I 
think Senator Levin's understanding and reasoning is incredibly sound. 
We have actually been talking about this for a couple of days. And in 
light of the Hamdi decision and just plain old common sense, I will 
support the Feinstein amendment.
  I will be the first to say that if we are attacked by the Iranians 
tomorrow or some other group, we have an authorization to use force. 
Senator Levin and I will be the first to say in that authorization that 
it will provide that if an American citizen joins the Iranians in a war 
against America, they can be detained under the law of war.
  Now, you can vote however you like. I know how I will vote. But this 
has already gone up to the Supreme Court. And if I can build on what 
Senator Levin said as to the logic of the Court and I think the logic 
of our position, let's get us back to the United States. I don't think 
anybody in their right mind would say the United States is not part of 
the battlefield in the war on terror. I would suggest that of all the 
places the enemy wants to hit us, they want to hit us here at home the 
most. Their goal is to kill us here. They will kill us in Libya, they 
will kill us in Afghanistan, they will attack our consulates, they will 
kill our soldiers, they will blow up our embassies, they will hit us 
all over the world, but don't be misled--they want to hit us here. 
Remember 9/11? I do. I am sure you all do.
  You know what. The only reason we haven't had another 9/11 is we have 
been fighting these bastards over there, where we have been getting 
good intelligence. It took a couple of years before any of the people 
held at Guantanamo Bay told us what was going on, but we found out 
about bin Laden--and not because we tortured people but because we put 
the intelligence puzzle together over time by holding people under the 
law of war and gathering good intelligence. That is how we got bin 
Laden. So bin Laden is dead, but the war is not over. I wish it were.
  Now, the homeland. If there is a planned attack on a Navy vessel or a 
military installation, I think the point Senator Levin was making is 
that we have already authorized the use of force to protect the country 
against the Taliban and al-Qaida; is that right?
  Mr. LEVIN. That is my opinion, and that is the fundamental core 
ruling in the Hamdi case. Now, we have to be accurate. Hamdi applied 
circumstances to citizens that were captured in Afghanistan, but the 
reason they use led them to conclude there was an explicit--explicit--
authorization to detain those citizens even though they are American 
citizens. Their argument was that capture and detention was inherent, 
in their words--so fundamental--to capture and detain as such is an 
accepted incident to war as to be an exercise of the necessary and 
appropriate force which Congress authorized the President to use.
  So in my analogy, if a boatload full of al-Qaida, including an 
American citizen, comes to a Navy base and attacks that base and is 
captured by those sailors, that is surely an incident of war, and I 
believe the capture and detention of those al-Qaida terrorists would be 
the exercise of necessary and appropriate force which we authorized the 
President to use in the authorization for military force.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I want to build on that just to make sure we understand 
about a potential attack on a Navy base here at home. No one is 
suggesting the military could not use force against an al-Qaida attack 
here at home. The Hamdi case was an American citizen captured in 
Afghanistan. I hope we are not trying to create a picture that somehow 
America is a place where our own military cannot fire a shot in defense 
of their ships or our country.
  Let's say we have some ships up there in Virginia and we have a 
boatload of al-Qaida types trying to ram the ship. Does the Senator 
agree with me that our military can use force to defend us here at home 
against al-Qaida?
  Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.
  Mr. GRAHAM. So if our military is authorized to use force, they do 
not have to call the FBI or the Virginia State Police to shoot. They 
can shoot against an enemy themselves coming at them in America.
  Mr. LEVIN. Coming into America and attacking us on a Navy base or----
  Mr. GRAHAM. Right. Because we are not fighting a crime. We don't have 
to disarm our military and call the local cops and say: Would you 
please shoot these people before they get here? No. Our guys are going 
to shoot you. If you are an American citizen asked to get in a boat and 
asked to attack a military ship or installation in the United States, 
we are going to shoot you, and if we wound you, we are going to capture 
you. And here is what we are going to do to you as an incident of using 
force. The Supreme Court has said that when you authorize the use of 
force, it makes no sense to give that authorization if you don't have 
the power to detain because the worst thing you can do to the American 
military is to make them kill everybody and capture no one or let the 
other guys go. So kill-them-all is not good policy, and it is a bad 
spot to put your military in. And the option shouldn't be to kill them 
all or let them all go; the option should be to kill where you have to 
and, if you can, capture. Does the Senator agree with that?
  Mr. LEVIN. I do.
  Mr. GRAHAM. And our military can fire the shots because of the use of 
force to defend the homeland and to defend themselves here at home. And 
the Supreme Court says that once you authorize the ability to use 
force, it just follows, as night follows day, that detention is part of 
the ability to use force because, ladies and gentlemen, if it is not, 
you have turned our military into murderers because you are not 
supposed to shoot somebody and leave them wounded in the water, and you 
shouldn't watch them swim away. You capture them and interrogate them 
under the law of war. Isn't that what Hamdi is about and the point they 
are trying to make?
  Mr. LEVIN. It is. As part of that point, it cites the Quirin case, 
which says:

       Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent 
     does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency 
     which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war.

  And here are the key words:

       Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of 
     an enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction 
     enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy 
     belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention.

  Mr. GRAHAM. I will read another quote from Hamdi.

       There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own 
     citizens as an enemy combatant.


[[Page S7187]]


  Hamdi's detention could last for the rest of his life because the law 
of war detention can last for the duration of the relevant conflict.
  Here is what we are trying to do. We are trying to create a system 
consistent with the Hamdi decision, and quite frankly, ladies and 
gentlemen, what I am trying to avoid is the criminal paradigm because I 
know the difference between criminal law and law of war. Under the law 
of war, you can detain somebody for interrogation to find out what the 
enemy is up to if you believe that person to be part of the enemy.
  And let me tell my friends, I do not want to take our criminal 
justice system and bastardize it. During the Bush years when we had the 
military commission rollout, they had a provision that in a military 
commission trial, the military jury could be given classified 
information but not share it with the defendant. I said: No. If a trial 
means anything, it means the right to confront those witnesses against 
you. I jealously guard that. The worst al-Qaida member in the world, 
when they go on trial in military commissions, will have a lawyer, a 
right to appeal to our Supreme Court, and will be able to confront 
every witness against them. An American citizen who joins al-Qaida or 
the Taliban will be tried in Federal court because we took military 
commissions off the table. That is the trial.
  Here is the main point: If you are allowing our military to use force 
to protect themselves, as Hamdi says, it naturally follows that with 
the use of force comes the lawful detention. And that is why I will be 
voting for Feinstein. I think that is where most Americans are. If 
there is any confusion, we can talk about this in conference.
  But, Senator Levin, I want to thank you for--since 2006--working with 
me and against me. You know, our dispute about what would be an active 
substitute for habeas went to the Supreme Court, and you won 5 to 4. 
Damn those Justices, but that is the way it goes. And you know what. 
There were some Republicans and Democrats who disagreed with me and you 
both. But I respect an independent judiciary, and I know Justice 
Roberts kind of got some people mad at him because of the ObamaCare 
decision, but that is the way it goes. That is the way these old judges 
are. I just really appreciate an independent judiciary.
  I just want to say that after that decision in 2006 or 2007, how much 
of a pleasure it has been to work with you and others to try to find a 
way to achieve a balance in a war that is hard to understand. There is 
no capital to conquer, no airplanes to shoot down in terms of their jet 
fighters, there is no navy to sink, but they use boats to attack us and 
they use private planes to kill us. At the end of the day, we are at 
war. The outcome does matter, and I want to win this war. I know 
everybody in this body wants to win this war. But I want to live within 
our values.
  So I will work with Senator Levin and Senator McCain and say that 
even though we are fighting the worst people on the planet, count me 
out when it comes to waterboarding. I remember when people on my side 
would say--and I understand them very well--why do you care about what 
we do to these people? They will cut our heads off.
  Because we are Americans. It is not necessary to go down that road to 
win the war. And quite frankly, ladies and gentlemen, the opposite is 
true. You can't win this war if you don't realize you are in a war. We 
are not fighting common crime, we are fighting a vicious enemy. And we 
can do it within our values. We can do it within due process consistent 
with the law of war and, when we get in that criminal arena, consistent 
with criminal law.
  As much as I disagree with this President, I will not deny him the 
ability that every Commander in Chief has had for decades as an option, 
if he chooses to use it. And if you want to go down the criminal road, 
we can, but we need the option. As much as I dislike President Obama, I 
am not going to use as a reason to change the law of war that Barack 
Obama may put some people in jail who disagree with him, and I am not 
going to buy into some of the rhetoric coming out of our side that a 
habeas corpus independent judiciary view means nothing if Obama 
appointed the judge. We are better than that.
  I stand ready to vote for Feinstein, I stand ready to work with my 
colleagues to continue to find a way to fight and win a war within our 
values, the outcome of which will matter not only to us but those who 
follow.
  God bless every person on the front line who is risking their life at 
home and abroad. And here is what you have as a promise between Senator 
Levin and myself and many others: We are going to give you the tools to 
keep us safe and to keep your comrades safe. We are not going to do 
things in this war that made no sense in other wars. You need our help, 
you need our prayers, and you need the tools to fight and win this war, 
and we will give you those tools.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, even though my colleagues sometimes appear 
to have disdain for the trial by jury, it now appears they are 
supporting the right to trial by jury, and so I congratulate them on 
their conversion. However, I think they are still a little confused on 
Hamdi.
  Hamdi had to do with a citizen fighting overseas and nothing to do 
with a citizen here. I have great confidence that the Supreme Court, 
given a ruling on the right to trial by jury, will affirm the right to 
trial by jury whether they were appointed by Ronald Reagan or President 
Obama. So we will have that fight on another day.
  I will say, though, that our oath of office says we will defend the 
Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic.
  I met with cadets this week and they asked me, What is the freedom we 
fight for? The freedom we fight for is the Bill of Rights, is the 
Constitution. If we have careless disregard for the Constitution, what 
are we fighting for?
  I will tell you, since I know the record of this debate will be 
widely read, I want to make formal objection to the crazy bastard 
standard. I don't think if we are going to have a crazy bastard 
standard that we shouldn't have a right to trial by jury. Because if we 
are going to lock up all the crazy bastards, for goodness sake, would 
you not want, if you are a crazy bastard, to have a right to trial by 
jury?
  I think this is a very serious debate and should not be made 
frivolous. This is an ancient right that we have defended for 800 
years. To say that habeas is due process is absurd. It is the beginning 
of due process. If you don't have a right to trial by jury, you do not 
have due process. You do not have a constitution. What are you fighting 
against and for if you throw the Constitution out, if you throw the 
sixth amendment out? It is in the body of our Constitution. It is in 
the Bill of Rights. It is in every Constitution in the United States. 
Trial by jury has been a longstanding and ancient and noble right. 
Let's not scrap it now.
  I will accept victory today. I hope we will win victory and reaffirm 
the right to trial by jury. But let's don't play any games with any 
aspect and believe that any Supreme Court in the United States, whether 
appointed by Republican or Democrat, is going to say that an American 
citizen does not have a right to trial by jury.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If Mr. President could tell me what the respective 
times for either side in this amendment are?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The opposition time has expired. 
Proponents have 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator would yield.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. We are significantly over our time, I believe. We would be 
happy to accommodate Senator Feinstein or others.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I just wanted to thank everybody. I think we had a 
good debate. I think we ended in a good place. I am very hopeful that 
the body will pass this now by a large majority. So I hope we are 
successful tonight in achieving something that hasn't been achieved for 
decades.
  I want to thank everybody, our cosponsors, the chairman of the 
committee, and Senator Graham for the debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, that was a good debate. Senator 
Feinstein

[[Page S7188]]

is always gracious and alert and smart in her arguments.
  I want to say one thing that is not in doubt. Some of my colleagues--
I think Senator Paul and others--have suggested that somehow the law of 
the United States has been changed in recent years, and we need the 
Feinstein amendment to fix it and restore the constitutional rights we 
are all entitled to.
  What I want to say, without any doubt and I think any fear of real 
contradiction, is this amendment alters the history of the United 
States, alters the long-term understanding of the rules of war, and 
places American citizens in a position where they cannot be treated 
effectively as an enemy of the state and detained, and actually be in a 
position to be released to continue their war against the United 
States. I think that is a bad policy.
  I agree with Senators Levin, Ayotte, and others who share their view. 
I am not quite able to understand--and I am not sure Senator Feinstein 
does--that this therefore establishes through understandings of Hamdi 
and the Supreme Court decision that therefore we can vote for it. I 
don't think it is the right step. I don't think we should alter the 
historical position of the United States that those who are at war with 
the United States are not treated as criminals. Southerners who were 
captured by Lincoln weren't released. When Washington dealt with the 
Whiskey Rebellion, he sent out Alexander Hamilton. They weren't given 
Miranda rights. They went out there to stop the rebellion. They were 
citizens. That is the way I feel about it.


                           Amendment No. 3009

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending business and call up amendment No. 3009.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, I am wondering if the 
Senator from Alabama would repeat the request.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I wish to set aside the pending amendment and call up 
amendment No. 3009. I understand it would not be voted on tonight, but 
I wish to get it pending.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator would speak on the amendment, 
though, without calling up the amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would be glad to, if the chairman thinks it won't be 
a problem calling it up at a later date.
  Mr. LEVIN. I hope not. I don't even know what is in the amendment. 
But we are trying to accommodate the process where everybody could have 
a chance, hopefully, to call up their amendments. We have to do it in 
order where we know what is in the amendment, we have to have our 
staffs have an opportunity to make sure we understand what is in the 
amendment. We are working on this amendment. So I have no objection 
whatever to the Senator talking about the amendment. We are working 
hard on the amendment to get it in order.
  Mr. SESSIONS. It has been conveyed to the Senator's staff.
  Mr. LEVIN. And we are working on it. But if the Senator could just 
not proceed to call it up but speak to it, we would appreciate it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I withdraw the offer of calling up that 
amendment and my request to set aside the pending amendment, but I 
would share some thoughts about it.

  The amendment deals with the ability of the Congress of the United 
States to review any bilateral security agreement with Afghanistan.
  Congress was not consulted regarding the framework or the substance 
of the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement between the United 
States of America and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan that was 
signed on May 1, 2012. This agreement commits the United States to 
establishing a long-term bilateral security agreement with Afghanistan. 
In the past, Congress has been consulted and has sometimes provided its 
advice and consent to the ratification of these type agreements.
  The strategic partnership agreement, already signed by President 
Obama, is a legally binding agreement that committed the United States 
to various policies including those related to the drawdown of U.S. 
forces in Afghanistan. It is broad and vague, and any further 
agreements entered into by the President that are based upon it should 
be reviewed by the appropriate congressional committees.
  The President and the Secretary of Defense have stated that the 
United States continues to fight in Afghanistan to defeat al-Qaida. 
While the authorization of military force authorizes the President to 
use any means necessary to prevent any acts of terrorism against the 
United States, his authority to enter into bilateral security 
agreements with Afghanistan should be looked at and reviewed at least 
by Congress.
  The bilateral security agreement will supersede not only the 
strategic partnership agreement--so this will be the bilateral security 
agreement--but additional memoranda of understanding related to special 
operations in Afghanistan and detainee transfers will be part of this 
agreement. The issues addressed in the forthcoming bilateral security 
agreement are too important not to require congressional review.
  The amendment would require the President to submit any proposed 
bilateral security agreement to the appropriate congressional 
committees 30 days before entering into the agreement. This is not 
unreasonable. Congress is exercising its role of oversight before the 
President makes long-term commitments that have significant 
ramifications from the size of forces that we commit to the legal 
authority of our commanders. So this will be a final agreement that 
will impact quite significantly the commitment--financially, 
militarily, and in blood--the human support of our members.
  There is a history behind these SOFA agreements. The Senate approved 
the NATO Status of Forces Agreement. We actually voted on it and 
approved it in advance. A formal treaty was used as an underlying 
source of authority for a Status of Forces Agreement on seven different 
occasions: Australia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Japan, Korea, and the 
Philippines. Congress has voted and approved Status of Forces 
Agreements three additional times: Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and 
Palau.
  I hope Senator Webb is able to come over tonight. He has raised his 
concerns about this, and expressed concern in the Armed Services 
Committee that the Afghani and the Iraqi Parliaments vote on the Status 
of Forces Agreement, but our Congress is not voting on the Status of 
Forces Agreement. Senator Webb is a cosponsor of this amendment. And 
just to have that agreement, the full and complete agreement that 
commits the United States to be fully reported to the Congress of the 
United States I don't think is too much to ask. Right now, we don't 
have any indication that would happen, and there is some opposition to 
it. But why would that be a problem? Why would the administration not 
want Congress to know what our commitments are and what we would be 
expected to support?
  I believe it is a good amendment. Hopefully we can get it moved 
forward and maybe accepted; but, if not, by vote. I think we could 
handle it. I don't think it should cause the objection that some see in 
it. This does not require that the Congress have a right to vote to 
reject the amendment or approve the amendment. It simply says the 
agreement that is entered into, the SOFA, has to be produced promptly 
to the Congress. I think that is a reasonable position, and I ask my 
colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I think it is time to explain amendment 
No. 3025 that I hope I will be able to call up shortly, knowing full 
well that our schedule might get difficult when these amendments are 
brought up at a later point.
  My amendment would strike section 341 of the fiscal year 2013 
National Defense Authorization Act. It included language that would 
arbitrarily require the Secretary of Defense to cut the civilian and 
contractor workforce to achieve equal savings as they achieve from 
planned reductions in the military personnel for fiscal year 2012 
through 2017.
  This provision does not consider the work requirements of the 
Department nor the law that states:

       The civilian personnel of the Department of Defense shall 
     be managed each fiscal year solely on the basis of and 
     consistent with (1)

[[Page S7189]]

     the workload required to carry out the functions and 
     activities of the department.

  What that means is that when we consider the number of civilian 
personnel needed by the Department of Defense, we look at the mission 
they need to accomplish and we look at the budget support. That is how 
those decisions have been made.
  My amendment would strike the current section 341 that is in the 
committee draft and reaffirms the civilian manpower requirements by 
stating the following: The Secretary of Defense, consistent with 
longstanding law--which was expanded in a bipartisan effort in the 
fiscal year 2012 NDAA bill--ensures that the civilian workforce is 
sufficiently sized--a term copied from 10 USC 129a)--after taking into 
account military strategy requirements and military endstrength.
  The Comptroller General is required to report back to the Congress 
whether the Department is compliant with the law.
  I am pleased this amendment is cosponsored by Senators Akaka, Boxer, 
Begich, Brown of Ohio, Durbin, Harkin, Leahy, Mikulski, McCaskill, and 
Tester.
  I might point out that there is no such provision included in the 
House NDAA.
  I would like to note what this amendment does not do. It would not 
prevent the Department of Defense from downsizing the civilian 
workforce. Indeed, according to the House Armed Services Committee, the 
Department is already reducing its civilian workforce by over 10,000 
positions in fiscal year 2012 alone. It would not treat service 
contractors any differently than civilian employees.
  The goal of this amendment is pretty simple. It would reaffirm the 
law that prohibits DOD from managing its civilian workforce by 
arbitrary constraints. That is what this provision that I am asking to 
be stricken by my amendment would do. It would set caps and cuts. 
Downsizing is inevitable but be consistent with the law. It should be 
based on a workload analysis and the budgets that are provided through 
the congressional process.
  This would repudiate the notion that what happens in one department's 
workforce automatically affects the other. The way the language came 
out from the committee, regardless of the needs of our civilian 
missions within the Department of Defense, its cut would be tied to the 
military side and the contractors would also be affected. It should be 
based upon their vision. It should be based upon their budget. There 
should not be arbitrary provisions.
  Proponents of section 341 would insist that the civilian workforce 
should be automatically reduced by approximately 5 percent because the 
Obama administration would reduce the military workforce by 
approximately 5 percent. They are different missions, different 
priorities; they need to be judged based upon their respective 
priorities and missions.
  Earlier today the administration released a Statement of 
Administration Policy that clearly rejects the current section 341 of 
the bill. I am quoting from the administration's statement of policy:

       The Administration objects to section 341, which would 
     reduce funding for the civilian and contractor workforce by a 
     rate that is at least equal to the percentage of funding 
     saved from the planned reductions of military personnel end 
     strength. This would require savings in civilian and contract 
     workforces in excess of $5 billion over the planned savings 
     through FY 2017. The Administration believes the size of the 
     civilian workforce should be determined based on workload and 
     funding, not on arbitrary comparisons to the military. To 
     comply with this legislation, the Department would need to 
     significantly divest workload and impose workforce caps.

  What the committee did--I don't know if it was intentional or not--
what the committee did, they imposed their own sequestration order on 
the civilian and contractor workforce within DOD. That makes no sense 
whatsoever. Everyone here has been outspoken that it is wrong to do 
these across-the-board cuts that have nothing to do with priority or 
mission. My amendment would strike that provision from the committee 
bill. It would substitute instead law that requires that the workforce 
be determined by mission and budget. It does not at all prevent us from 
downsizing. We all know we have to downsize, and the budget downsizes 
the civilian and contractor workforce. But we should not be setting 
arbitrary caps within what we have already done through the review and 
budget process.
  I am pleased that this amendment is supported by many of the groups 
directly impacted by the decisions here. When I have a chance to offer 
this amendment, I will urge my colleagues to support the amendment so 
we can correct this provision in the bill, which I think allows us to 
comply with current law, protect the mission of the Department of 
Defense, and establish priorities in the way we should, not by 
arbitrary caps.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 3199

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been attempting to contact the 
primary author of amendment No. 3199, Senator Durbin. Let me first of 
all ask unanimous consent that I be added, if I am not already, as 
original cosponsor to the amendment No. 3199.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think it is interesting that this 
amendment is coming up at this time. It is a matter of just a couple of 
hours ago that we passed an amendment on this floor extending our 
effort and policy against the LRA, the Lord's Resistance Army, and that 
is Joseph Kony, the individual who for now over 20 years has been 
abducting young people, training them, taking them up and forcing them 
to go out and fight with the LRA. If they did not do it, they would 
have to go home and murder their own family. It has been just horrible. 
We are making great progress now. I spent a lot of time primarily in 
Uganda where this all began, and it looks now as though we are getting 
closer to doing that.
  The reason I am interested in amendment No. 3199 by Senator Durbin 
and am supporting it is because a very similar thing is going on right 
now. I happen to have spent some time in the eastern part of the Congo, 
where I have seen the rise of another individual, Colonel Makenga. He 
is very much like Joseph Kony. In fact, he is training the young 
people, young kids to be fighters. We all know about the effort out 
there with what they call the rebel leader of M23. That is very similar 
to what is happening up in Uganda. In fact, the Uganda effort and the 
LRA effort were very prominent, actually, in eastern Congo, the same 
place where this--and I suspected myself that there is a relationship 
between the two efforts. So I strongly support that.
  I want to say one thing, though. I have strong feelings about this, 
and I want to get it on the record, and I would like to have my 
comments placed in the Record at the time this amendment comes up for 
consideration.
  A lot of people were feeling that one of the problems with the M23 
leaders came from Rwanda itself. At some time, they talked about 
President Kagame, President Paul Kagame, as if there were a 
relationship between this butcher over there, Colonel Makenga, and 
President Kagame. There is no relationship whatsoever. In fact, 
President Kagame rejects what this rebel leader is trying to do.
  I had occasion to spend some time with Louise Mushikiwabo, who is the 
Foreign Affairs Minister for the Republic of Rwanda. I was with her. I 
have her picture right here. I was with her recently, and she gave us 
the assurance that the President, President Paul Kagame, is just as 
adamant about doing away with this rebel leader, Colonel Makenga, of 
the M23 rebel movement. I am happy to join in with this. I wanted to 
make sure I have my assurance in this that there is no relationship 
between this rebel movement and the President of Rwanda.
  I yield the floor. I see the author of this amendment is on the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma. Many of my other 
colleagues may not be aware of his interest and dedication to the 
continent of Africa. He has traveled there probably as much if not more 
than any other Member of the Senate. It has been a great opportunity, 
experience, and education for me to travel there over the years, but my 
few visits do not come close to the commitment that has been made by 
the Senator from Oklahoma. I

[[Page S7190]]

greatly respect his knowledge of the area and appreciate his 
cosponsorship of the amendment which is pending which we hope will be 
cleared.
  I have been to eastern Congo twice, 2005 and 2010--Goma. Goma is one 
of those places you will never forget once you visit them. This is one 
of the poorest places on Earth. You see the poverty in every direction. 
You see the disease. You see the victims of war in every direction 
because there has been an ongoing war in this part of the world which 
literally rivals some of the great wars of our history in terms of the 
innocent people who have been killed, maimed, raped, and have suffered 
displacement. On top of all of these things in Goma is an active 
volcano that erupted not that many years ago, covering this poor, 
godforsaken part of the world with lava. It troubles me to go there and 
see the suffering that goes on every day.
  The ongoing war that is taking place--the rebel groups, M23--have now 
taken over sections of eastern Congo. Eastern Congo is known as the 
rape capital of the world. One of the tactics of war is to rape the 
women of any age in front of their families and then force these women, 
many times, to kill other members of the family who have witnessed it. 
They estimate that regional war and rape leave an estimated 1,000 or 
more women assaulted every day in the Congo. Twelve percent of all 
Congolese women have been victimized by this. I met some in a hospital 
called Heal Africa.
  There is a population of 8 million people, and Heal Africa is the 
only hospital in the area that offers any antiretroviral drugs for 
children with HIV and surgery to repair the bodies of these traumatized 
women. Heal Africa's cofounder, Lyn Lusi, passed away this past March. 
What a saint she was. While her death was a terrible loss, Heal Africa 
and other organizations continue to carry on her vision, including many 
American medical students who go there to volunteer. God bless them. 
There was a delegation from Purdue University there when I visited, and 
many others have followed.
  The Rwandan genocide has been the root cause of many of the problems, 
as well as a weak government in Congo. Eastern Congo is virtually on 
its own, with very little governance or protection, and criminals run 
rampant.
  Dr. Denis Mukwege runs another hospital in Bukavu, the capital of 
South Kivu province.
  Panzi Hospital is a one-story building on a tree-lined, dirt road. It 
receives about 10 new rape cases a day, every day. And that is only the 
tip of the iceberg, since most rape survivors never seek treatment.
  The victims range in age from 2 to 80 years old. Dr. Mukwege says 
they arrive ``broken, waiting for death, hiding their faces.''
  Last month armed gunmen attacked this genuine hero at his home, 
murdering his guard and shooting at him, likely because of a strong 
speech he gave at the United Nations last month, denouncing mass rape 
and impunity in Congo.
  The United Nations has a 20,000 member peacekeeping force in eastern 
Congo to help the region's violence--but the area is still very 
fragile, awash in weapons, warlords, and competing regional interests. 
It is also rich in valuable minerals that are found in our everyday 
electronic and other products.
  It has been said that the Congo war contains ``wars within wars''--
and that is true. But fueling much of the violence is a bloody contest 
for control of these vast mineral resources.
  In the last Congress I was proud to join in a bipartisan effort with 
Senators Brownback, Feingold, Dodd, Johnson, and others to try to 
prevent the country's mineral wealth from fueling the region's horrific 
violence.
  The bill we eventually passed included a simple transparency 
requirement--if a company registered in the United States uses any of a 
small list of key minerals from Congo or its neighbors, then it has to 
disclose in its SEC filings what, if anything, it is doing to prevent 
the mineral purchases from funding the region's violence.
  I was happy to see that in August, the Securities and Exchange 
Commission approved a rule based on this legislation. It is a sound and 
fair rule, so you can imagine my disappointment that the National 
Association of Manufactures has already started a legal challenge to 
this modest provision. I appeal to the conscience of the CEOs of these 
companies in America to do their part to help end this violence that is 
going on in Congo. Please stop fighting this simple provision so we can 
trace these minerals and stop the exploitation of these poor people.

  Last week a well-armed group of rebels calling themselves M23 overran 
and occupied the key city of Goma in eastern Congo. These rebels have 
threatened to continue their incursions and set a course for Kinshasa, 
Congo's capital in the west. They have created a new wave of fleeing 
refugees in need of clean water, food, and shelter. This move was 
condemned by the U.N. Security Council, which expressed deep concerns 
about M23. These rebels are known for brutal violence. This is a 
photograph of a little baby being passed into a truck hopefully, to 
safety--a victim of the violence going on by the M23 rebels who have 
taken over this part of the Congo. Some of my colleagues may have seen 
this tragic photo in Monday's New York Times. This baby is being 
hoisted into a packed truck while his family is trying to get out. Even 
more troubling is that there is considerable evidence that these rebels 
have and are continuing to receive strategic and materiel support from 
neighboring Rwanda, just as Senator Inhofe mentioned on the Senate 
floor, and potentially from Uganda as well. News reports indicate that 
the M23 rebels have access to night vision goggles and other equipment 
they never had before, indicative of significant assistance from the 
well-supplied Rwandan Army. We have seen reports that the Rwandan Army 
crossed the border working side-by-side with these rebels.
  A Congolese regional governor, Julien Paluku, stated that the Rwandan 
Army entered his province behind the M23 rebels and forced the 
Congolese military to flee. Human Rights Watch has corroborated these 
reports and has independently confirmed the Rwandan Government's role.
  There was some hope that the leaders of Congo, Rwanda, and Uganda 
would meet last week and find a way to end this violence. Yet it didn't 
occur. It appears Rwandan President Kagame did not attend as he had 
once promised.
  Rwanda is a friend of the United States. I have visited President 
Kagame and I have been to Rwanda. It has certainly been through its 
share of suffering during the genocide in 1994. It helped in 
peacekeeping efforts in Sudan. With that kind of leadership, though, 
comes an important responsibility. No one in Rwanda or any country will 
benefit from a collapsed Congo in which the rebels hold large swaths of 
territory and these impoverished people at gunpoint. I urge Rwanda to 
rein in the M23 rebels and work with its regional neighbors to bring 
stability to eastern Congo.
  To make sure this happens, Senators Boozman, Boxer, Coons--let me get 
the entire list because I am proud they have joined me in this effort--
Brown of Ohio, Cardin, and now Senator Inhofe have joined me in filing 
an amendment to this Defense authorization bill that would impose an 
asset freeze and visa ban on any outside parties who are providing 
support to the M23 rebels, an amendment I urge my friends, Senators 
Levin and McCain, to accept.
  I hope such sanctions will not be needed and that wiser heads 
prevail. The people of eastern Congo have suffered long enough.
  I know Senator Levin is working for the approval of this amendment. I 
sincerely hope it can be done before the end of the evening. I am going 
to at this point yield the floor in the hopes that we can bring this to 
a positive conclusion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me compliment Senator Durbin for his 
concern for this activity that is going on there. I wish to clarify the 
record because I have had personal conversations with the President and 
with many members of the staff and good friends over there.
  Africa is a little bit different than other areas. Sometimes there 
can be rebel groups within a country that are doing something people 
attribute to a country. In this case, that isn't true with Rwanda. In 
the case of Rwanda, if they say that some of the Rwandan

[[Page S7191]]

military was supporting the M23 movement, that would not be with the 
authority or the knowledge even of President Kagame himself and his 
administration. I want to make sure to clarify that.
  Also, I want to mention, the area of Goma that the Senator from 
Illinois is talking about is something that a lot of people are not--
they don't understand what that is. Goma is in the far eastern part of 
Congo. The capital is Kinshasa. It is further from Kinshasa to Goma 
than it is, of course, all the way across this country twice. So we are 
talking about an area where there is not much control.
  It happens that Robert Ruberwa, Parliamentarian Ruberwa, is the one 
who is responsible for that area. The way it is working there, they 
don't have any control over there. This is a rebel movement.
  The reason I say I believe, and I have always believed, that there is 
a relationship between the LRA and the M23 is because I was over there 
when the LRA had just left. We were hoping to be there at the same 
time. It was a matter of a couple of days before. They went north up 
through the Central African Republic and up through south Sudan, over 
to Uganda, where they originally started. That is the same area and the 
same motive, the same way of operating as M23.
  They are abducting little kids. People don't realize this. They 
abduct little kids and teach them how to use weapons and make them go 
back to their villages, murder their parents and their siblings, and if 
they don't do that, they cut their noses off and their ears off. We 
have pictures. We have seen this happen.
  I am pleased that we have adopted as a policy of this country to 
intervene.
  Let's keep in mind, we have a war against terrorists. These are 
terrorists and this has spread throughout--starting actually more in 
the Horn of Africa, Djibouti, and then moving down into the continent. 
This is the type of terrorism that comes from it. I consider this as a 
part of that war.
  But I do want to emphasize that the accusation that Rwanda and their 
leadership, specifically President Kagame--let's remember what happened 
with Paul Kagame. He was the one back during the genocide of 1994 who 
was able to come in and pull everybody together. A lot of the rebels 
went to the west out in Rwanda and went into the eastern part of Congo. 
We know that is right. But they have been rejected. There is no 
accusation that there is even a relationship there. But I hope people 
realize we do have some great Presidents throughout the continent of 
Africa, and he is one of them. It is a difficult situation there. It is 
one on which we need to focus our attention.
  By the way, I would say I don't believe it has been cleared on our 
side. It would be with me, but it hasn't happened yet, and we hope to 
work in that direction so we can take this up.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the filing deadline for 
first-degree amendments to S. 3254, the Department of Defense 
authorization bill, be set at 9:45 tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I understand that amendment No. 3199, an 
amendment of Senators Durbin and Inhofe, has now been cleared on both 
sides. So I ask unanimous consent that this amendment now be called up 
and considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3199.

  Mr. LEVIN. 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 impose sanctions with respect to persons that provide 
significant financial, material, or technological support to the rebel 
 group known as M23 operating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo)

       At the end of subtitle D of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 1246. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO SUPPORT 
                   FOR THE REBEL GROUP KNOWN AS M23.

       (a) Blocking of Assets.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic 
     Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Executive Order 13413 
     (74 Fed. Reg. 64105; relating to blocking property of certain 
     persons contributing to the conflict in the Democratic 
     Republic of the Congo), block and prohibit all transactions 
     in all property and interests in property of a person 
     described in subsection (c) if such property and interests in 
     property are in the United States, come within the United 
     States, or are or come within the possession or control of a 
     United States person.
       (b) Visa Ban.--The Secretary of State shall deny a visa to, 
     and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall exclude from the 
     United States, any alien who is a person described in 
     subsection (c).
       (c) Persons Described.--A person described in this 
     subsection is a person that the President determines 
     provides, on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     significant financial, material, or technological support to 
     M23.
       (d) Waiver.--The President may waive the application of 
     this section with respect to a person if the President 
     determines and reports to the appropriate congressional 
     committees that the waiver is in the national interest of the 
     United States.
       (e) Termination of Sanctions.--The President may terminate 
     sanctions imposed under this section with respect to a person 
     on and after the date on which the President determines and 
     reports to the appropriate congressional committees that the 
     person has terminated the provision of significant financial, 
     material, and technological support to M23.
       (f) Termination of Section.--This section shall terminate 
     on the date on which the President determines that M23 is no 
     longer a significant threat to peace and security in the 
     Democratic Republic of the Congo.
       (g) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 
     and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee 
     on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.
       (2) M23.--The term ``M23'' refers to the rebel group known 
     as M23 operating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo that 
     derives its name from the March 23, 2009, agreement between 
     the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and 
     the National Congress for the Defense of the People (or any 
     successor group).
       (3) United states person.--The term ``United States 
     person'' means--
       (A) an individual who is a United States citizen or an 
     alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence to the United 
     States; or
       (B) an entity organized under the laws of the United States 
     or of any jurisdiction within the United States.
  Mr. LEVIN. I know of no further debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3199) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INHOFE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me thank Senators Durbin and Inhofe for 
again focusing on a critical issue. I know Africa seems far away and 
some of these events seem far away, but they have tried to bring them 
home to us and, hopefully, we will be listening, all of us, to what 
they have accomplished and what they have done tonight. I hope the 
American people realize the importance of this issue and that the 
message will be clear to those who are violating civil rights so 
horrendously.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). 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 (Mr. Brown of Ohio). Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3245

  Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to amendment 
No.

[[Page S7192]]

3245 offered by the Senator from New Hampshire.
  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 clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), 
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 212 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Webb
     Wicker

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--5

     DeMint
     Heller
     Kirk
     Rockefeller
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 3245) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, tonight the Senate will vote on an 
amendment offered by the senior Senator from California that affects 
the lawful authority of the U.S. military to detain enemy belligerents 
during wartime. This issue is necessarily complicated and difficult 
because the universe of detainees at issue includes U.S. citizens who 
are captured on American soil while taking up arms against their fellow 
citizens in the name of a foreign power or global terrorist 
organization.
  This is not an abstract issue. The U.S. homeland remains a target for 
al Qaida terrorists, who hide among civilian populations and have 
successfully recruited our fellow citizens to carry out acts of 
terrorism.
  Some of my colleagues contend that U.S. citizens forfeit their 
citizenship when they commit terrorist acts or acts of war against 
their fellow citizens but that they nevertheless should be tried and 
treated as common criminals with all of the attendant constitutional 
rights. Others believe that U.S. citizen-enemy combatants forfeit their 
constitutional rights altogether and can be detained indefinitely by 
the military without any judicial review.
  I respectfully reject both of these positions. It is entirely 
consistent with both the Constitution and laws of war for the U.S. 
military to detain such individuals pursuant to a force authorization 
or war resolution until the cessation of hostilities. To be sure, there 
is historical precedent for this proposition. What is critical to 
remember and too often seems to be omitted from this debate is that a 
U.S. citizen or any other person lawfully inside our nation's borders--
who is detained by our military does not forfeit their rights to habeas 
corpus review in a Federal court. In other words, they retain the 
constitutional right to challenge their detention before an impartial 
civilian judge.
  The Supreme Court has noted that the ``writ of habeas corpus is the 
fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against 
arbitrary and lawless state action.'' And, in fact, a citizen's right 
to habeas corpus extends all of the way to review by the U.S. Supreme 
Court, the highest Court in the land.
  In closing, what I find so confounding about this debate is the fact 
that groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, Human Rights 
Watch, and Amnesty International have urged the Senate to reject the 
Feinstein amendment. These groups have said that a vote against the 
Feinstein amendment would send a clear message about our commitment to 
constitutional rights. I respect the views and passion of these groups 
but would urge a vote against the amendment for a different reason: 
namely, I believe that we can keep faith with the Constitution and 
maintain the global fight against al-Qaida.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will support the Feinstein-Paul 
amendment. This amendment would make it clear that Congress has not 
authorized the indefinite detention of American citizens or lawful 
permanent residents apprehended in the United States without charge or 
trial. This is a common-sense amendment that should be completely 
noncontroversial. It has long been understood that is unconstitutional 
to indefinitely detain someone apprehended in the United States without 
charge or trial. Indeed, the fifth amendment of the Constitution 
provides simply that ``no person shall be . . . deprived of life, 
liberty, or property without due process of law.''
  Indefinite detention in the United States is not just 
unconstitutional, it is unnecessary. Look at the track record. Since 9/
11, our counterterrorism professionals have prevented another terrorist 
attack in the United States. And more than 400 terrorists have 
successfully been prosecuted and convicted in federal court. Here are 
just a few of the terrorists who have been convicted in federal court 
and are serving long prison sentences: Umar Faruk Abulmutallab, the 
Underwear Bomber; Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing; 
Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called ``Blind Sheikh''; 20th 9/11 hijacker 
Zacarias Moussaoui; and Richard Reid, the ``Shoebomber''.
  Some of my colleagues have claimed that the Supreme Court's Hamdi 
decision upheld the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens captured in 
the United States, but it did no such thing. Hamdi was captured in 
Afghanistan, not the United States. And Justice O'Connor, the author of 
the opinion, was very careful to say that the Hamdi decision was 
limited to, ``individuals who fought against the United States in 
Afghanistan as part of the Taliban.''
  Some of my colleagues also cited the case of Jose Padilla, claiming 
that it is a precedent for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens 
captured in the United States. But look at what happened in the Padilla 
case. Padilla is a U.S. citizen who was placed in military custody in 
the United States. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most 
conservative courts in the country, upheld Padilla's military 
detention. But then, before the Supreme Court had the chance to review 
the 4th Circuit's decision, the Bush administration transferred Padilla 
out of military custody and prosecuted him in criminal court. To this 
day, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the question of whether it is 
constitutional to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured in the 
United States.
  A number of prominent civil liberties and human rights organizations 
have expressed their concern that because the Feinstein-Paul amendment 
only prohibits indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and lawful 
permanent residents, it implicitly authorizes indefinite detention of 
others apprehended in the United States. I am very sympathetic to this 
concern. As Senator Feinstein and Senator Paul have both said on the 
floor of the Senate, they oppose the indefinite detention of anyone 
apprehended in the United States, including non-U.S. citizens and non-
lawful permanent residents. I agree.
  Senator Feinstein and Senator Paul included language in this 
amendment to make it clear that we are not implicitly authorizing the 
indefinite detention of individuals who are not U.S. citizens or legal 
permanent residents. On page 2, line 14, the amendment says

[[Page S7193]]

that the prohibition on indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and legal 
permanent residents ``shall not be construed to authorize the detention 
of . . . any other person who is apprehended in the United States.'' So 
in adopting this amendment, the Senate is not implicitly authorizing 
the indefinite detention of anyone.
  To the contrary, the language I have just quoted makes it clear that 
this amendment does not change existing detention authority of non-U.S. 
citizens and non-lawful permanent residents in any way. What does that 
mean? It means that the Supreme Court will decide whether non-U.S. 
citizens and non-lawful permanent residents can be detained 
indefinitely without trial, not the United States Senate.
  I want to thank Senator Feinstein and Senator Paul for their 
leadership on this issue and am proud to support their amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in 1971, 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.
  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 U.S. citizens argue that the 
Authorization for Use of Military Force, 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.
  We heard this argument again tonight from Senators Levin and Graham. 
They 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.
  But let me discuss the facts of Hamdi 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 detain even 
U.S. citizens who are arrested domestically.
  However, the Supreme Court's opinion in that case was a muddled 
decision by a four-vote plurality that recognized the power of the 
government to detain U.S. citizens captured in such circumstances 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 legal ambiguity, principally 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 attacks.
  In Padilla v. Rumsfeld the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that 
the 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 ``is not such an authorization, and no exception to 
[the Non-Detention Act] otherwise exists.''
  I think this history is particularly important in light of tonight's 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have one more vote to start in just a few 
minutes. Senator Levin wants to say something about the schedule for 
tomorrow.
  Senator Levin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. We are going to be making a unanimous consent request, and 
would like to do it right now, that tomorrow morning there be debate 
and votes on the following five amendments: Senator Sessions on 
bilateral discussions with Afghanistan, Sessions amendment No. 3009; 
Cardin amendment No. 3025 on civilian personnel; Menendez amendment No. 
3232 on Iran sanctions; Bill Nelson amendment No. 3073 involving widows 
and orphans; and Coburn amendment No. 3254 involving second amendment 
rights for veterans.
  My request is that we have--I will make a unanimous consent request 
now that tomorrow morning, at whatever time is allotted for morning 
business by the leaders----
  Mr. REID. There will be no morning business.
  Mr. LEVIN. There will be no morning business--that we then proceed. 
Now we don't have time agreements yet on these five. That is going to 
take a few minutes. My unanimous consent request is that immediately 
after prayer tomorrow we move to these five amendments. We will 
allocate as little time as we can tonight after this unanimous consent 
agreement is agreed to, if it is.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object, would this allow a vote, 
an up-or-down vote on the Coburn amendment? Would this allow an up-or-
down vote on the Coburn amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. This will.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 3018

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 3018, offered by the Senator from California, 
Mrs. Feinstein.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nevada (Mr. Heller) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 213 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--29

     Ayotte
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Nelson (NE)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Heller
     Kirk
     Rockefeller
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 3018) was agreed to.

[[Page S7194]]

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the last unanimous consent which was 
objected to listed the five amendments. I am now going to list the 
first four of those five amendments so everybody knows what I am doing.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following first-
degree amendments to be offered tomorrow, with no more amendments 
tonight: Sessions 3009, Cardin 3025, Menendez 3232, and Nelson of 
Florida 3073.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I find it 
highly ironic that we just passed an amendment to protect the 
constitutional rights of Americans, and we have an objection to 
protecting the second amendment rights of the veterans of this country. 
How in the world can we say to people who fight and defend for us 
through a social worker deemed incompetent to carry a gun, that ought 
to be on the basis of a danger to themselves or to someone else, and it 
ought to be adjudicated, and we have Senators objecting to protecting 
the rights of the people who defend us?
  On that basis, the contrary nature of that basis of what we just did, 
I will object to any further unanimous consents on this bill until we 
have a vote to protect the rights of the people who defend this 
country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I want to set the record straight. This 
is a provision in the law that I worked on in fact with the Senator 
from Oklahoma, and it says something very simple: If you are 
adjudicated mentally infirm, you are on the same list that prevents you 
from buying a gun as if you are a felon.
  In my judgment--I love our veterans, I vote for them all the time. 
They defend us. But if you are mentally ill, whether you are a veteran 
or not--just as if you are a felon. If you are a veteran or not and you 
have been judged to be mentally infirm, you should not have a gun.
  And no amendment, my friend, is absolute. The first amendment is not 
absolute. You are against antipornography laws. The third, fourth, 
fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth amendments. And as much as I 
believe in the second amendment and the right to bear arms and was a 
supporter of the Heller decision, neither is the second amendment.
  I continue my objections to the provision.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, after 12 hours today, 8 hours yesterday, 
over 42 amendments, and many more coming in the managers' package, what 
we have is a situation where the Senator from New York--because of his 
passion, which he just articulated--refuses to allow the Senator from 
Oklahoma his rights as a Senator; and that would be, since we have 
taken up this legislation with amendments and votes with a 51-vote 
majority as applicable, we have moved through, I am very proud to say, 
I think a very good process that I think all of us can be proud of.
  But the Senator from New York, because of his passion and commitment 
and belief--all of which I respect--will now prevent the Senator from 
Oklahoma from having his amendment considered. Why? Because he is 
afraid he will lose. The Senator from South Carolina and the Senator 
from New Hampshire and I have been losing all day long, and I am 
passionate about that.
  But I ask my colleague from New York, do we really want to have a 
situation where the depth of our passion now dictates whether the 
Senate should be allowed to go forward? The Senator from Oklahoma has 
the same right as every other Senator has had to propose an amendment. 
I will be glad to debate it, and up or down. Because if we are now 
going to tell our colleagues that if you have an amendment and you feel 
that you are going to lose and it really goes to the heart of your 
beliefs, that you are not going to allow the Senate to work, I think 
that is a very bad and dangerous precedent for us to set.
  Passions are high tonight, I say to my friend from Michigan. I think 
we have a pending amendment now and there will be other amendments that 
we will line up. We could maybe overnight calm down a little bit and 
move forward with a process that we have enjoyed for the last 2 days. 
No matter how passionate we feel about a particular issue, we should 
let the Senate work its will; otherwise, we will never complete a piece 
of legislation around here unless we go back to what we have been doing 
before, and that is fill up the tree, file cloture, and then none of us 
are able to engage in what the Senate should--and that is open and 
honest debate and respecting the will of the majority.
  So I urge, with all respect and appreciation for the passion of the 
Senator from New York, allow this process to go forward. Let an 
amendment be considered, let a second-degree amendment be considered, 
and respect the will of the majority, and move on and live to fight 
another day; otherwise, we will derail the Defense authorization bill 
that we have managed to pass for the last 51 years, and the men and 
women who are serving in the military and our Nation's security will be 
jeopardized.
  I don't want to get into a fight with the Senator from New York. I 
respect his passion. But I hope for the good of the institution he 
would allow this process to go forward just as it has for the last 
couple of days.
  I thank my friend from New York for listening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, along the same lines, I would hope that at 
least with these four amendments--which are now ready to be debated and 
voted upon--that our friend from Oklahoma would allow that to proceed, 
with the notice that from thereon he would not allow any unanimous 
consent agreement. But this has been worked on for so long and these 
four amendments are lined up so nicely for debate tomorrow that I would 
urge him to relent and allow us to at least proceed to those four 
amendments. And he has now put the body on notice that he would not 
agree to any additional beyond that.
  I happen to agree with my friend from Arizona. We are going to 
debate, folks. Sooner or later, these amendments are going to be 
debated, unless a cloture motion--which is going to be filed tomorrow--
is approved on Monday. And then we are right back in the same problem 
we have had, which has just been eloquently described by Senator 
McCain. And if we don't vote cloture, this bill isn't going anywhere. 
If we do vote cloture, then we will have made it impossible for some 
people to offer amendments, which they should be allowed to offer.
  Let us be clear on what is happening tomorrow, to the extent it is 
possible--which is not very extensive. And I want to get the Chair to 
confirm this. There is a pending amendment. It is a modified Kyl 
amendment. This has been modified so that it was been worked out with 
Senator Kerry. That is pending. Is the Senator correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has not yet been modified, but 
it is pending.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is pending and will be modified tomorrow.
  At that point the Chair is going to ask whether there is any 
additional debate on that amendment. If there is no additional debate, 
then the Chair is going to put the question. If there is a request for 
a rollcall, there will be a rollcall. If there is not, it will be voice 
voted. At that point, the floor is open. And I intend to then offer the 
Sessions amendment, the first one on this list, and then that is going 
to be open to debate. And if our colleagues want to come here tomorrow 
and filibuster or prevent a vote on the Sessions amendment, they are 
going to have to come here and debate.
  But we have tried the best we know how to move this bill forward. We 
have done everything we know how, and we have made great progress, with 
the Members of this body being extremely cooperative. We are not giving 
up.
  So the only technique left to us, given these two objections, is the 
one I just identified: to have the pending Kyl

[[Page S7195]]

amendment, after it is modified, debated. If no one wants to debate, 
the Chair is going to put the question, or we will have a rollcall on 
it if people want it. And then the floor is open, and I will be 
offering the next one in line, which is the Sessions amendment. Then if 
people want to debate that or filibuster that, the rules of the Senate 
allow you to do it. But I don't think that is what is going to happen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could I also add, I think we need to look 
at this in the larger context. The larger context is that there is a 
looming crisis in this body. The majority leader is going to possibly 
exercise a nuclear option, which then would change the way we do 
business around here, especially on the motion to proceed. The Senator 
from Michigan and I had two goals in mind: one, to achieve conclusion 
of the Defense authorization bill, which is vital to our national 
security on which I think we would all agree. But we also wanted to 
show our colleagues, and maybe the country, that we could move forward 
in a normal fashion with legislation, amendments, and final votes 
without cloture motions, without blocking things, without objecting to 
other people's amendments, and time agreements such as we have just 
completed in the last 20 hours, some 42 amendments that have been 
completed.
  Again, I urge my colleagues, let's show ourselves and the majority 
leader and those who want to exercise this nuclear option that we can 
take up legislation in an orderly fashion and come to a conclusion and 
do the people's work.
  There is more here, frankly, than just a refusal to allow an 
amendment.
  We are again going to show that we have to file cloture and then 
there will be people going on and on. Then I say to my friends on this 
side of the aisle, that is going to mean it is more likely that we have 
this showdown which we think, many of us think, would be devastating to 
this institution and the way that it has done business for a couple of 
hundred years.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I want to say to my colleague from 
Arizona I very much appreciate his words and I appreciate the respect 
he has shown for how I feel about this particular issue. But I would 
like to say another thing here. We are in a little bit of ``Alice in 
Wonderland.'' The number of times I have risen to my feet in this body 
to object because I did not want an amendment to come forward can be 
counted on a single hand over the last year or two. My good colleague 
from Oklahoma has made himself a legislative powerhouse by regularly 
using that practice. In fact, my guess is--more than my guess, the 
reason his amendment was included on the list of five--there are 
hundreds of amendments pending--is because he told people just what he 
would do: He would object to every other amendment unless his amendment 
was included.
  Let me say here that if this process is going to change, it is not 
going to start changing in one of the rare moments when the Senator 
from New York or some of my colleagues here use a process that has been 
regularly used by the other side to achieve their goals or thwart other 
people's goals. We are not going to start at this moment changing 
things when an amendment of great importance to many of us on this side 
is at risk. I find it unfair and in fact I find it a little bit turning 
the world--not the world, but the facts of how this body works--inside 
out. Because it is well known that my good friend from Oklahoma and 
others have used the very rule I have used tonight over and over again. 
That in fact, I would say to both my colleagues from Michigan and from 
Arizona, is one of the reasons we are so frustrated with the present 
state of the rules.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. All we are asking for the veterans of this country is 
that if their rights are taken away that it be adjudicated by a judge 
or magistrate. That is all we are asking. Rather than a social worker 
at the VA--which is what happens today to veterans. We are not asking 
for anything big. We are just saying if you are going to take away the 
second amendment rights, which means all those who truly should lose 
their rights will lose them, but they ought to have it adjudicated 
rather than mandated by somebody who is unqualified to state that they 
should lose their rights.
  I will announce today right now that I will not object if Senator 
Levin again offers the request that will put four amendments on the 
floor. I will not object to that. I want to cooperate in this body. But 
I think you ought to think about what we just voted on--which I voted 
for--which is to protect the Bill of Rights for people of this country. 
To protect the Bill of Rights for people of this country. There could 
be no one for whom we should want to protect the Bill of Rights more 
than somebody who served our country.
  We can object. All I am saying is, let them at least have their day 
in court if you are going to take away a fundamental right given under 
the Constitution. I will say today, if the Senator from Michigan offers 
his unanimous consent again I will not object and we will move forward 
because I want us to move forward. I want us to finish this bill. I 
want the Defense Department to be able to have something they can count 
on for the next year. But ask yourself in your heart, how fair is it? 
We are worried about terrorists and their Bill of Rights but we are not 
worried about the people who defend our country and their Bill of 
Rights? Tell me how we got to that point.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order for 
the following first-degree amendments to be offered: Sessions No. 3009, 
Cardin No. 3025, Menendez No. 3232, Nelson of Florida no. 3073; that at 
9:30 a.m. on Friday, tomorrow, November 30, following the prayer, that 
the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the amendments in the order 
listed; that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote; 
that there be no amendments in order to the amendments prior to the 
votes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, as 
I understand it, there are still no time agreements on this?
  Mr. LEVIN. That is correct. We will work out time agreements----
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right----
  Mr. McCAIN. I still have the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. The only time agreement we have in yet is the time we come 
in, not a time for a vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I wanted to clarify.
  Mr. LEVIN. Oh, I did not state that correctly. I believed, and I am 
now wrong, that there would be a time agreement on each amendment that 
we would attempt to arrive at. That is not what this says. This 
provides, and I am going to read it again, and I did not listen to my 
own reading--that at 9:30, following the prayer tomorrow, the Senate 
proceed to votes in relation to the amendments in the order listed and 
that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote; and there 
be no amendments in order to the amendments prior to the votes.
  I think we ought to have more debate on some of these amendments than 
that. The debates could take place tonight.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, I ask the Senator----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Did the Senator say the only time for debate on these 
amendments would be 2 minutes?
  Mr. LEVIN. Tonight is open for debate.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Tonight is open. Tomorrow there would just be 2 minutes 
on each amendment? Because Senator Kirk and I, and Senator Lieberman, 
have amendments that several Members have asked to speak on, including 
the distinguished ranking member. I would then urge them to come 
tonight and speak on it. I will not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. I completed my statement.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object and I will not object, I 
want to speak for 20 seconds. This is what I want to say.
  There are amendments and there are amendments. We all know that. I 
think we have shown that we can work together. But when you try to 
repeal a

[[Page S7196]]

law that protects the lives of people--you talk about protecting 
rights, I am with you. I also want to protect the lives of people. 
Coming from a State where we have had many mass shootings it may take a 
little longer. Maybe we ought to have a hearing or two before you 
repeal a law that is so important to the safety of the people.
  I will not object. I will see you all tomorrow.
  Mr. COBURN. Reserving the right to object, this bill came out of the 
Veterans' Committee 14 to 0. They had hearings on it. We have done the 
work. It has been done. It came unanimously out of the Veterans' 
Committee. There is no question about what is right to do in terms of 
protecting--this is not about allowing anybody with any mental disease 
to have a gun. This is about taking the rights of those who do not have 
a mental disease to have their rights restored.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Oklahoma object?
  Mr. COBURN. I do not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There has been a unanimous consent request. If 
there is no objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan.


 Amendments Nos. 2940, 3036, 3064, 3114, 3193, 3213, 3220, 3222, 3237, 
              3243, 3256, 3260, 3261, 3271, 3275, and 3279

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I now call up a list of 17 amendments which 
have been cleared by myself and Senator McCain. I am going to list 
these amendments:

       Blumenthal amendment No. 2940, Brown of Massachusetts 
     amendment No. 3036, Toomey amendment No. 3064, Levin 
     amendment No. 3114, Casey amendment No. 3193, Risch amendment 
     No. 3213, Wicker amendment No. 3220, Johanns amendment No. 
     3222, Coburn amendment No. 3237, Levin amendment No. 3243, 
     Lieberman amendment No. 3256, Cornyn amendment No. 3260, 
     McCain amendment No. 3261, Kyl amendment No. 3271, Webb 
     amendment No. 3275, Nelson of Nebraska amendment No. 3279.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. McCAIN. We now have 17 more amendments. We will be proceeding 
tomorrow morning. I want to tell my colleagues, we will be looking at 
other amendments to put into a package we can agree on, but I also urge 
many of my colleagues who have redundant and duplicative amendments to 
look at their amendments and withdraw them if possible so we can 
dispose of remaining amendments as soon as possible tomorrow.
  I thank especially Senator Feinstein and Senator Graham and Senator 
Ayotte and those who were involved in this whole detainee issue. I 
think it was a result that helped us to move forward enormously. I 
thank, obviously, the chairman for his unlimited patience, which is a 
quality which I do not have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request to adopt the amendments en bloc?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2940

 (Purpose: To provide certain requirements relating to the retirement, 
       adoption, care, and recognition of military working dogs)

       At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1048. MILITARY WORKING DOG MATTERS.

       (a) Retirement of Military Working Dogs.--
       (1) Section 2583 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 
     (g) and (h), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new 
     subsection (f):
       ``(f) Transfer of Retired Military Working Dogs.--If the 
     Secretary of the military department concerned determines 
     that a military working dog should be retired, and no 
     suitable adoption is available at the military facility where 
     the dog is located, the Secretary may transfer the dog--
       ``(1) to the 341st Training Squadron; or
       ``(2) to another location for adoption under this 
     section.''.
       (b) Veterinary Care for Retired Military Working Dogs.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 50 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 993. Military working dogs: veterinary care for 
       retired military working dogs

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense may establish 
     and maintain a system to provide for the veterinary care of 
     retired military working dogs. No funds may be provided by 
     the Federal Government for this purpose.
       ``(b) Eligible Dogs.--A retired military working dog 
     eligible for veterinary care under this section is any 
     military working dog adopted under section 2583 of this 
     title.
       ``(c) Standards of Care.--The veterinary care provided 
     under the system authorized by this section shall meet such 
     standards as the Secretary shall establish and from time to 
     time update.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 50 of such title is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new item:

``993. Military working dogs: veterinary care for retired military 
              working dogs.''.
       (c) Recognition of Service of Military Working Dogs.--The 
     Secretary of Defense may authorize the recognition of 
     military working dogs that are killed, wounded, or missing in 
     action and military working dogs that perform an 
     exceptionally meritorious or courageous act in service to the 
     United States.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3036

(Purpose: To require reports on the potential security threat posed by 
                              Boko Haram)

       At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1084. REPORTS ON THE POTENTIAL SECURITY THREAT POSED BY 
                   BOKO HARAM.

       (a) Director of National Intelligence Report.--Not later 
     than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to 
     Congress an intelligence assessment of the Nigerian 
     organization known as Boko Haram. Such assessment shall 
     address the following:
       (1) The organizational structure, operational goals, and 
     funding sources of Boko Haram.
       (2) The extent to which Boko Haram threatens the stability 
     of Nigeria and surrounding countries.
       (3) The extent to which Boko Haram threatens the security 
     of citizens of the United States or the national security or 
     interests of the United States.
       (4) Any interaction between Boko Haram and al-Qaeda in the 
     Islamic Maghreb or other al-Qaeda affiliates with respect to 
     operational planning and execution, training, and funding.
       (5) The capacity of Nigerian security forces to counter the 
     threat posed by Boko Haram and an assessment of the 
     effectiveness of the strategy of the Nigerian government to 
     date.
       (6) Any intelligence gaps with respect to the leadership, 
     operational goals, and capabilities of Boko Haram.
       (b) Secretary of State Report.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the date the report required by subsection (a) is 
     submitted to Congress, the Secretary of State shall submit to 
     Congress a report describing the strategy of the United 
     States to counter the threat posed by Boko Haram.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3064

(Purpose: To require a study on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle industrial 
                                 base)

       At the end of subtitle F of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1064. STUDY ON BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLE INDUSTRIAL BASE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall 
     conduct a study on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle industrial 
     base.
       (b) Content.--The study required under subsection (a) 
     shall--
       (1) assess the quantitative impacts of a production break 
     for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, including the cost of 
     shutdown compared to the cost of continued production; and
       (2) assess the qualitative impacts of a production break 
     for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, including the loss of a 
     specialized workforce and supplier base.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3114

   (Purpose: To authorize the repair, overhaul, and refurbishment of 
defense articles for sale or transfer to eligible foreign countries and 
                               entities)

       At the end of subtitle D of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 1246. PROGRAM ON REPAIR, OVERHAUL, AND REFURBISHMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE ARTICLES FOR SALE OR TRANSFER TO 
                   ELIGIBLE FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND ENTITIES.

       (a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may carry 
     out a program to repair, overhaul, or refurbish in-stock 
     defense articles in anticipation of the sale or transfer of 
     such defense articles to eligible foreign countries or 
     international organizations under law.
       (b) Fund for Support of Program Authorized.--The Secretary 
     of Defense may establish and administer a fund to be known as 
     the ``Special Defense Repair Fund'' (in this section referred 
     to as the ``Fund'') to support the program authorized by 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Credits to Fund.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the 
     following shall be credited to the Fund:
       (A) Subject to applicable provisions of appropriations 
     Acts, such amounts, not to exceed $48,400,000 per fiscal 
     year, from amounts authorized to be appropriated for the 
     Department of Defense for operation and maintenance for the 
     Army as the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate.

[[Page S7197]]

       (B) Notwithstanding section 114(c) of title 10, United 
     States Code, any collection from the sale or transfer of 
     defense articles from Department of Defense stocks repaired, 
     overhauled, or refurbished with amounts from the Fund that 
     are not intended to be replaced which sale or transfer is 
     made pursuant to section 21(a)(1)(A) of the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761(a)(1)(A)), the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), or another provision of 
     law.
       (C) Notwithstanding section 37(a) of the Arms Export 
     Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2777(a)), any cash payment from the 
     sale or transfer of defense articles from Department of 
     Defense stocks repaired, overhauled, or refurbished with 
     amounts from the Fund that are intended to be replaced.
       (2) Limitation on amounts creditable from sale or transfer 
     of articles.--
       (A) Credits in connection with articles not to be 
     replaced.--The amount credited to the Fund under paragraph 
     (1)(B) in connection with a collection from the sale or 
     transfer of defense articles may not exceed the cost incurred 
     by the Department of Defense in repairing, overhauling, or 
     refurbishing such defense articles under the program 
     authorized by subsection (a).
       (B) Credits in connection with articles to be replaced.--
     The amount credited to the Fund under paragraph (1)(C) in 
     connection with a sale or transfer of defense articles may 
     not exceed the amounts from the Fund used to repair, 
     overhaul, or refurbish such defense articles.
       (3) Limitation on size of fund.--The total amount in the 
     Fund at any time may not exceed $50,000,000.
       (4) Treatment of amounts credited.--Amounts credited to the 
     Fund under this subsection shall be merged with amounts in 
     the Fund, and shall remain available until expended.
       (d) Nonavailability of Amounts in Fund for Storage, 
     Maintenance, and Related Costs.--Following the repair, 
     overhaul, or refurbishment of defense articles under the 
     program authorized by subsection (a), amounts in the Fund may 
     not be used to pay costs of storage and maintenance of such 
     defense articles or any other costs associated with the 
     preservation or preparation for sale or transfer of such 
     defense articles.
       (e) Sales or Transfers of Defense Articles.--
       (1) In general.--Any sale or transfer of defense articles 
     repaired, overhauled, or refurbished under the program 
     authorized by subsection (a) shall be in accordance with--
       (A) the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.);
       (B) the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; or
       (C) another provision of law authorizing such sale or 
     transfer.
       (2) Secretary of state concurrence required for certain 
     sales or transfers to foreign countries.--If the sale or 
     transfer of defense articles occurs in accordance with a 
     provision of law referred to in paragraph (1)(C) that does 
     not otherwise require the concurrence of the Secretary of 
     State for the sale or transfer, the sale or transfer may be 
     made only with the concurrence of the Secretary of State.
       (f) Transfers of Amounts.--
       (1) Transfer to other department of defense accounts.--
     Amounts in the Fund may be transferred to any Department of 
     Defense account used to carry out the program authorized by 
     subsection (a). Any amount so transferred shall be merged 
     with amounts in the account to which transferred, and shall 
     be available for the same purposes and the same time period 
     as amounts in the account to which transferred.
       (2) Transfer from other department of defense accounts.--
     Upon a determination by the Secretary of Defense with respect 
     to an amount transferred under paragraph (1) that all or part 
     of such transfer is not necessary for the purposes 
     transferred, such amount may be transferred back to the Fund. 
     Any amount so transferred shall be merged with amounts in the 
     Fund, and shall remain available until expended.
       (g) Certain Excess Proceeds To Be Credited to Special 
     Defense Acquisition Fund.--Any collection from the sale or 
     transfer of defense articles that are not intended to be 
     replaced in excess of the amount creditable to the Fund under 
     subsection (c)(2)(A) shall be credited to the Special Defense 
     Acquisition Fund established pursuant to chapter 5 of the 
     Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2795 et seq.).
       (h) Reports.--
       (1) Annual report.--Not later than 45 days after the end of 
     each fiscal year through the date of expiration specified in 
     subsection (j), the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report on the authorities 
     under this section during such fiscal year. Each report shall 
     include, for the fiscal year covered by such report, the 
     following:
       (A) The types and quantities of defense articles repaired, 
     overhauled, or refurbished under the program authorized by 
     subsection (a).
       (B) The value of the repair, overhaul, or refurbishment 
     performed under the program.
       (C) The amount of operation and maintenance funds credited 
     to the Fund under subsection (c)(1)(A).
       (D) The amount of any collections from the sale or transfer 
     of defense articles repaired, overhauled, or refurbished 
     under the program that was credited to the Fund under 
     subsection (c)(1)(B).
       (E) The amount of any cash payments from the sale or 
     transfer of defense articles repaired, overhauled, or 
     refurbished under the program that was credited to the Fund 
     under subsection (c)(1)(C).
       (2) Assessment report.--Not later than February 1, 2015, 
     the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report on the operation of the 
     authorities in this section. The report shall include an 
     assessment of the effectiveness of the authorities in meeting 
     the objectives of the program authorized by subsection (a).
       (i) Defense Article Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``defense article'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 47(3) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2794(3)).
       (j) Expiration of Authority.--The authority to carry out 
     the program authorized by subsection (a), and to use amounts 
     in the Fund in support of the program, shall expire on 
     September 30, 2015.
       (k) Funding for Fiscal Year 2013.--Of the amounts 
     authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013 by section 
     1504 for Overseas Contingency Operations and available for 
     operation and maintenance for the Army as specified in 
     funding table in section 4302, $48,400,000 shall be available 
     for deposit in the Fund pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(A), 
     with the amount of the deposit to be attributable to amounts 
     otherwise so available for the YMQ-18A unmanned aerial 
     vehicle, which has been cancelled.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3193

  (Purpose: To require the Department of Defense to develop a plan to 
  promote the security of Afghan women and girls during the security 
                          transition process)

  The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text 
of Amendments.''


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3213

(Purpose: To add the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee 
 on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee 
 on Intelligence and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
Representatives to the list of congressional committees to receive the 
  submission of reports on the program for scientific engagement for 
                           nonproliferation)

       Strike section 3114 and insert the following:

     SEC. 3114. PROGRAM ON SCIENTIFIC ENGAGEMENT FOR 
                   NONPROLIFERATION.

       (a) Program Required.--
       (1) In general.--Title XLIII of the Atomic Energy Defense 
     Act (50 U.S.C. 2562 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:

     ``SEC. 4309. PROGRAM ON SCIENTIFIC ENGAGEMENT FOR 
                   NONPROLIFERATION.

       ``(a) Program Required.--(1) The Secretary of Energy shall, 
     acting through the Administrator of the National Nuclear 
     Security Administration, carry out a program on scientific 
     engagement in countries selected by the Secretary for 
     purposes of the program in order to advance global 
     nonproliferation and nuclear security efforts.
       ``(2) The program required by this section shall be a 
     distinct program from the Global Initiatives for 
     Proliferation Prevention program.
       ``(b) Elements.--The program shall include the elements as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Training and capacity-building to strengthen 
     nonproliferation and security best practices.
       ``(2) Engagement of United States scientists with foreign 
     counterparts to advance nonproliferation goals.
       ``(c) Report on Commencement of Program.--Funds may not be 
     expended under the program required by this section until the 
     Administrator submits to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report setting forth the following:
       ``(1) For each country selected for the program as of the 
     date of such report--
       ``(A) a proliferation threat assessment prepared by the 
     Director of National Intelligence; and
       ``(B) metrics for evaluating the success of the program.
       ``(2) Accounting standards for the conduct of the program 
     approved by the Comptroller General of the United States.
       ``(d) Reports on Modification of Program.--Before making 
     any modification in the program (whether selecting a new 
     country for the program, ceasing the selection of a country 
     for the program, or modifying an element of the program), the 
     Administrator shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report on the modification. If the modification 
     consists of the selection for the program of a country not 
     previously selected for the program, the report shall include 
     the matters specified in subsection (c)(1) for the country.
       ``(e) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In 
     this section, the term `appropriate congressional committees' 
     means--
       ``(1) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on 
     Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the 
     Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
       ``(2) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on 
     Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     4001(b) of such Act (division D of Public Law 107-314) is 
     amended by

[[Page S7198]]

     inserting after the item relating to section 4308 the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 4309. Program on scientific engagement for nonproliferation.''.
       (b) Report on Coordination With Other United States 
     Nonproliferation Programs.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
     National Nuclear Security Administration shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report describing the 
     manner in which the program on scientific engagement for 
     nonproliferation under section 4309 of the Atomic Energy 
     Defense Act (as added by subsection (a)) coordinates with and 
     complements, but does not duplicate, other nonproliferation 
     programs of the United States Government.
       (c) Comptroller General of the United States Report.--Not 
     later than two years after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report 
     on the program on scientific engagement for nonproliferation 
     under section 4309 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (as so 
     added). The report shall include an assessment by the 
     Comptroller General of the success of the program, as 
     determined in accordance with the metrics for evaluating the 
     success of the program under subsection (c)(1)(B) of such 
     section 4309, and such other matters on the program as the 
     Comptroller General considers appropriate.
       (d) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed 
     Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed 
     Services, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3220

 (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress in support of the Israeli 
                   Iron Dome defensive weapon system)

       At the end of subtitle D of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 1246. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE ISRAELI IRON DOME 
                   DEFENSIVE WEAPON SYSTEM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The citizens of Israel have suffered under a continual 
     barrage of missiles, rockets, and mortar shells from the 
     Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.
       (2) Hamas has been designated by the Secretary of State as 
     a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
       (3) Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza have routinely 
     used human shields and launched rockets from civilian areas.
       (4) Israel has gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid 
     Palestinian civilian casualties, including aborting attacks 
     on military targets because of the presence of civilians, 
     alerting civilians to leave areas of potential conflict, and 
     allowing the importation of medical and other supplies into 
     Gaza.
       (5) Israel faces additional rocket and missile threats from 
     Lebanon and Syria.
       (6) The Government of Iran has supplied Hamas with advanced 
     longer range missiles such as the Fajar-5.
       (7) Hamas has deployed these weapons to be fired from 
     within their own civilian population.
       (8) The Government of Israel, taking seriously the threat 
     of short range rockets and mortars, designed, developed, and 
     produced the Iron Dome system to address those threats.
       (9) The Iron Dome system has successfully intercepted 
     hundreds of rockets targeting population centers in Israel.
       (10) The Iron Dome system has maintained a success rate of 
     close to 90 percent.
       (11) The Government of Israel currently maintains 5 Iron 
     Dome batteries, a number insufficient to protect all of 
     Israel.
       (12) It appears that approximately 10 additional Iron Dome 
     batteries are needed to protect all of Israel.
       (13) The United States Government, recognizing the threat 
     to Israeli citizens and desirous of promoting peace, approved 
     funding to assist the Government of Israel in procuring Iron 
     Dome batteries.
       (14) Israel maintains a significant inventory of Iron Dome 
     interceptors which has been reduced due to attacks from Gaza.
       (15) Israel used a significant number of precision-guided 
     munitions in order to destroy military targets while 
     minimizing civilian casualties in its recent defensive effort 
     in Gaza.
       (16) President Barack Obama has expressed his intention to 
     seek additional funding for Iron Dome and other United 
     States-Israel missile defense systems.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--Congress--
       (1) reaffirms its commitment to the security of our ally 
     and strategic partner, Israel;
       (2) fully supports Israel's right to defend itself against 
     acts of terrorism;
       (3) sympathizes with the families of Israelis who have come 
     under the indiscriminate rocket fire from Hamas-controlled 
     Gaza;
       (4) recognizes the exceptional success of the Iron Dome 
     Missile Defense system in defending the population of Israel;
       (5) desires to help ensure that Israel has the means to 
     defend itself against terrorist attacks, including through 
     the acquisition of additional Iron Dome batteries and 
     interceptors; and
       (6) urges the Departments of Defense and State to explore 
     with their Israeli counterparts and alert Congress of any 
     needs the Israeli Defense Force may have for additional Iron 
     Dome batteries, interceptors, or other equipment depleted 
     during the current conflict.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3222

(Purpose: To express the expectation of Congress to be consulted by the 
   Secretary of Defense before the Secretary pursues a change in the 
           command status of the United States Cyber Command)

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

     SEC. 935. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE UNITED STATES CYBER 
                   COMMAND.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On June 23, 2009, the Secretary of Defense directed the 
     Commander of the United States Strategic Command to establish 
     the United States Cyber Command, which became operational on 
     May 21, 2010, and operates as a sub-unified command 
     subordinate to the United States Strategic Command.
       (2) In May 2012, media reports indicated that General 
     Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
     planned to recommend to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta 
     that the two-year-old United States Cyber Command be elevated 
     to full combatant command status.
       (3) On August 14, 2012, General Keith Alexander, the 
     Commander of the United States Cyber Command and the Director 
     of the National Security Agency, addressed the TechNet Land 
     Forces conference and stated that ``[i]n 2007 we drafted . . 
     . a paper . . . about establishing a Cyber Command . . . 
     [which concluded that] . . . the most logical is to set it up 
     as a sub unified and grow it to a unified, and I think that's 
     the process that we're going to work our way through''.
       (4) On October 11, 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta 
     discussed cybersecurity in a speech to the Business 
     Executives for National Security in New York, New York, 
     specifically calling for a strengthening of the United States 
     Cyber Command and stating that the Department of Defense 
     ``must ensure that [the United States Cyber Command] has the 
     resources, that it has the authorities, that it has the 
     capabilities required to perform this growing mission. And it 
     must also be able to react quickly to events unfolding in 
     cyberspace and help fully integrate cyber into all of the 
     department's plans and activities.''.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--Congress--
       (1) recognizes the serious cyber threat to national 
     security and the need to work both offensively and 
     defensively to protect the Nation's networks and critical 
     infrastructure;
       (2) acknowledges the importance of the unified command 
     structure of the Department in directing military operations 
     in cyberspace and recognizes that a change in the status of 
     the United States Cyber Command has Department-wide and 
     national security implications, which require careful 
     consideration;
       (3) expects to be briefed and consulted about any proposal 
     to elevate the United States Cyber Command to a unified 
     command before a decision by the Secretary make such a 
     proposal to the President and to receive, at a minimum--
       (A) a clear statement of mission and related legal 
     definitions;
       (B) an outline of the specific national security benefits 
     of elevating the sub-unified United States Cyber Command to a 
     unified command;
       (C) an estimate of the cost of creating a unified United 
     States Cyber Command and a justification of the expenditure; 
     and
       (D) if the Secretary considers it advisable to continue the 
     designation of the Commander of the United States Cyber 
     Command as also being the Director of the National Security 
     Agency--
       (i) an explanation of how a single individual could serve 
     as a commander of a combatant command that conducts overt, 
     albeit clandestine, cyber operations under title 10, United 
     States Code, as well as the director of an intelligence 
     agency that conducts covert cyber operations under the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) in a 
     manner that affords deniability to the United States; and
       (ii) a statement of whether the Secretary believes it is 
     appropriate either to appoint a line officer as the Director 
     of the National Security Agency or to take the unprecedented 
     step of appointing an intelligence officer as a unified 
     commander; and
       (4) believes that appropriate policy foundations and 
     standing rules of engagement must be in place before any 
     decision to create a unified United States Cyber Command.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3237

 (Purpose: To set forth consequences for the failure of the Department 
    of Defense to obtain audits with an unqualified opinion on its 
               financial statements by fiscal year 2017)

       At the end of subtitle A of title IX, add the following:

     SEC. 903. FAILURE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO OBTAIN 
                   AUDITS WITH AN UNQUALIFIED OPINION ON ITS 
                   FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BY FISCAL YEAR 2017.

       If the Department of Defense fails to obtain an audit with 
     an unqualified opinion on

[[Page S7199]]

     its financial statements for fiscal year 2017, the following 
     shall take effect, effective as of the date of the issuance 
     of the opinion on such audit:
       (1) Reorganization of responsibilities of chief management 
     officer.--
       (A) Position of chief management officer.--Section 132a of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 132a. Chief Management Officer

       ``(a) In General.--(1) There is a Chief Management Officer 
     of the Department of Defense, appointed from civilian life by 
     the President, by and with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate.
       ``(2) Any individual nominated for appointment as Chief 
     Management Officer shall be an individual who has--
       ``(A) extensive executive level leadership and management 
     experience in the public or private sector;
       ``(B) strong leadership skills;
       ``(C) a demonstrated ability to manage large and complex 
     organizations; and
       ``(D) a proven record in achieving positive operational 
     results.
       ``(b) Powers and Duties.--The Chief Management Officer 
     shall perform such duties and exercise such powers as the 
     Secretary of Defense may prescribe.
       ``(c) Service as Chief Management Officer.--(1) The Chief 
     Management Officer is the Chief Management Officer of the 
     Department of Defense.
       ``(2) In serving as the Chief Management Officer of the 
     Department of Defense, the Chief Management Officer shall be 
     responsible for the management and administration of the 
     Department of Defense with respect to the following:
       ``(A) The expenditure of funds, accounting, and finance.
       ``(B) Procurement, including procurement of any enterprise 
     resource planning (ERP) system and any information technology 
     (IT) system that is a financial feeder system, human 
     resources system, or logistics system.
       ``(C) Facilities, property, nonmilitary equipment, and 
     other resources.
       ``(D) Strategic planning, and annual performance planning, 
     and identification and tracking of performance measures.
       ``(E) Internal audits and management analyses of the 
     programs and activities of the Department, including the 
     Defense Contract Audit Agency.
       ``(F) Such other areas or matters as the Secretary of 
     Defense may designate.
       ``(3) The head of the Defense Contract Audit Agency shall 
     be under the supervision of, and shall report directly to, 
     the Chief Management Officer.
       ``(d) Precedence.--The Chief Management Officer takes 
     precedence in the Department of Defense after the Secretary 
     of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense.''.
       (B) Conforming amendments.--
       (i) Section 131(b) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--

       (I) by striking paragraph (3);
       (II) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (III) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph (2):

       ``(2) The Chief Management Officer of the Department of 
     Defense.''.
       (ii) Section 132 of such title is amended--

       (I) by striking subsection (c); and
       (II) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as 
     subsections (c) and (d), respectively.

       (iii) Section 133(e)(1) of such title is amended by 
     striking ``and the Deputy Secretary of Defense'' and 
     inserting ``, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Chief 
     Management Officer of the Department of Defense''.
       (iv) Such title is further amended by inserting ``the Chief 
     Management Officer of the Department of Defense,'' after 
     ``the Deputy Secretary of Defense,'' each place it appears in 
     the provisions as follows:

       (I) Section 133(e)(2).
       (II) Section 134(c).

       (v) Section 137a(d) of such title is amended by striking 
     ``the Secretaries of the military departments,'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``the Chief Management Officer of the 
     Department of Defense, the Secretaries of the military 
     departments, and the Under Secretaries of Defense.''.
       (vi) Section 138(d) of such title is amended by striking 
     ``the Secretaries of the military departments,'' and all that 
     follows through the period and inserting ``the Chief 
     Management Officer of the Department of Defense, the 
     Secretaries of the military departments, the Under 
     Secretaries of Defense, and the Director of Defense Research 
     and Engineering.''.
       (C) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 4 of such title is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 132a and inserting the following 
     new item:

``132a. Chief Management Officer.''.
       (D) Executive schedule.--Section 5313 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense.''.
       (E) Reference in law.--Any reference in any provision of 
     law to the Chief Management Officer of the Department of 
     Defense shall be deemed to refer to the Chief Management 
     Officer of the Department of Defense under section 132a of 
     title 10, United States Code (as amended by this paragraph).
       (2) Jurisdiction of dfas.--
       (A) Transfer to department of the treasury.--Jurisdiction 
     of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) is 
     transferred from the Department of Defense to the Department 
     of the Treasury.
       (B) Administration.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     administer the Defense Finance and Accounting Service 
     following transfer under this paragraph through the Financial 
     Management Service of the Department of the Treasury.
       (C) Memorandum of understanding.--The Secretary of Defense 
     and the Secretary of the Treasury shall jointly enter into a 
     memorandum of understanding regarding the transfer of 
     jurisdiction of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service 
     under this paragraph. The memorandum of understanding shall 
     provide for the transfer of the personnel and other resources 
     of the Service to the Department of the Treasury and for the 
     assumption of responsibility for such personnel and resources 
     by the Department of the Treasury.
       (D) Construction.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be 
     construed as terminating, altering, or revising any 
     responsibilities or authorities of the Defense Finance and 
     Accounting Service (other than responsibilities and 
     authorities in connection with the exercise of jurisdiction 
     of the Service following transfer under this paragraph).


                           amendment no. 3243

   (Purpose: To commend the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement 
   between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of 
                              Afghanistan)

       At the end of subtitle B of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 1221. SENSE OF CONGRESS COMMENDING THE ENDURING 
                   STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE 
                   UNITED STATES AND AFGHANISTAN.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States and Afghanistan have been allies in 
     the conflict against al Qaeda and its affiliates for over a 
     decade, with the shared goal of ensuring that Afghanistan is 
     never again a sanctuary for al Qaeda.
       (2) The United States and Afghanistan are committed to the 
     framework agreed to at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     (NATO) Summit in Lisbon in 2010, and reaffirmed at the NATO 
     Summit in Chicago in 2012, for the transition from coalition 
     forces to the Afghan National Security Forces of lead 
     responsibility for security throughout Afghanistan by the end 
     of 2014.
       (3) In June 2011, President Barack Obama said, ``What we 
     can do, and will do, is build a partnership with the Afghan 
     people that endures--one that ensures that we will be able to 
     continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign 
     Afghan government.''
       (4) In November 2011, a traditional loya jirga in Kabul 
     declared that ``strategic cooperation with the United States 
     of America, which is a strategic ally of the people and 
     government of Afghanistan, is considered important in order 
     to ensure political, economic, and military security'' and 
     also stated, ``Signing a strategic cooperation document with 
     the United States conforms with the national interest of 
     Afghanistan and is of significant importance.''
       (5) On May 2, 2012, President Obama and President Hamid 
     Karzai signed the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement 
     Between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic 
     of Afghanistan.
       (6) At the signing of the Enduring Strategic Partnership 
     Agreement, President Obama said, ``Today we're agreeing to be 
     long-term partners in combating terrorism, and training 
     Afghan security forces, strengthening democratic institutions 
     and supporting development, and protecting human rights of 
     all Afghans. With this agreement, the Afghan people, and the 
     world, should know that Afghanistan has a friend and a 
     partner in the United States.''
       (7) At a May 20, 2012, bilateral meeting with President 
     Karzai at the NATO Summit in Chicago, President Obama said 
     that the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement ``reflects 
     a future in which two sovereign nations--the United States 
     and Afghanistan--are operating as partners, to the benefit of 
     our countries' citizens, but also for the benefit of peace 
     and security and stability in the region and around the 
     world''.
       (8) President Karzai said at the May 20, 2012, bilateral 
     meeting with President Obama, ``Mr. President, the 
     partnership that we signed a few weeks ago in Kabul has 
     turned a new page in our relations. And the new page is a 
     page of two sovereign countries working together for the 
     mutual interests--peace and security and in all other 
     areas.''
       (9) On May 26, 2012, the Wolesi Jirga, the lower house of 
     the Afghan parliament, approved the Agreement by a vote of 
     191-7 with 2 abstentions.
       (10) On June 3, 2012, the Meshrano Jirga, the upper house 
     of the Afghan parliament, approved the Agreement by a vote of 
     67-13.
       (11) On July 8, 2012, at the Tokyo Conference on 
     Afghanistan, the international community and the Government 
     of Afghanistan reaffirmed their partnership in the economic 
     growth and development of Afghanistan through a process of 
     mutual commitments and accountability.
       (12) On July 4, 2012, the Enduring Strategic Partnership 
     Agreement entered into force.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the members of the United States Armed Forces, 
     intelligence community, and diplomatic and development 
     community of the United States are to be commended for their 
     dedicated efforts and sacrifices in support of military and 
     stability operations in

[[Page S7200]]

     Afghanistan that have helped strengthen security in 
     Afghanistan, laid the foundation for transition to a long-
     term partnership between the United States and a sovereign 
     Afghanistan, and supported the Government and people of 
     Afghanistan as they continue to build their capacity to 
     effectively and justly govern;
       (2) the United States negotiating team for the Enduring 
     Strategic Partnership Agreement, including the United States 
     Embassy personnel in Kabul under the leadership of Ambassador 
     Ryan Crocker, is to be commended for its committed diplomatic 
     efforts;
       (3) the Governments of the United States and Afghanistan 
     are to be commended for concluding the Enduring Strategic 
     Partnership Agreement;
       (4) Congress supports the objectives and principles of the 
     Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement, including 
     protecting and promoting shared democratic values, advancing 
     long-term security, reinforcing regional security and 
     cooperation, fostering social and economic development, 
     upholding the rights of women and minorities, and 
     strengthening institutions and governance in Afghanistan;
       (5) it is essential that the Government and people of 
     Afghanistan fulfill Afghanistan's international commitments 
     as agreed at the Tokyo Conference of July 2012, the Bonn 
     Conference of December 2011, the Kabul Conference of July 
     2011, and other venues to combat corruption, protect the 
     equal rights of all citizens of Afghanistan and enforce the 
     rule of law, hold free and fair elections in 2014, and build 
     inclusive and effective institutions of democratic 
     governance;
       (6) a key national security interest of the United States 
     is to maintain a long-term political, economic, and military 
     relationship with Afghanistan, including a limited presence 
     of United States Armed Forces for the purpose of training, 
     advising, and supporting Afghan National Security Forces and 
     cooperating on shared counterterrorism objectives;
       (7) the negotiation and conclusion of a Bilateral Security 
     Agreement, as called for in the Enduring Strategic 
     Partnership Agreement, will provide a fundamental framework 
     for the long-term security relationship between the United 
     States and Afghanistan; and
       (8) Congress has a critical role in continuing to provide 
     the support and assistance necessary to achieve the goals of 
     the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement.


                           amendment no. 3256

(Purpose: To require reports from the Comptroller General of the United 
  States on certain aspects of joint professional military education)

       At the end of subtitle F of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 561. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES REPORTS ON 
                   JOINT PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION MATTERS.

       (a) Report on Review of Military Education Coordination 
     Council Report.--
       (1) Review of methodology.--The Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall review the methodology used by the 
     Military Education Coordination Council in compiling the 
     report on joint professional military education that is to be 
     submitted to the Director of Joint Force Development by March 
     1, 2013, pursuant to the Joint Staff Memorandum, Joint Staff 
     Review, dated July 16, 2012. The review shall include an 
     examination of the analytical approach used by the Council 
     for that report, including the types of information 
     considered, the cost savings identified, the benefits of 
     options considered, the time frames for implementation, and 
     transparency.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 90 days after receiving from 
     the Director of Joint Force Development the report described 
     in paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall submit to the 
     Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives a report on the review under paragraph (1) of 
     the report described in that paragraph. The report of the 
     Comptroller General under this paragraph shall set forth the 
     following:
       (A) The results of the review under paragraph (1).
       (B) Such recommendations as the Comptroller General 
     considers appropriate in light of the results of the review.
       (b) Report on Joint Professional Military Education 
     Research Institutions.--
       (1) Report required.--Not later than January 31, 2014, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report setting forth the 
     assessment by the Comptroller General of the work performed 
     by joint professional military education research 
     institutions in support of professional military education 
     and the broader mission of the Department of Defense, the 
     military departments, and the Defense Agencies.
       (2) Elements.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall 
     include an assessment of the following:
       (A) The systems, mechanisms, and structures within the 
     senior and intermediate joint professional military education 
     colleges and universities for oversight, governance, and 
     management of the joint professional military education 
     research institutions, including systems, mechanisms, and 
     structures relating to the development of policies and 
     budgets for research.
       (B) The factors contributing to and the extent of growth in 
     the number and size of joint professional military education 
     research institutions since 2000.
       (C) The causes and extent of cost growth at joint 
     professional military education research institutions since 
     2000.
       (D) The focus of research activity conducted by the joint 
     professional military education research institutions, and 
     the extent to which each joint professional military 
     education research institution performs a unique research 
     function or engages in similar or duplicative efforts with 
     other components or elements of the Department of Defense.
       (E) The measures of effectiveness used by the joint 
     professional military education research institutions, the 
     senior and intermediate joint professional military education 
     colleges and universities, and other oversight entities to 
     evaluate the performance of the joint professional military 
     education research institutions in meeting established goals 
     or objectives.
       (3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) The term ``joint professional military education 
     research institutions'' means subordinate organizations 
     (including centers, institutes, and schools) under the senior 
     and intermediate joint professional military education 
     colleges and universities for which research is the primary 
     mission or reason for existence.
       (B) The term ``senior and intermediate joint professional 
     military education colleges and universities'' means the 
     following:
       (i) The National Defense University.
       (ii) The Army War College.
       (iii) The Navy War College.
       (iv) The Air University.
       (v) The Air War College.
       (vi) The Marine Corp University.


                           amendment no. 3260

   (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to enter into contracts or 
                    agreements with Rosoboronexport)

       At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1048. PROHIBITION ON FUNDS TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS OR 
                   AGREEMENTS WITH ROSOBORONEXPORT.

       (a) Prohibition.--None of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated by this Act may be used to enter into a 
     contract, memorandum of understanding, or cooperative 
     agreement with, to make a grant to, or to provide a loan or 
     loan guarantee to Rosoboronexport.
       (b) National Security Waiver Authority.--The Secretary of 
     Defense may waive the applicability of subsection (a) if the 
     Secretary determines that such a waiver is in the national 
     security interests of the United States with respect to the 
     capacity of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF).


                           amendment no. 3261

 (Purpose: To require the submittal to Congress of risk assessments on 
         changes in United States troop levels in Afghanistan)

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

     SEC. 1536. SUBMITTAL TO CONGRESS OF RISK ASSESSMENTS ON 
                   CHANGES IN UNITED STATES TROOP LEVELS IN 
                   AFGHANISTAN.

       (a) Submittal Required.--Not later than 30 days after a 
     decision by the President to change the levels of United 
     States Armed Forces deployed in Afghanistan, the Chairman of 
     the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall, through the Secretary of 
     Defense, submit to the congressional defense committees a 
     detailed assessment of the risk to the United States mission 
     and interests in Afghanistan as the change in levels is 
     implemented.
       (b) Elements.--The risk assessment under subsection (a) on 
     a change in levels of United States Armed Forces in 
     Afghanistan shall include the following:
       (1) A description of the current security situation in 
     Afghanistan.
       (2) A description of any anticipated changes to United 
     States military operations and objectives in Afghanistan 
     associated with such change in levels.
       (3) An identification and assessment of any changes in 
     United States military capabilities, including manpower, 
     logistics, intelligence, and mobility support, in Afghanistan 
     associated with such change in levels.
       (4) An identification and assessment of the risk associated 
     with any changes in United States mission, military 
     capabilities, operations, and objectives in Afghanistan 
     associated with such change in levels.
       (5) An identification and assessment of any capability gaps 
     within the Afghanistan security forces that will impact their 
     ability to conduct operations following such change in 
     levels.
       (6) An identification and assessment of the risk associated 
     with the transition of combat responsibilities to the 
     Afghanistan security forces following such change in levels.
       (7) An assessment of the impact of such change in levels on 
     coalition military contributions to the mission in 
     Afghanistan.
       (8) A description of the assumptions to be in force 
     regarding the security situation in Afghanistan following 
     such change in levels.
       (9) Such other matters regarding such change in levels as 
     the Chairman considers appropriate.

[[Page S7201]]

                           amendment no. 3271

  (Purpose: To promote the development of an adequate, reliable, and 
 stable supply of critical and essential minerals in the United States 
  in order to strengthen and sustain the military readiness, national 
      security, and critical infrastructure of the United States)

       At the end of subtitle D of title XIV, add the following:

     SEC. 1433. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES WITH RESPECT TO A 
                   DOMESTIC SUPPLY OF CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL 
                   MINERALS.

       (a) Policy of the United States.--It is the policy of the 
     United States to promote the development of an adequate, 
     reliable, and stable supply of critical and essential 
     minerals in the United States in order to strengthen and 
     sustain the military readiness, national security, and 
     critical infrastructure of the United States.
       (b) Coordination of Development of Supply of Critical and 
     Essential Minerals.--To implement the policy described in 
     subsection (a), the President shall, acting through the 
     Executive Office of the President, coordinate the actions of 
     the appropriate federal agencies to identify opportunities 
     for and to facilitate the development of resources in the 
     United States to meet the critical and essential mineral 
     needs of the United States.


                           amendment no. 3275

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the situation in the 
                            Senkaku Islands)

       At the end of subtitle D of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 1246. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE SITUATION IN THE 
                   SENKAKU ISLANDS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the East China Sea is a vital part of the maritime 
     commons of Asia, including critical sea lanes of 
     communication and commerce that benefit all nations of the 
     Asia-Pacific region;
       (2) the peaceful settlement of territorial and 
     jurisdictional disputes in the East China Sea requires the 
     exercise of self-restraint by all parties in the conduct of 
     activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and 
     destabilize the region, and differences should be handled in 
     a constructive manner consistent with universally recognized 
     principles of customary international law;
       (3) while the United States takes no position on the 
     ultimate sovereignty of the Senkaku islands, the United 
     States acknowledges the administration of Japan over the 
     Senkaku Islands;
       (4) The unilateral actions of a third party will not affect 
     the United States' acknowledgement of the administration of 
     Japan over the Senkaku Islands;
       (5) the United States has national interests in freedom of 
     navigation, the maintenance of peace and stability, respect 
     for international law, and unimpeded lawful commerce;
       (6) the United States supports a collaborative diplomatic 
     process by claimants to resolve territorial disputes without 
     coercion, and opposes efforts at coercion, the threat of use 
     of force, or use of force by any claimant in seeking to 
     resolve sovereignty and territorial issues in the East China 
     Sea;
       (7) the United States reaffirms its commitment to the 
     Government of Japan under Article V of the Treaty of Mutual 
     Cooperation and Security that ``[e]ach Party recognizes that 
     an armed attack against either Party in the territories under 
     the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own 
     peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the 
     common danger in accordance with its constitutional 
     provisions and processes''.


                           amendment no. 3279

     (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that external and 
 independent oversight of the National Nuclear Security Administration 
 by the Department of Energy is critical to the mission of protecting 
             the United States nuclear security enterprise)

       At the end of title XXXI, add the following:

                       Subtitle D--Other Matters

     SEC. 3141. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON OVERSIGHT OF THE NUCLEAR 
                   SECURITY ENTERPRISE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) In 2000, the National Nuclear Security Administration 
     was established as an independent entity within the 
     Department of Energy to manage and secure the nuclear weapons 
     stockpile of the United States and to manage nuclear 
     nonproliferation and naval reactor programs.
       (2) Serious security and health incidents continue to occur 
     at sites of the National Nuclear Security Administration.
       (3) In September 2012, an official of the Government 
     Accountability Office testified to Congress that lax 
     laboratory attitudes toward safety procedures, laboratory 
     inadequacies in identifying and addressing safety problems 
     with appropriate corrective actions, and inadequate oversight 
     by site offices of the National Nuclear Security 
     Administration were responsible for nearly 100 safety 
     incidents since 2000.
       (4) On July 28, 2012, three unarmed individuals compromised 
     security at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, 
     Tennessee, and according to the Government Accountability 
     Office, ``gained access to the protected security area 
     directly adjacent to one of the nation's most critically 
     important nuclear weapons-related facilities''.
       (5) In June 2006, hackers attacked an unclassified computer 
     system at the National Nuclear Security Administration's 
     Service Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and gained access 
     to a file containing the names and social security numbers of 
     more than 1,500 employees of the National Nuclear Security 
     Administration.
       (6) As early as February 2005, the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Energy identified problems with the retrieval 
     of badges from terminated employees at Los Alamos National 
     Laboratory and other sites of the National Nuclear Security 
     Administration.
       (7) In 2004, a pattern of safety and security incidents 
     that occurred over the course of a year prompted the stand-
     down of Los Alamos National Laboratory.
       (8) The National Nuclear Security Administration, 
     independent of the safety and security reform efforts of the 
     Department of Energy, has launched an overhaul of its 
     contracting oversight, placing an emphasis on contractor 
     self-policing through an untested ``contractor assurance'' 
     approach.
       (9) The Government Accountability Office has given the 
     contractor administration and project management capabilities 
     of the National Nuclear Security Administration a ``high 
     risk'' designation and found there to be insufficient 
     qualified Federal acquisition professionals to ``plan, 
     direct, and oversee project execution''.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) there is a need for strong, independent oversight of 
     the United States nuclear security enterprise;
       (2) any attempt to reform oversight of the nuclear security 
     enterprise that transfers oversight from the Department of 
     Energy to the National Nuclear Security Administration, 
     reduces protections for worker health and safety at 
     facilities of the National Nuclear Security Administration to 
     levels below the standards of the Department of Energy, or 
     transfers construction appropriations for the nuclear 
     security enterprise from the Department of Energy 
     appropriation account to the military construction 
     appropriation account, should be carefully evaluated;
       (3) the Office of Health, Safety, and Security of the 
     Department of Energy, which reports to the Secretary of 
     Energy but is also accountable for routinely reporting to 
     Congress on the performance with respect to safety and 
     security of the Department, including the National Nuclear 
     Security Administration, and the role of that Office in 
     overseeing safety and security at the National Nuclear 
     Security Administration, should not be diminished but should 
     be routinely evaluated;
       (4) any future modifications to the management or structure 
     of the nuclear security enterprise should be done in a way 
     that maintains or increases oversight of critical 
     construction, security, and acquisition capabilities;
       (5) to the extent possible, oversight of programs of the 
     National Nuclear Security Administration by the Department of 
     Defense should increase to ensure current and future 
     warfighting requirements are met; and
       (6) the Nuclear Weapons Council should provide proper 
     oversight in the execution of its responsibilities under 
     section 179 of title 10, United States Code.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that regarding these amendments, 
which I believe by the Chair's ruling have been--are to be considered 
en bloc, also that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. My understanding is now 
that the Senate floor is open to debate. Hopefully people who want to 
debate on these four amendments will debate tonight so the 2 minutes 
tomorrow will be adequate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, if I could ask the distinguished 
chairman a question, I would assume, then, that at this point I would 
not have to call up the amendment? That would be in order tomorrow?
  Mr. LEVIN. No.


                           Amendment No. 3232

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I will ask to call up my amendment, the 
only amendment I have pending with Senator Kirk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], for himself and 
     Mr. Kirk, and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3232.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S7202]]

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text 
of Amendments.'')
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, first I appreciate where we are. This is 
a bipartisan amendment. It is an amendment with Senator Kirk and 
Senator Lieberman. It is a continuing perfection of sanctions as it 
relates to Iran that has been unanimously passed by this body 
approximately a year ago last December. Iran has set its sights on 
achieving nuclear weapons capability and this would not be in the 
national security interests of the United States because we have tens 
of thousands of our troops who would be in harm's way if Iran had 
nuclear weapons.
  It would also not be in our national security interests because we 
clearly have to ensure that the Straits of Hormuz remain open and 
accessible and we would be obligated under our NATO agreements to 
respond should a Shabab missile be launched against one of our allies. 
Of course a Shabab missile is an Iranian missile that has the type of 
flight and capability to do so.
  It is not in our national security interests because the last thing 
we need is a nuclear arms race in the tinderbox of the world where 
countries, for example, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia would feel 
obligated to follow suit if Iran were to become a nuclear power.
  For all of those reasons among others, it would not be in the 
national security interests of the United States. That achievement 
would jeopardize U.S. national security interests, pose an existential 
threat to the state of Israel, and would result in a nuclear arms race 
that would further destabilize the region.
  The news out of Iran is dire. Just this week the Director of the 
International Atomic Energy Administration told the press Iran has not 
slowed its enrichment activities. The International Atomic Energy 
Administration also suspects that Iran has conducted live tests of 
conventional explosives that could be used to detonate a nuclear weapon 
at the Parchin military base--a facility the Iranians have denied 
access to by the International Atomic Energy Administration.
  Between May and August of this year, Iran doubled the number of 
centrifuges at its fortified Fordow facility, buried deep inside a 
mountain to protect it against strikes. Iran now has over 2,140 
centrifuges for enriching uranium and it continues to enrich to 20 
percent. Iran claims it needs this higher grade uranium for its 
peaceful nuclear program, but a country with peaceful ambitions doesn't 
enrich uranium in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions. It 
doesn't refuse to disclose its operations. It doesn't hide them inside 
a mountain. A peaceful nation doesn't breach the international 
inspections regime compelled by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, 
and a peaceful nation is not one that pursues weaponization of missiles 
that can reach countries far beyond its borders.
  The sanctions passed by this body unanimously last December are 
having a significant impact. The Iranian currency, the rial, has lost 
much of its value, and Iran's oil exports have dropped to a new daily 
low of 860,000 barrels per day, which is over 1 million barrels of oil 
per day less than 1 year ago.
  Through our sanctions and the combined effort of the European Union, 
we have forced the Iranians back to the negotiating table. By passing 
these additional measures--requiring the cessation of sales to and 
transactions within Iranian sectors that support proliferation, 
including energy, shipping, shipbuilding, and port sectors, as well as 
anyone on our specially designated national list--we will send a 
message to Iran that the time for confidence-building measures is over. 
We do not want the Iranian regime simply to believe they can toughen 
out the sanctions. This sends a clear message that toughening it out 
will not work and it will only get worse.
  If Iran is serious about wanting to reach a diplomatic solution, then 
it must quickly and fully implement U.N. Security Council resolutions. 
It must stop enriching uranium, permit removal from its territory of 
enriched uranium, close the Fordow enrichment facility, and submit to a 
robust inspections regime that includes inspections of the Parchin 
military facility.
  Clearly, sanctions are not the ultimate goal. They are only a means 
to a clear end, in this case preventing Iran from becoming the next 
nuclear state and an existential threat to our ally, the State of 
Israel. Let me highlight the major provisions of this amendment.
  First, this amendment designates Iran's energy, port, shipping, and 
shipbuilding sectors as entities of proliferation because of the role 
they play in supporting and funding Iran's obvious proliferation 
activities. With the exception of permissible petroleum transactions 
under the existing sanctions regime from countries that have 
significantly reduced their purchases of oil from Iran, these sectors 
will now be off limits. We will sanction any transactions with these 
sectors and we will block the property--and any third party--that 
engages in transactions with them.
  Second, we impose sanctions on persons selling or supplying a defined 
list of commodities to Iran--commodities that are relevant to Iran's 
shipbuilding and nuclear sectors such as graphite, aluminum, steel, 
metallurgical coal, and software for integrating industrial processes. 
We also will prevent Iran from circumventing sanctions on its Central 
Bank that this Congress and the President signed by receiving payments 
in precious metals.
  Third, we designate the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting entity 
and its President as human rights abusers for their broadcasting of 
forced television confessions and show trials, thereby blocking their 
assets and preventing others from doing business with the IRIB.
  To address concerns about access to humanitarian goods in Iran, which 
is a very real and serious concern, we have provided for exceptions for 
the provision and sale to Iran of food, agricultural commodities, 
medicine, medical devices, and other humanitarian goods. We have 
imposed new human rights sanctions on those in Iran who are engaged in 
corruption or the diversion of resources related to these goods and 
that are preventing them from reaching the Iranian people.
  Our message is clear. The window is closing. The time for the waiting 
game is over. Yes, our sanctions are having a demonstrable effect on 
the Iranian economy, but Iran is still working just as hard to develop 
nuclear weapons. Iran has to decide what it will do. Will it continue 
down the path to proliferation and risk further crushing economic 
sanctions or will it end the madness and negotiate a responsible end to 
its nuclear ambition? The waiting game is over and, in the end, one way 
or the other, Iran will not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon that 
could threaten the national interests and security interests of the 
United States, Israel, the region, and the world.
  I wish to thank Senator Kirk, whom we have worked with on this issue 
for quite some time, as well as Senator Lieberman, Senator Casey, and 
many others who have shared their interests and their views, and we 
have tried to incorporate those views. I hope that tomorrow when we 
cast a vote, it will be the type of unanimous vote this Senate passed 
nearly 1 year ago, that ultimately sends a very clear message to the 
Iranians that if they seek to evade, if they seek to avoid, if they 
think they can wait out the process, they are wrong. That is, in 
essence, what we are doing through this amendment. It is, in essence, 
why we believe it is so critical to move forward, to send a very clear 
message to the Iranians.
  This is about the national security of the United States. It is the 
existential challenge to the State of Israel, our ally, and it is the 
best of a bipartisan effort that we have seen in this Senate.
  With that, I look forward to tomorrow's vote.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Menendez amendment No. 3232 is pending.
  Mr. McCAIN. All right. I intend to speak on that shortly.

[[Page S7203]]

  I see the chairman is here.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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. 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, what Senator McCain and I and our staffs 
are going to attempt to do tomorrow morning is that shortly after the 
fourth vote that is now scheduled, the fourth rollcall vote, we hope to 
be able to announce a finite list of amendments which would need to be 
disposed of before completion of this bill. That is going to be our 
goal, and we are going to repeat that goal the first thing in the 
morning. But it is important people know that. That is now something 
that is important that we do because we expect there will be a cloture 
motion tomorrow that will be filed, and if we can put together a finite 
list of amendments that need to be disposed of before final passage of 
this bill, that step may be unnecessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to say I think we have made great 
progress. I think we have addressed the major issues concerning this 
legislation, although there are certainly other issues our colleagues 
feel are very important. But we should have reached a point now after 3 
days that we put together a list of amendments. We can decide whether 
those amendments can be agreed upon, dropped or voted on. But it is 
time we put that list together and, obviously, with that being 
accomplished, we could get this thing wrapped up without having to go 
through the process of cloture and the intervening hours and all the 
parliamentary procedures that are embodied in that process.
  I thank the chairman and thank the presiding officer.
  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. 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.


                     Amendment No 3199, as Modified

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding the adoption of Durbin amendment No. 3199, it be 
modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3199) was modified, is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 1246. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO SUPPORT 
                   FOR THE REBEL GROUP KNOWN AS M23.

       (a) Blocking of Assets.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic 
     Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) or Executive Order 13413 
     (74 Fed. Reg. 64105; relating to blocking property of certain 
     persons contributing to the conflict in the Democratic 
     Republic of the Congo), block and prohibit all transactions 
     in all property and interests in property of a person 
     described in subsection (c) if such property and interests in 
     property are in the United States, come within the United 
     States, or are or come within the possession or control of a 
     United States person.
       (b) Visa Ban.--The Secretary of State shall deny a visa to, 
     and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall exclude from the 
     United States, any alien who is a person described in 
     subsection (c).
       (c) Persons Described.--A person described in this 
     subsection is a person that the President determines 
     provides, on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     significant financial, material, or technological support to 
     M23.
       (d) Waiver.--The President may waive the application of 
     this section with respect to a person if the President 
     determines and reports to the appropriate congressional 
     committees that the waiver is in the national interest of the 
     United States.
       (e) Termination of Sanctions.--The President may terminate 
     sanctions imposed under this section with respect to a person 
     on and after the date on which the President determines and 
     reports to the appropriate congressional committees that the 
     person has terminated the provision of significant financial, 
     material, and technological support to M23.
       (f) Termination of Section.--This section shall terminate 
     on the date on which the President determines that M23 is no 
     longer a significant threat to peace and security in the 
     Democratic Republic of the Congo.
       (g) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 
     and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee 
     on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.
       (2) M23.--The term ``M23'' refers to the rebel group known 
     as M23 operating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo that 
     derives its name from the March 23, 2009, agreement between 
     the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and 
     the National Congress for the Defense of the People (or any 
     successor group).
       (3) United states person.--The term ``United States 
     person'' means--
       (A) an individual who is a United States citizen or an 
     alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence to the United 
     States; or
       (B) an entity organized under the laws of the United States 
     or of any jurisdiction within the United States.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, my colleague Senator Landrieu and I have an 
amendment to remove inequities that exist in the women-owned small 
business contracting program, when compared to other socioeconomic 
programs.
  As former chair and now ranking member of the Senate Committee on 
Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long championed women 
entrepreneurship and have urged both past and present administrations 
to implement the woman-owned small business, WOSB, Federal contracting 
program, which was enacted into law 10 years ago. On March 4, 2010, the 
Small Business Administration, SBA, finally proposed a workable rule to 
implement the women's procurement program. And I am pleased to report 
that today there is a functional WOSB contracting program, however, the 
program lacks the critical elements that the SBA's 8(a), historically 
underutilized business zones, and the service-disabled veteran-owned 
government contracting programs include.
  To remedy this, our bipartisan amendment will help provide tools 
women need to compete fairly in the Federal contracting arena by 
eliminating a restriction on the dollar amount of a contract that a 
WOSB can compete for, thus putting them on a level playing field with 
the other socioeconomic contracting programs.
  Women-owned small businesses have yet to receive their fair share of 
the Federal marketplace. In fact, our government has never achieved its 
goal of 5 percent of contracts going to WOSBs, achieving only 3.98 
percent in fiscal year 2011. This amendment would greatly assist 
Federal agencies in achieving the small business goaling requirement 
for WOSBs.
  Mr. President, I also wish to speak to an amendment to S. 3254, the 
National Defense Authorization Act, to cease Federal involvement in the 
National Veterans Business Development Corporation.
  This bipartisan amendment would cease, once and for all, Federal 
involvement in the National Veterans Business Development Corporation, 
also known as The Veterans Corporation or simply TVC. Let me begin by 
thanking the bill's cosponsors, Small Business Committee Chair Mary 
Landrieu, former Small Business Committee Chair John Kerry and Senator 
Tom Coburn. Senator Coburn, as most in this body will recognize, is a 
true leader in efforts to streamline the Federal government. Recently 
he spoke with us about ideas for federal entities or programs that 
could be eliminated and we readily provided TVC as an example of an 
entity that we had already identified that the Federal government 
should sever its ties with.
  I want to say at the outset that an amendment, with identical text as 
this one, passed the Senate by a vote of 99-0 in May of 2011, but the 
bill it was attached to did not pass. We are introducing this repeal as 
a stand-alone bill because TVC has been ineffective and controversial 
since its inception as part of the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small 
Business Development Act--P.L. 106-50--in 1999. In December of 2008, 
former Small Business Committee Chairman Kerry and I investigated TVC, 
and issued a report detailing the organization's blatant mismanagement 
and wasting of taxpayers' dollars.
  The report found, among other things, that TVC (a) failed to support

[[Page S7204]]

Veteran Business Resource Centers; (b) had wasteful programs; (c) 
lacked outcomes-based measurements; (d) provided it's employees with 
unacceptably high executive compensation; (e) engaged in dubious 
expenditures, and (f) failed to properly fundraise.
  For instance, our report concluded that TVC had spent only 15 percent 
of the federal funding that it had received on veterans business 
resource centers, which TVC was required to establish and maintain 
under law. In FY 2008, the percentage dropped to about 9 percent. We 
also found that TVC's executives received unacceptably high levels of 
compensation given the organization's limited resources and reach. 
While an average of 15 percent of TVC's federally appropriated funds 
went to the Centers, 22 percent of TVC's FY 2007 federal appropriation 
dollars were spent on its top two executives' compensation packages 
alone. Moreover, the organization miserably failed to fundraise--which 
was required by law in order for it to become self-sufficient--and 
during fiscal years 2005 through 2007, TVC leaders spent $2.50 for 
every $1.00 they raised through the organization's fundraising 
efforts--almost entirely at the taxpayers' expense. Additionally, 
through broad decision-making powers granted to TVC's executive 
committee under the organization's bylaws, the committee approved a 
number of measures without proper approval or ratification form the 
full Board, including $40,000 in employee bonuses in one year alone.
  Since the issuing of the Small Business Committee's report, Congress 
has appropriated no further funding for TVC, and the Small Business 
Administration has incorporated the Veteran Business Resource Centers 
that TVC previously funded into its existing network of Veteran 
Business Outreach Centers. These moves were publically supported by a 
variety of veteran service organizations, including the American Legion 
and the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW). For instance, in August of 
2008, the American Legion passed a resolution at its national 
convention, Resolution No. 223, stating that the Legion ``no longer 
support[s] the continuing initiatives or existence of the national 
Veterans Business Development Corporation.''
  At present, TVC is still Federally chartered. At the same time, it 
receives no Federal funds, has no department or agency oversight. In 
light of everything I have discussed, it is my belief that the Federal 
government must take the next step and fully sever all ties with the 
organization. I ask my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2013 
National Defense Authorization Act. This bill represents a bipartisan 
commitment to ensuring that our brave men and women in uniform have the 
resources, equipment, and support they require to defend the interests 
of the United States around the globe.
  I wish to commend Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for their 
efforts.
  This bill represents a prudent path forward for the Department of 
Defense. But it is a path that could be shortly undermined if a 
compromise is not reached to avert the impending self-inflicted crisis 
of sequestration. Without action, sequestration could spell disaster 
for many of the programs that we would authorize through this bill. I 
stand ready to work with all my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, 
to correct the short-sighted policy of sequestration and determine a 
sustainable way forward for our country.
  I am pleased this bill recognizes the importance of shipbuilding to 
our Nation's defense, authorizing $778 million more than the 
administration's fiscal year 2013 request for Navy ships.
  While the total annual shipbuilding budget is less than what the 
United States pays each month on interest to service the national debt, 
the ships built by the Navy represent such an important part of our 
national military strategy. The Navy's fleet, as an instrument of 
national policy, has a positive effect upon global security that far 
exceeds the percentage of the budget it represents.
  This bill authorizes multiyear procurement authority for both the 
Virginia-class submarine program and for up to ten Arleigh Burke-class 
destroyers. The two programs are projected to achieve savings of 14 
percent and 9 percent respectively, when compared to the cost of annual 
contracting.
  I congratulate both the chairman and ranking member for their 
willingness to direct the Navy to make good on cost-effective planning 
and, as a result, to increase the size of the fleet. For as we have 
heard this year in the testimony of virtually every combatant 
commander, the importance of the maritime environment continues to grow 
with each passing year.
  As our Nation and our military look to the Western Pacific, that 
trend is sure to continue. Events this year in the South China Sea, 
which saw a disconcerting maritime standoff between the Philippines and 
the People's Republic of China, highlight just how important the 
maritime environment is to global security. Although thankfully the 
crisis abated, the ability of the Navy to respond with forward-deployed 
multimission platforms capable of operating in anti-access and area-
denial environments must be maintained. Moreover, we must continue to 
make the necessary investments in both our public and private shipyards 
to allow for a strong domestic shipbuilding and ship repair industrial 
base.
  I am proud that my own State of Maine contributes so much to the 
strength of our Navy. Maine, after all, has a proud maritime legacy. 
Tens of thousands of Mainers earn their living from the sea, as 
commercial fishermen or lobstermen, as merchant sailors, as Coast 
Guardsmen or Navy Sailors, as part of Maine's tourist industry, or as 
workers at Maine's public and private shipyards.
  Bath Iron Works, a private shipyard and Maine's largest private 
employer, has been building ships for the Navy since 1893, and the 
shipyard continues to be known by the phrase ``Bath built is best 
built.''
  Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, in Kittery, ME, is one of only four public 
shipyards that remain in the United States, and conducts repair and 
refueling work on nuclear submarines. Both of the yards, along with the 
other public and private yards across the country, are truly national 
strategic assets, and the workers in these yards are the world's 
leading experts in ship construction and repair. As Chinese yards 
continue to churn out modern warships, and as the Chinese fleet 
continues to expand, we cannot allow any of the capabilities 
represented by our shipyards to atrophy.
  Given the events of this month in the Middle East, I am pleased this 
bill also authorizes important additional funding for the Iron Dome 
program and cooperative programs with the State of Israel. As the 
Senate has affirmed time and again, most recently on November 15 when 
we passed S. Res. 599 introduced by Senator Gillibrand, Israel has an 
inherent right to act in self defense. In that resolution, the Senate 
expressed our unwavering commitment to Israel's security--a security 
which unfortunately continues to be threatened.
  While I commend the efforts undertaken by those in the Middle East 
and by Secretary Clinton to achieve the recent ceasefire, we must 
continue to make the investments necessary to guarantee Israel's 
security. I can think of no better investment than the Iron Dome 
system, which had a success rate of 80-90 percent against the hundreds 
of rockets fired into Israel's borders.
  And while Iron Dome protects the State of Israel, we must also look 
at how to better secure the United States, particularly those states on 
the East Coast, from the threat of a missile attack from rogue regimes 
in the Middle East. According to the Pentagon's Annual Report on the 
Military Power of Iran, parts of which were released in July, Iran 
could produce missiles capable of reaching the U.S. within 3 years.
  To address this threat, Senators Lieberman, Ayotte, and I have filed 
an amendment which would require the Department to conduct an 
Environmental Impact Statement and create a plan for establishing a 
missile defense site on the East Coast of the United States. Such a 
site, whether sea-based or on land, located in the northeast tip of our 
country, could better protect the East Coast from an intercontinental 
ballistic missile attack. Beginning an EIS now, a task which could take 
up to 18-24 months, is a prudent measure to preserve our options in the 
future.
  Just as we must protect the East Coast, we must also provide the 
military the tools to protect the mental

[[Page S7205]]

and physical wellbeing of military personnel. This year, the suicide 
rate amongst Active-Duty personnel has continued to soar. On average, 
more than one soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine has taken their own 
life every day this year. That is a tragedy of the first degree.
  For every servicemember who dies in battle, 25 veterans die by their 
own hands. Not only have more military personnel killed themselves than 
were killed in Afghanistan this year, but the rate of suicides in the 
military significantly exceeds the rate of suicides in the general 
population. Veterans, many of whom are dealing with financial or 
posttraumatic stress, chronic pain, or depression resulting from their 
time in uniform, also face high rates of suicide. According to a 
Department of Veterans Affairs report this spring, a veteran commits 
suicide every 80 minutes.
  While I applaud the military and the VA efforts to address this 
threat seriously, especially the Army, we can and must do more. To that 
end, I have filed an amendment with Senators Lieberman and Blumenthal 
to require the Attorney General to exercise authority granted to him by 
the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2010 to establish a 
drug take-back program in coordination with both the Secretary of 
Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
  There is substantial evidence that prescription drug abuse is a major 
factor in military and veteran suicides. The Army has reported that 29 
percent of suicides had known history of psychotropic medication use, 
including anti-depressants, anti-anxiety medicine, anti-psychotics, and 
other controlled substances such as opioids.
  I understand the legitimate concerns raised by some law enforcement 
officials that accountability of drugs must be strictly maintained and 
that these drugs must be prevented from being misused, abused, or sold 
in the black market. I am confident, however, that both the military--
an institution that has developed and implemented programs for the 
handling of nuclear weapons and classified information--and the VA are 
capable of running a drug take-back program with the utmost 
accountability and highest of standards.
  I have also filed another amendment to establish a resilience 
research program in the Army to study the effectiveness of the 
Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program. This program is intended to 
improve the resilience of our active duty force.
  The loss of even one servicemember to a potentially preventable 
suicide is unacceptable. We have a responsibility to take every 
practical step that we can to help the military win the battle against 
suicides. Over the past decade, we have made an incredible investment 
to prevent deaths or injuries from IEDs. Although the threat to our 
forces posed by suicide will not be solved overnight, it deserves a 
similar commitment to combat this epidemic.
  Likewise, the high incidence of military sexual assaults also 
continue to warrant our attention, particularly after the scandal at 
Lackland Air Force Base. This bill includes two provisions that I 
support which would codify into law regulations that were issued by the 
Department earlier this year. We should all continue to watch the 
Department closely to see that the changes are implemented wisely, that 
the Department's policy of zero tolerance becomes a culture of zero 
tolerance, and that the incidence of these crimes is dramatically 
reduced.
  In the area of mental health, this bill includes a provision to grant 
authority for additional behavioral health professionals to conduct 
pre-separation medical examinations for post-traumatic stress disorder. 
This provision would increase the number of medical professionals 
available to conduct evaluations because the backlog of cases within 
the integrated disability evaluation system is significant, and results 
in unacceptable wait times for our military personnel being processed 
for separation.
  Unfortunately, the military does not even know the true scope of the 
backlog within the disability evaluation system, and I am sure that 
many of our colleagues receive letters from their constituents 
expressing this concern each week. This year's bill contains a 
provision I authored that would require DOD to collect data on the 
physical, mental, and behavioral health of Wounded Warriors in order to 
accurately assess the efficacy of the military's Wounded Warrior 
programs.
  In Afghanistan, where many of our wounded warriors received their 
injuries, military personnel continue to pay a high cost. As we head 
into the final 2 years of combat in Afghanistan, after more than a 
decade of war, I have grown increasingly concerned about the high 
number of insider attacks and their effect upon our strategy to 
transition to Afghan Security Forces leadership and for U.S. forces to 
assume a training and mentoring role after 2014.
  Each death caused by the tactic of insider attacks has a strategic 
effect upon the war, both in terms of the American people's perception, 
and the willingness of our partners in NATO and ISAF to remain engaged 
in battle.
  In 2012 alone, 60 Coalition troops, representing 16 percent of 
Coalition deaths, have been slain at the hands of those upon which our 
strategy depends. It is for that reason that I, along with Senators 
Udall, Portman, and Shaheen have filed an amendment that would require 
the Secretary of Defense to report on the effect of insider attacks 
upon the progress of the war and the effect these attacks have upon our 
strategy and the behavior of our partners. Our Nation has made too 
great an investment in blood and treasure in Afghanistan; Congress must 
understand the strategic environment, and be presented with all the 
information to make informed decisions about how to proceed in 
Afghanistan.
  The Afghan war has also left us with important questions about 
detention policy here at home that must be resolved. One of the 
questions that has been left unaddressed in the eleven years since the 
Congress authorized the use of military force to go after al-Qaeda and 
the Taliban is whether the Congress intended to authorize the detention 
of persons in the United States, and specifically the detention of 
American citizens. I have cosponsored an amendment with Senator 
Feinstein that would explicitly prohibit the indefinite detention of 
U.S. citizens captured on U.S. soil.
  The final amendment I have offered, along with Senators Kerry, Brown 
of Massachusetts, Blumenthal, Whitehouse, Snowe, and Brown of Ohio, 
would require the Department of Defense to establish a temporary pilot 
program to issue domestically procured athletic shoes to Army recruits 
in initial entry training. DOD historically provided athletic footwear 
to new recruits that comply with the Berry Amendment, but DOD's current 
procurement process has allowed it to circumvent the spirit, letter, 
and intent of the law. I have no doubt that domestic suppliers will be 
able to produce a Berry compliant shoe, with minimal waivers necessary, 
that can meet the needs of recruits and the Army in a cost-effective 
manner. We should not allow government funds to be used to support 
foreign-made shoes, when American shoes are available. Much like our 
Olympic athletes should be clothed in domestically produced apparel, so 
too should our military recruits be wearing athletic shoes made in the 
U.S.A.
  I am also cosponsoring two amendments that grew out of the work of 
the Commission on Wartime Contracting. I have cosponsored Senator 
Blumenthal's End Trafficking in Government Contracting Act to tighten 
the U.S. government's zero tolerance policy for any form of human 
trafficking. This amendment would require contractors to certify that 
they have plans in place to prevent such practices. It also makes it a 
crime to engage in such labor practices overseas on U.S.-controlled 
property or while working on a U.S. contract.
  The Commission on Wartime Contracting also found that contingency 
contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan has been plagued by high levels of 
waste, fraud, and abuse--estimating that at least $31 billion had been 
lost to contract waste and fraud. Without high-level attention, 
acquisition planning and allocation of resources, we are likely to 
repeat the contracting mistakes of the last contingency operation.
  Therefore, I have cosponsored Senator McCaskill's amendment to 
strengthen contingency contracting at DoD, State, and the U.S. Agency 
for

[[Page S7206]]

International Development--USAID--by improving planning, execution, and 
oversight of this function at these agencies and requiring education 
for personnel who engage in contingency contracting.
  From the Maine Military Authority and the DFAS Center in Limestone to 
the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, from innovative composite and 
renewable energy research at the University of Maine to high-tech firms 
like Vingtech, Hodgdon Defense Composites, Maine Machine Products, and 
Mt. Desert Island Biological Laboratory, Mainers continue to support 
national defense with ingenuity and craftsmanship.
  The investments authorized in this bill support these efforts in 
Maine and in States around the Nation, and they ensure that our 
military is the best trained and equipped in the world. I urge my 
colleagues to support passage of this bill.

                          ____________________