[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 152 (Friday, November 30, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7293-S7300]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the majority leader
again for his encouragement of this process. As I said before, I think
it should be an example for addressing further pieces of legislation
before this body. It has been very tough. There have been hundreds of
amendments that have been filed, many of which have been disposed of.
I believe on Monday night we could complete this legislation with the
cooperation of all Members so that this body could move on to other
business. I want to thank again my friend, the chairman, who continues
to show unlimited patience, which is a quality that I do not possess.
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the quorum call be rescinded.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.
[[Page S7294]]
Amendments Nos. 2959, 2984, 3079, 3082, 3087, as modified, 3102, 3105,
3135, 3145, 3196, as modified, 3198, 3234, 3244, 3247, as modified,
3258, 3280, 3290
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I call up now a list of 17 amendments which
have been cleared by myself and Senator McCain: Wyden amendment No.
2959; Bingaman amendment No. 2984; Grassley amendment No. 3079;
Barrasso amendment No. 3082; Vitter amendment No. 3087, as modified by
changes at the desk; Klobuchar amendment No. 3102; Klobuchar amendment
No. 3105; Murkowski amendment No. 3135; Warner amendment No. 3145;
Collins amendment No. 3196, as modified by changes at the desk;
Barrasso amendment No. 3198; Klobuchar amendment No. 3234; Reid
amendment No. 3244; McCain amendment No. 3247, as modified by changes
at the desk; Alexander amendment No. 3258; Levin amendment No. 3280;
Begich amendment No. 3290.
Mr. McCAIN. The amendments have been cleared on our side.
Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be
considered en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, and the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:
amendment no. 2959
(Purpose: To require reports on the use of indemnification agreements
in Department of Defense contracts)
At the end of subtitle C of title VIII, add the following:
SEC. 847. REPORTS ON USE OF INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the end of
each of fiscal years 2013 through 2016, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress a report on any actions described in subsection (b)
which occurred during the preceding fiscal years.
(b) Actions Described.--
(1) In general.--An action described in this subsection is
the Secretary of Defense--
(A) entering into a contract that includes an
indemnification provision relating to bodily injury caused by
negligence or relating to wrongful death; or
(B) modifying an existing contract to include a provision
described in subparagraph (A) in a contract.
(2) Excluded contracts.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to
any contract awarded in accordance with--
(A) section 2354 of title 10, United States Code; or
(B) the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).
(c) Matters Included.--For each action covered in a report
under subsection (a), the report shall include--
(1) the name of the contractor;
(2) a description of the indemnification provision included
in the contract; and
(3) a justification for the contract including the
indemnification provision.
(d) Form.--Each report under subsection (a) shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex.
(e) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''
means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on the
Budget, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on the
Budget, and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.
amendment no. 2984
(Purpose: To provide for national security benefits for White Sands
Missile Range and Fort Bliss)
At the end of title X, add the following:
SEC. 10__. WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE AND FORT BLISS.
(a) Withdrawal.--
(1) In general.--Subject to valid existing rights and
paragraph (3), the Federal land described in paragraph (2) is
withdrawn from--
(A) entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public
land laws;
(B) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
(C) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials,
and geothermal leasing laws.
(2) Description of federal land.--The Federal land referred
to in paragraph (1) consists of--
(A) the approximately 5,100 acres of land depicted as
``Parcel 1'' on the map entitled ``White Sands Missile Range/
Fort Bliss/BLM Land Transfer and Withdrawal'' and dated April
3, 2012 (referred to in this section as the ``map'');
(B) the approximately 37,600 acres of land depicted as
``Parcel 2'', ``Parcel 3'', and ``Parcel 4'' on the map; and
(C) any land or interest in land that is acquired by the
United States within the boundaries of the parcels described
in subparagraph (B).
(3) Limitation.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the land
depicted as ``Parcel 4'' on the map is not withdrawn for
purposes of the issuance of oil and gas pipeline rights-of-
way.
(b) Reservation.--The Federal land described in subsection
(a)(2)(A) is reserved for use by the Secretary of the Army
for military purposes in accordance with Public Land Order
833, dated May 21, 1952 (17 Fed. Reg. 4822).
(c) Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction.--Effective on
the date of enactment of this Act, administrative
jurisdiction over the approximately 2,050 acres of land
generally depicted as ``Parcel 2'' on the map--
(1) is transferred from the Secretary of the Army to the
Secretary of the Interior (acting through the Director of the
Bureau of Land Management); and
(2) shall be managed in accordance with--
(A) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
(B) any other applicable laws.
(d) Legal Description.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
publish in the Federal Register a legal description of the
Federal land withdrawn by subsection (a).
(2) Force of law.--The legal description published under
paragraph (1) shall have the same force and effect as if
included in this Act, except that the Secretary of the
Interior may correct errors in the legal description.
(3) Reimbursement of costs.--The Secretary of the Army
shall reimburse the Secretary of the Interior for any costs
incurred by the Secretary of the Interior in implementing
this subsection with regard to the Federal land described in
subsection (a)(2)(A).
amendment no. 3079
(Purpose: To permit Federal officers to remove cases involving crimes
of violence to Federal court)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. REMOVAL OF ACTION.
Section 1442 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
``(c) Solely for purposes of determining the propriety of
removal under subsection (a), a law enforcement officer, who
is the defendant in a criminal prosecution, shall be deemed
to have been acting under the color of his office if the
officer--
``(1) protected an individual in the presence of the
officer from a crime of violence;
``(2) provided immediate assistance to an individual who
suffered, or who was threatened with, bodily harm; or
``(3) prevented the escape of any individual who the
officer reasonably believed to have committed, or was about
to commit, in the presence of the officer, a crime of
violence that resulted in, or was likely to result in, death
or serious bodily injury.
``(d) In this section, the following definitions apply:
``(1) The terms `civil action' and `criminal prosecution'
include any proceeding (whether or not ancillary to another
proceeding) to the extent that in such proceeding a judicial
order, including a subpoena for testimony or documents, is
sought or issued. If removal is sought for a proceeding
described in the previous sentence, and there is no other
basis for removal, only that proceeding may be removed to the
district court.
``(2) The term `crime of violence' has the meaning given
that term in section 16 of title 18.
``(3) The term `law enforcement officer' means any employee
described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section
8401(17) of title 5 and any special agent in the Diplomatic
Security Service of the Department of State.
``(4) The term `serious bodily injury' has the meaning
given that term in section 1365 of title 18.
``(5) The term `State' includes the District of Columbia,
United States territories and insular possessions, and Indian
country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18).
``(6) The term `State court' includes the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia, a court of a United States
territory or insular possession, and a tribal court.''.
amendment no. 3082
(Purpose: To require a report on the issuance by the Armed Forces
Medical Examiner of death certificates for members of the Armed Forces
who die on active duty abroad)
At the end of subtitle F of title VI, add the following:
SEC. 662. REPORT ON ISSUANCE BY ARMED FORCES MEDICAL EXAMINER
OF DEATH CERTIFICATES FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES WHO DIE ON ACTIVE DUTY ABROAD.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than 120 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 issuance by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner of death
certificates for members of the Armed Forces who die on
active duty abroad, including mechanisms for reducing or
ameliorating delays in the issuance of such death
certificates.
(b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) A description of the process used by the Armed Forces
Medical Examiner to issue a death certificate for members of
the Armed Forces who die on active duty abroad, including an
explanation for any current delays in the issuance of such
death certificates.
(2) A description of the average amount of time taken by
the Armed Forces Medical Examiner to issue such death
certificates.
[[Page S7295]]
(3) An assessment of the feasibility and advisability of
issuing temporary death certificates for members of the Armed
Forces who die on active duty abroad in order to provide
necessary documentation for survivors.
(4) A description of the actions required to enable the
Armed Forces Medical Examiner to issue a death certificate
for a member of the Armed Forces who dies on active duty
abroad not later than seven days after the return of the
remains of the member to the United States.
(5) Such other recommendations for legislative or
administrative action as the Secretary considers appropriate
to provide for the issuance by the Armed Forces Medical
Examiner of a death certificate for members of the Armed
Forces who die on active duty abroad not later than seven
days after the return of the remains of such members to the
United States.
amendment no. 3087, as modified
At the end of subtitle F of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1064. REPORT ON PLANNED EFFICIENCY INITIATIVES AT SPACE
AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS COMMAND.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on
plans to implement efficiency initiatives to reduce overhead
costs at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command
(SPAWAR), including a detailed description of the long-term
impacts on current and planned future mission requirements.
amendment no. 3102
(Purpose: To provide for the retention of certain forms in connection
with Restricted Reports on sexual assault involving members of the
Armed Forces)
At the end of subtitle E of title V, add the following:
SEC. 544. RETENTION OF CERTAIN FORMS IN CONNECTION WITH
RESTRICTED REPORTS ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVOLVING
MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.
(a) Period of Retention.--The Secretary of Defense shall
ensure that all copies of Department of Defense Form 2910 and
Department of Defense Form 2911 filed in connection with a
Restricted Report on an incident of sexual assault involving
a member of the Armed Forces shall be retained for the longer
of--
(1) 50 years commencing on the date of signature of the
member on Department of Defense Form 2910; or
(2) the time provided for the retention of such forms in
connection with Unrestricted Reports on incidents of sexual
assault involving members of the Armed Forces under
Department of Defense Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 11-062,
entitled ``Document Retention in Cases of Restricted and
Unrestricted Reports of Sexual Assault'', or any successor
directive or policy.
(b) Protection of Confidentiality.--Any Department of
Defense form retained under subsection (a) shall be retained
in a manner that protects the confidentiality of the member
of the Armed Forces concerned in accordance with procedures
for the protection of confidentiality of information in
Restricted Reports under Department of Defense memorandum
JTF-SAPR-009, relating to the Department of Defense policy on
confidentiality for victims of sexual assault, or any
successor policy or directive.
amendment no. 3105
(Purpose: Relating to the prevention and response to sexual harassment
in the Armed Forces)
At the end of subtitle E of title V, add the following:
SEC. 544. PREVENTION AND RESPONSE TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE
ARMED FORCES.
(a) Comprehensive Policy Required.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in
consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments
and the Equal Opportunity Office of the Department of
Defense, develop a comprehensive policy to prevent and
respond to sexual harassment in the Armed Forces. The policy
shall provide for the following:
(A) Training for members of the Armed Forces on the
prevention of sexual harassment.
(B) Mechanisms for reporting incidents of sexual harassment
in the Armed Forces, including procedures for reporting
anonymously.
(C) Mechanisms for responding to and resolving incidents of
alleged sexual harassment incidences involving members of the
Armed Forces, including through the prosecution of offenders.
(2) Report.--Not later than one year 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 setting forth the policy
required by paragraph (1).
(b) Collection and Retention of Records on Disposition of
Reports of Sexual Harassment.--
(1) Collection.--The Secretary of Defense shall require
that the Secretary of each military department establish a
record on the disposition of any report of sexual harassment,
whether such disposition is court martial, non-judicial
punishment, or other administrative action. The record of any
such disposition shall include the following, as appropriate:
(A) Documentary information collected about the incident
reported.
(B) Punishment imposed, including the sentencing by
judicial or non-judicial means including incarceration,
fines, restriction, and extra duty as a result of military
court-martial, Federal and local court and other sentencing,
or any other punishment imposed.
(C) Reasons for the selection of the disposition and
punishments selected.
(D) Administrative actions taken, if any.
(E) Any pertinent referrals offered as a result of the
incident (such as drug and alcohol counseling and other types
of counseling or intervention).
(2) Retention.--The Secretary of Defense shall require
that--
(A) the records established pursuant to paragraph (1) be
retained by the Department of Defense for a period of not
less than 50 years; and
(B) a copy of such records be maintained at a centralized
location for the same period as applies to retention of the
records under subparagraph (A).
(c) Annual Report on Sexual Harassment Involving Members of
the Armed Forces.--
(1) Annual report on sexual harassment.--Not later than
March 1, 2015, and each March 1 thereafter through March 1,
2018, the Secretary of each military department shall submit
to the Secretary of Defense a report on the sexual
harassments involving members of the Armed Forces under the
jurisdiction of such Secretary during the preceding year.
Each Secretary of a military department shall submit the
report on a year under this section at the same time as the
submittal of the annual report on sexual assaults during that
year under section 1631 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (10 U.S.C. 1561 note).
In the case of the Secretary of the Navy, separate reports
shall be prepared under this section for the Navy and the
Marine Corps.
(2) Contents.--The report of a Secretary of a military
department for an Armed Force under paragraph (1) shall
contain the following:
(A) The number of sexual harassments committed against
members of the Armed Force that were reported to military
officials during the year covered by the report, and the
number of the cases so reported that were substantiated.
(B) The number of sexual harassments committed by members
of the Armed Force that were reported to military officials
during the year covered by the report, and the number of the
cases so reported that were substantiated. The information
required by this subparagraph may not be combined with the
information required by subparagraph (A).
(C) A synopsis of each such substantiated case and, for
each such case, the action taken in such case, including the
type of disciplinary or administrative sanction imposed,
section 815 of title 10, United States Code (article 15 of
the Uniform Code of Military Justice).
(D) The policies, procedures, and processes implemented by
the Secretary during the year covered by the report in
response to incidents of sexual harassment involving members
of that Armed Force.
(E) Any other matters relating to sexual harassment
involving members of the Armed Forces that the Secretary
considers appropriate.
amendment no. 3135
(Purpose: To extend the deadline for submission of a report on the
findings and conclusions of the National Commission on the Structure of
the Air Force)
On page 502, line 7, strike ``2013'' and insert ``2014''.
amendment no. 3145
(Purpose: To require a study on the ability of national air and ground
test and evaluation infrastructure facilities to support defense
hypersonic test and evaluation activities)
At the end of subtitle F of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1064. STUDY ON ABILITY OF NATIONAL AIR AND GROUND TEST
AND EVALUATION INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES TO
SUPPORT DEFENSE HYPERSONIC TEST AND EVALUATION
ACTIVITIES.
(a) Study Required.--The Director of the Office of Science
and Technology Policy, working with the Secretary of Defense
and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), shall conduct a study on the ability
of Department of Defense and NASA air and ground test and
evaluation infrastructure facilities and private ground test
and evaluation infrastructure facilities, including wind
tunnels and air test ranges, as well as associated
instrumentation, to support defense hypersonic test and
evaluation activities for the short and long term.
(b) Report and Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report
containing the results of the study required under subsection
(a) together with a plan for requirements and proposed
investments to meet Department of Defense needs through 2025.
(2) Content.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall
include the following elements:
(A) An assessment of the current condition and adequacy of
the hypersonics test and
[[Page S7296]]
evaluation infrastructure within the Department of Defense,
NASA, and the private sector to support hypersonic research
and development within the Department of Defense.
(B) An identification of test and evaluation infrastructure
that could be used to support Department of Defense
hypersonic research and development outside the Department
and assess means to ensure the availability of such
capabilities to the Department in the present and future.
(C) A time-phased plan to acquire required hypersonics
research, development, test and evaluation capabilities,
including identification of the resources necessary to
acquire any needed capabilities that are currently not
available.
(3) Appropriate congressional committees defined.--In this
subsection, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
(A) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology of the House of
Representatives.
amendment no. 3196, as Modified
At the end of subtitle C of title V, add the following:
SEC. 526. RESEARCH STUDY ON RESILIENCE IN MEMBERS OF THE
ARMY.
(a) Research Study Required.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Army shall carry out
a research program on resilience in members of the Army.
(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the research study shall be to
determine the effectiveness of the current Comprehensive
Soldier and Family Fitness (CSF2) Program of the Army while
verifying the current means of the Army to reduce trends in
high risk or self-destructive behavior and to prepare members
of the Army to manage stressful or traumatic situations by
training members in resilience strategies and techniques.
(3) Elements.--In carrying out the research study, the
Secretary shall determine the effectiveness of training under
the Comprehensive Soldier and Family Fitness program in--
(A) enhancing individual performance through resiliency
techniques and use of positive and sports psychology; and
(B) identifying and responding to early signs of high-risk
behavior in members of the Army assigned to units involved in
the research study.
(4) Science-based evidence and techniques.--The research
study shall be rooted in scientific evidence, using
professionally accepted measurements of experiments, of
longitudinal research, random-assignment, and placebo-
controlled outcome studies to evaluate which interventions
can prove positive results and which result in no impact.
(b) Locations.--The Secretary carry out the research study
at locations selected by the Secretary from among Army
installations which are representative of the Total Force.
Units from all components of the Army shall be involved in
the research study.
(c) Training.--In carrying out the research study at an
installation selected pursuant to subsection (b), the
Secretary shall ensure, at a minimum, that whenever a unit
returns from combat deployment to the installation the
training established for purposes of the research study is
provided to all members of the Army returning for such
deployment. The training shall include such training as the
Secretary considers appropriate to reduce trends in high risk
or self-destructive behavior
(d) Period.--The Secretary shall carry out the research
study through September 30, 2014.
(e) Reports.--Not later than 30 days after the end of each
of fiscal years 2013 and 2014, the Secretary shall submit to
the Committees on Armed Forces of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a report on the research study during the
preceding fiscal year. Each report shall include the
following:
(1) A description of the trends in high risk or self-
destructive behavior within each of the units involved in the
research study during the fiscal year covered by such report.
(2) A description of the effectiveness of Comprehensive
Soldier and Family Fitness Program training in enhancing
individual performance through resiliency techniques,
utilization of positive psychology.
(3) In the case of the report on fiscal year 2014, such
recommendations for the expansion or modification of the
research study as the Secretary considers appropriate.
amendment no. 3198
(Purpose: To renew expired prohibition on return of veterans memorial
objects without specific authorization in law)
At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1084. RENEWAL OF EXPIRED PROHIBITION ON RETURN OF
VETERANS MEMORIAL OBJECTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC
AUTHORIZATION IN LAW.
(a) Codification of Prohibition.--Section 2572 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), and
notwithstanding this section or any other provision of law,
the President may not transfer a veterans memorial object to
a foreign country or an entity controlled by a foreign
government, or otherwise transfer or convey such an object to
any person or entity for purposes of the ultimate transfer or
conveyance of the object to a foreign country or entity
controlled by a foreign government.
``(2) In this subsection:
``(A) The term `entity controlled by a foreign government'
has the meaning given that term in section 2536(c)(1) of this
title.
``(B) The term `veterans memorial object' means any object,
including a physical structure or portion thereof, that--
``(i) is located at a cemetery of the National Cemetery
System, war memorial, or military installation in the United
States;
``(ii) is dedicated to, or otherwise memorializes, the
death in combat or combat-related duties of members of the
armed forces; and
``(iii) was brought to the United States from abroad as a
memorial of combat abroad.
``(3) The prohibition imposed by paragraph (1) does not
apply to a transfer of a veterans memorial object if--
``(A) the transfer of that veterans memorial object is
specifically authorized by law; or
``(B) the transfer is made after September 30, 2017.''.
(b) Repeal of Obsolete Source Law.--Section 1051 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000
(Public Law 106-65; 10 U.S.C. 2572 note) is repealed.
amendment no. 3234
(Purpose: To enhance the annual reports regarding sexual assaults
involving members of the Armed Forces)
At the end of subtitle E of title V, add the following:
SEC. 544. ENHANCEMENT OF ANNUAL REPORTS REGARDING SEXUAL
ASSAULTS INVOLVING MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.
(a) In General.--Section 1631(b) of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (10
U.S.C. 1561 note) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following
new paragraph (3):
``(3) A synopsis of each such substantiated case, organized
by offense, and, for each such case, the action taken in such
case, including the following information:
``(A) The type of disciplinary or administrative sanction
imposed, if any, including courts-martial sentences, non-
judicial punishments administered by commanding officers
pursuant to section 815 of title 10, United States Code
(article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), and
administrative separations.
``(B) A description of and rationale for the final
disposition and punishment, regardless of type of
disciplinary or administrative sanction imposed.
``(C) The unit and location of service at which the
incident occurred.
``(D) Whether the accused was previously accused of a
substantiated sexual assault or sexual harassment.
``(E) Whether the accused was admitted to the Armed Forces
under a moral waiver granted with respect to prior sexual
misconduct.
``(F) Whether alcohol was involved in the incident.
``(G) If the member was administratively separated or, in
the case of an officer, allowed to resign in lieu of facing a
court-martial, the characterization given the service of the
member upon separation.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs
``(7) The number of applications submitted under section
673 of title 10, United States Code, during the year covered
by the report for a permanent change of station or unit
transfer for members of the Armed Forces on active duty who
are the victim of a sexual assault or related offense, the
number of applications denied, and, for each application
denied, a description of the reasons why such application was
denied.
``(8) An analysis and assessment of trends in the
incidence, disposition, and prosecution of sexual assaults by
commands and installations during the year covered by the
report, including trends relating to prevalence of incidents,
prosecution of incidents, and avoidance of incidents.
``(9) An assessment of the adequacy of sexual assault
prevention and response activities carried out by training
commands during the year covered by the report.
``(10) An analysis of the specific factors that may have
contributed to sexual assault during the year covered by the
report, including sexual harassment and substance abuse, an
assessment of the role of such factors in contributing to
sexual assaults during that year, and recommendations for
mechanisms to eliminate or reduce the incidence of such
factors or their contributions to sexual assaults.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act,
and shall apply beginning with the report required to be
submitted by March 1, 2014, under section 1631 of the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2011 (as amended by subsection (a)).
amendment no. 3244
(Purpose: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties
for transporting minors in foreign commerce for the purposes of female
genital mutilation)
At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:
[[Page S7297]]
SEC. 1084. TRANSPORT FOR FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION.
Section 116 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(d) Whoever knowingly transports from the United States
and its territories a person in foreign commerce for the
purpose of conduct with regard to that person that would be a
violation of subsection (a) if the conduct occurred within
the United States, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.''.
amendment no. 3247, as Modified
At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1084. TRANSFER OF EXCESS AIRCRAFT TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
(a) Transfer.--Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary of
Defense shall transfer excess aircraft specified in
subsection (b) to the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of Homeland Security for use by the Forest Service
and the United States Coast Guard. The transfer of any excess
aircraft under this subsection shall be without
reimbursement.
(b) Aircraft.--
(1) In general.--The aircraft transferred under subsection
(a) are aircraft of the Department of Defense that are--
(A) identified by the Forest Service or the United States
Coast Guard as a suitable platform to carry out their
respective missions;
(B) subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), excess to the needs
of the Department of Defense, as determined by the Secretary
of Defense; and
(C) acceptable for use by the Forest Service, as determined
by the Secretary of Agriculture.
(D) acceptable for use by the United States Coast Guard, as
determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(2) Limitation on number.--The number of aircraft that may
be transfered to either the Secretary of Agriculture or the
Secretary of Homeland Security may not exceed 12 aircraft.
(3) Limitations on determination as excess.--Aircraft may
not be determined to be excess for the purposes of this
subsection, unless such aircraft are determined to be excess
in the report referenced by subsection (b) of section 1703 of
Title XVII of this Act, or if such aircraft are otherwise
prohibited from being determined excess by law.
(c) Priority in Transfer.--The Secretary of Agriculture and
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall be afforded equal
priority in the transfer under subsection (a) of excess
aircraft of the Department of Defense specified in subsection
(b) before any other department or agency of the Federal
Government.
(d) Conditions of Transfer.--Excess aircraft transferred to
the Secretary of Agriculture under subsection (a)--
(1) may be used only for wildfire suppression purposes; and
(2) may not be flown or otherwise removed from the United
States unless dispatched by the National Interagency Fire
Center in support of an international agreement to assist in
wildfire suppression efforts or for other purposes approved
by the Secretary of Agriculture in writing in advance.
(e) Expiration of Authority.--The authority to transfer
excess aircraft under subsection (a) shall expire on December
31, 2013.
SEC. 1085. REAUTHORIZATION OF SALE OF AIRCRAFT AND PARTS FOR
WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION PURPOSES.
Section 2 of the Wildfire Suppression Aircraft Transfer Act
of 1996 (10 U.S.C. 2576 note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``during the period
beginning on October 1, 1996, and ending on September 30,
2005'' and inserting ``during a period specified in
subsection (g)'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (f) the following new
subsection (g):
``(g) Periods for Exercise of Authority.--The periods
specified in this subsection are the following:
``(1) The period beginning on October 1, 1996, and ending
on September 30, 2005.
``(2) The period beginning on October 1, 2012, and ending
on September 30, 2017.''.
amendment no. 3258
(Purpose: To modify the authority to carry out a fiscal year 2011
military construction project at Nashville International Airport)
At the end of subtitle B of title XXVI, add the following:
SEC. 2613. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN
FISCAL YEAR 2011 PROJECT.
In the case of the authorization contained in the table in
section 2604 of the Military Construction Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2011 (division B of Public Law 111-383; 124
Stat. 4453) for Nashville International Airport, Tennessee,
for renovation of an Intelligence Squadron Facility, the
Secretary of the Air Force may convert up to 4,023 square
meters of existing facilities to bed down Intelligence Group
and Remotely Piloted Aircraft Remote Split Operations Group
missions, consistent with the Air National Guard's
construction guidelines for these missions.
amendment no. 3280
(Purpose: To require reports to the Department of Defense on
penetrations of networks and information systems of certain
contractors)
At the end of subtitle C title IX, add the following:
SEC. 935. REPORTS TO DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ON PENETRATIONS OF
NETWORKS AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS OF CERTAIN
CONTRACTORS.
(a) Process for Reporting Penetrations.--The Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence shall, in coordination
with the officials specified in subsection (c), establish a
process by which cleared defense contractors shall report to
elements of the Department of Defense designated by the Under
Secretary for purposes of the process when a network or
information system of such contractors designated pursuant to
subsection (b) is successfully penetrated.
(b) Designation of Networks and Information Systems.--The
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence shall, in
coordination with the officials specified in subsection (c),
establish criteria for designating the cleared defense
contractors' networks or information systems that contain or
process information created by or for the Department of
Defense to be subject to the reporting process established
pursuant to subsection (a).
(c) Officials.--The officials specified in this subsection
are the following:
(1) The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
(2) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics.
(3) The Chief Information Officer of the Department of
Defense.
(4) The Commander of the United States Cyber Command.
(d) Process Requirements.--
(1) Rapid reporting.--The process required by subsection
(a) shall provide for rapid reporting by contractors of
successful penetrations of designated network or information
systems.
(2) Report elements.--The report by a contractor on a
successful penetration of a designated network or information
system under the process shall include the following:
(A) A description of the technique or method used in the
penetration.
(B) A sample of the malicious software, if discovered and
isolated by the contractor.
(3) Access.--The process shall include mechanisms by which
Department of Defense personnel may, upon request, obtain
access to equipment or information of a contractor necessary
to conduct a forensic analysis to determine whether
information created by or for the Department in connection
with any Department program was successfully exfiltrated from
a network or information system of the contractor and, if so,
what information was exfiltrated.
(4) Limitation on dissemination of certain information.--
The process shall prohibit the dissemination outside the
Department of Defense of information obtained or derived
through the process that is not created by or for the
Department except with the approval of the contractor
providing such information.
(e) Cleared Defense Contractor Defined.--In this section,
the term ``cleared defense contractor'' means a private
entity granted clearance by the Defense Security Service to
receive and store classified information for the purpose of
bidding for a contract or conducting activities under a
contract with the Department of Defense.
amendment no. 3290
(Purpose: To modify notice requirements in advance of permanent
reductions of sizeable numbers of members of the Armed Forces at
military installations)
On page 543, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
SEC. 2705. MODIFICATION OF NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN ADVANCE OF
PERMANENT REDUCTION OF SIZABLE NUMBERS OF
MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AT MILITARY
INSTALLATIONS.
(a) Calculation of Number of Affected Members.--Subsection
(a) of section 993 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``In
calculating the number of members to be reduced, the
Secretary shall take into consideration both direct
reductions and indirect reductions.''.
(b) Notice Requirements.--Subsection (b) of such section is
amended by striking paragraphs (1) through (3) and inserting
the following new paragraphs:
``(1) the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the
military department concerned--
``(A) submits to Congress a notice of the proposed
reduction and the number of military and civilian personnel
assignments affected, including reductions in base operations
support services and personnel to occur because of the
proposed reduction; and
``(B) includes in the notice a justification for the
reduction and an evaluation of the costs and benefits of the
reduction and of the local economic, strategic, and
operational consequences of the reduction; and
``(2) a period of 90 days expires following the day on
which the notice is submitted to Congress.''.
(c) Definitions.--Such section is further amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `direct reduction' means a reduction
involving one or more members of a unit.
``(2) The term `indirect reduction' means subsequent
planned reductions or relocations in base operations support
services and personnel able to occur due to the direct
reductions.
[[Page S7298]]
``(3) The term `military installation' means a base, camp,
post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for any ship,
or other activity under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Defense, including any leased facility, which is located
within any of the several States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin
Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or
Guam. Such term does not include any facility used primarily
for civil works, rivers and harbors projects, or flood
control projects.
``(4) The term `unit' means a unit of the armed forces at
the battalion, squadron, or an equivalent level (or a higher
level).''.
Amendment No. 3018
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the National Defense Authorization Act,
NDAA, that was enacted into law last December contained several deeply
troubling provisions related to the indefinite detention of individuals
without charge or trial. These provisions undermine our Nation's
fundamental principles of due process and civil liberties. I strongly
opposed these provisions during last year's debate, and believe that we
must eliminate and fix those flawed provisions. Toward that end, I
voted last night in favor of the amendment offered by Senator
Feinstein, which clarified that our Government cannot detain
indefinitely any citizen or legal permanent resident apprehended in the
United States. It is my hope that this is a positive step forward in
our efforts to undo some of the damage from last year's NDAA.
But our work is not done. As I have stated before, I believe that the
vital protections of our Constitution extend to all persons here in the
United States, regardless of citizenship or immigration status. That is
why I cosponsored an amendment filed by Senator Mark Udall that would
go beyond the scope of the Feinstein amendment to extend the protection
against indefinite detention to any person within the United States. I
look forward to working with Senator Udall and others in our continuing
efforts to improve the law in this area.
I am fundamentally opposed to indefinite detention without charge or
trial. I fought against the Bush administration policies that led to
the current situation, with indefinite detention as the de facto
policy. I opposed President Obama's executive order in March 2011 that
contemplated indefinite detention, and I helped lead the efforts
against the detention-related provisions in last year's NDAA. Simply
put, a policy of indefinite detention has no place in the justice
system of any democracy let alone the greatest democracy in the world.
The American justice system is the envy of the world, and a regime of
indefinite detention diminishes the credibility of this great Nation
around the globe, particularly when we criticize other governments for
engaging in such conduct, and as new governments in the midst of
establishing legal systems look to us as a model of justice. Indefinite
detention contradicts the most basic principles of law that I have
pledged to uphold since my years as a prosecutor and in our senatorial
oath to defend the Constitution. That is why I have opposed and will
continue to oppose indefinite detention.
Last December, Senator Feinstein introduced the Due Process Guarantee
Act, which was at the core of her amendment to this year's NDAA. Both
the Due Process Guarantee Act and Senator Feinstein's amendment make
clear that neither an authorization to use military force nor a
declaration of war confer unfettered authority to the executive branch
to hold Americans in indefinite detention. In February, I chaired a
hearing to examine the Due Process Guarantee Act, and the Judiciary
Committee heard testimony from witnesses who asserted that no
individual arrested within the United States should be detained
indefinitely regardless of citizenship or immigration status. I
wholeheartedly agree, and I believe that the Constitution requires no
less.
The notion of indefinitely imprisoning American citizens is the most
striking, but to me the Constitution creates a framework that imposes
important legal limits on the Government and provides that all people
in the U.S. have fundamental liberty protections. That is why I have
cosponsored Senator Udall's amendment, which provides expansive
protections against indefinite detention and fixes this unwise policy
for all people. As I said before, though, I view the adoption of
Senator Feinstein's amendment as a positive first step towards this
goal.
During last night's Senate floor debate on Senator Feinstein's
amendment, however, some made fundamentally flawed legal arguments and
interpretations. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I feel
it is important to set the record straight.
According to those who had opposed our efforts and support indefinite
detention, Senator Feinstein's amendment should somehow be read as
authorizing the indefinite detention of United States citizens captured
on U.S. soil. They contended that the Supreme Court in Hamdi v.
Rumsfeld held that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force
(AUMF) expressly authorized the indefinite detention of citizens,
regardless of where they were apprehended. This assertion is flatly
wrong, entirely unsupported by the actual text of the opinion and, I
believe, contrary to the Constitution.
Much of last night's debate centered on the language in Senator
Feinstein's amendment that prohibited 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.'' Senators who had opposed our remedial
efforts and support indefinite detention asserted that the Supreme
Court in Hamdi concluded that the AUMF was an ``explicit
authorization'' of such detention even for citizens captured in the
U.S. and that the AUMF was an act of Congress that fulfills the
exception in the Feinstein amendment. The Senators ignore the fact that
the text of the AUMF contains no reference whatsoever to the detention
of individuals without charge or trial, and certainly no express
reference to or authority for the detention of citizens in such a
manner. Moreover, nowhere in the plurality or dissenting opinions in
Hamdi do any of the Justices state that the AUMF expressly authorizes
the detention of citizens without charge or trial.
The preexistence of the AUMF does not fulfill the requirement that
the amendment seeks to create and that requires express congressional
authorization of exceptional authority after the adoption of the
Feinstein amendment. Senator Feinstein did not intend to write and the
Senate did not intend to pass a nullity. If this opposition argument
were right, the amendment changed nothing.
Senator Levin acknowledged in his remarks last night that 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 United States citizens in that situation
which was on the battlefield in Afghanistan.'' (emphasis added) The
Hamdi case did not address and did not expressly authorize the
indefinite detention of U.S. citizens apprehended in the U.S. As
Senator Feinstein and Senator Durbin have pointed out, the Hamdi ruling
was limited to ``individuals who fought against the United States in
Afghanistan as part of the Taliban.''
The substance of the Supreme Court's legal analysis is important
here, and the attempts to gloss over the actual text of the Hamdi
opinion cannot go unchecked. The starting point of the Court's analysis
in this regard was the text of the Non-Detention Act, codified at 18
U.S.C. Section 4001(a), which states that ``no citizen shall be
imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant
to an Act of Congress.'' The Hamdi court then turned to whether the
AUMF constituted an act of Congress within the scope of this exception,
such that Hamdi's detention would be authorized. In her plurality
opinion, Justice O'Connor concluded that the answer was yes, but she
made certain to circumscribe carefully the scope of that ruling by
saying ``we conclude that the AUMF is explicit congressional
authorization for the detention of individuals in the narrow category
we describe,'' i.e. ``individuals who fought against the United States
in Afghanistan as part of the Taliban.'' Stated simply, the Hamdi
decision does not stand for the proposition that the AUMF expressly
authorizes the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens captured on U.S.
soil.
Although last night's debate on the Hamdi decision focused largely on
the
[[Page S7299]]
statutory authority to detain individuals, we must also not lose sight
of other aspects of that opinion regarding the nature and duration of
law of war detention, and how changing circumstances might warrant re-
examination of the authority for such detention. Last night, Senator
Graham stated that Hamdi's imprisonment ``could last for the rest of
his life because the law of war detention can last for the duration of
the relevant conflict.'' Although I do not necessarily disagree that
law of war detention has historically been viewed as appropriate for
the duration of the relevant conflict, this statement begs the question
of when and how the duration of the relevant conflict is determined.
In her opinion in Hamdi, Justice O'Connor stated that the AUMF
justified detention as part of the exercise of necessary and
appropriate force ``if the record establishes that United States troops
are still involved in active combat in Afghanistan'' against Taliban
combatants. Significantly, Justice O'Connor wrote that ``if the
practical circumstances of a given conflict are entirely unlike those
of the conflicts that informed the development of the law of war, that
understanding may unravel.'' Accordingly, as we wind down our combat
operations in Afghanistan, Congress and the courts should consider
carefully how those changing circumstances might affect the legitimacy
of so-called law of war detention authority under the AUMF.
I also continue to be deeply disturbed by the mandatory military
detention provisions that were included in last year's NDAA through
Section 1022. In the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist
threats, we should give our intelligence, military, and law enforcement
professionals all the tools they need not limit those tools, as was
required by this law. That is why the Secretary of Defense, Attorney
General, Director of the FBI, and Director of National Intelligence all
objected to this section and it was modified to require the President
to produce procedures to determine who meets the definition of a person
subject to mandatory military detention. I appreciate that the
President took an aggressive approach in these procedures to preserve
the flexibility of law enforcement, as well as military and
intelligence professionals, to investigate and prosecute alleged
terrorists.
However, these procedures do not mitigate my concerns that the
mandatory military detention requirements are overly broad and threaten
core constitutional principles. Once sacrificed, our treasured
constitutional protections are not easily restored. After all, the
policy directive of this President can be undone by a future
administration. That is why I have cosponsored Senator Udall's
amendment to this year's NDAA that would repeal this ill-advised
authority.
In Hamdi, Justice O'Connor stated unequivocally that ``[w]e have long
since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the
President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens.'' We
can never forget that the power of our Federal Government is bound by
the Constitution. The detention provisions enacted through last year's
NDAA are deeply troublesome. They do not represent Vermont values, they
do not represent American values, and they have no place in this world.
Moving forward, I urge all Senators to join in support of upholding the
principles of our Constitution, protecting American values, and
championing the rule of law. We need a bipartisan effort to guarantee
that the United States remains the model for the rule of law to the
world.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss several issues of
importance to the future of our Nation's military. The National Defense
Authorization Act before us this year will affect the size and strength
of the U.S. Armed Forces and the resources and programs available to
our service members and their families.
According to GEN Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, ``capability is more important than size.'' As the size of our
military begins to decrease, there is more need than ever to ensure
that they have the right equipment to fulfill their missions.
Therefore, I am pleased that the committee has given the Pentagon the
authority through this bill to negotiate multiyear procurements for the
military's workhorse, the CH-47 Chinook, and for the V-22 Osprey and
the unique capabilities it brings to the field. I also want to note my
frustration with the Army's lack of strategic and long-term thinking
related to armored combat vehicles. The Army's desire to temporarily
cease production of tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles without long-
term plans as to what will replace them is nonsense. These proposals,
should they be approved, jeopardize the Nation's combat vehicle
industrial base, our national security and the livelihoods of many
individuals throughout the Nation.
Small businesses are the backbone of the economy both in Pennsylvania
and across the Nation. Given their importance, I am committed to
advocating for the needs of businesses, particularly women and minority
business enterprises, in the U.S. Senate. My amendment, No. 2986, would
ensure that subcontractors are aware of their inclusion on bids for
Federal contracts and establish a system to report fraudulent
procurement practices.
In order to secure government contracts, big companies routinely list
small businesses as subcontractors on their bids in order to strengthen
their applications without the intention of actually giving the work to
the named subcontractor. This especially happens with women and
minority owned businesses. Currently, there is no legal requirement to
notify subcontractors of their inclusion on Federal bids and no way to
report this. This is taking business away from hard working men and
women and it is time for this fraudulent activity to end.
Amendment No. 2986 would prohibit prime contractors from using small
businesses as straw men to win government bids. First, it would require
that subcontractors identified on a solicitation for a competitive
proposal are notified by the prime contractor before the application is
submitted. Second, it would establish a reporting mechanism that allows
subcontractors to report any fraudulent activity. This amendment is in
direct response to concerns raised by my constituents, Alexander
Nicholas of the Western Pennsylvania Minority Supplier Development
Council, and Craig Bingham, owner of DCI Logistics in Carnegie, PA. I
ask my colleagues to join me in support for promoting transparency and
accountability in Federal procurement processes and support amendment
No. 2986.
Another long-term objective that the Nation and our military must
recognize is the need for a secure and reliable source of strategic
materials, such as rare earths. In filing amendment No. 2994 to the
fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, I want the
Department of Defense to conduct a cost-benefit analysis on the
feasibility of recycling heavy rare earth elements from fluorescent
lighting waste. New innovations by Pennsylvanian businesses have taken
the theory of recycling rare earths and made it a reality. With China
controlling 95 percent of the world supply of rare earth elements, the
United States must look at methods, including the recycling of
products, to increase our domestic supply of rare earths.
Investing in alternative fuels and energy technology is also critical
to sustaining our national defense capabilities in the 21st century.
DOD is the largest single user of oil in the world and their fuel bill
was more than $17 billion in fiscal year 2011. DOD recognizes that this
type of expenditure, not to mention where we have to go in the world to
get that oil, is unsustainable. That is why they began investing in
alternative fuels and energy technology under Secretary Rumsfeld back
in the early 2000s. I think it would be a mistake to disinvest in that
effort now when the return on investment could be so beneficial to our
country.
As they are currently written, sections 313 and 2823 of the NDAA put
unnecessary restrictions on our military's ability to invest in
alternative fuels, which could prove harmful to our national defense
capabilities and our economy by keeping our military dependent on
imported fossil fuels. I think it is very important that we fix
sections 313 and 2823 with Senator Udall's amendment 2985 and Senator
Hagan's amendment 3095, respectively.
Currently, DOD invests only a small portion of their budget in
alternative fuel development but this is an important investment for
American businesses that focus on alternative fuel
[[Page S7300]]
development and energy technology research. Therefore, our Nation
benefits three times from the fruits of these investments: once by
improving our national defense capabilities, a second time by
supporting jobs in the energy research and development sector, and
again because these innovations can be applied in the marketplace
benefiting all Americans. It is a smart investment to keep our military
strong and develop 21st century energy solutions that we can use here
and export abroad. Therefore, I support my colleagues' amendments to
strike sections 313 and 2823 from the NDAA.
Lastly, we must take care of the military families who continue to
sacrifice without complaint. As chairman of the Joint Economic
Committee, I studied the economic effects that the military lifestyle
has on the earnings of military spouses. In 2010, the unemployment rate
for military wives was 15.0 percent compared to 7.3 percent for
civilian wives. One cause of this disparity may have to do with the
numerous relocations military families undergo. In this same time
period, 24.1 percent of military wives moved across State lines,
compared with only 2.4 percent of civilian wives. Frequent moves
coupled with military spouses holding jobs that require State-level
relicensing create barriers that spouses must overcome when seeking
employment. Therefore, I introduced S. 697, the Military Spouse Job
Continuity Act, which would provide a $500 tax credit for military
spouses who need to renew or transfer their professional licenses or
certifications due to military relocations. While this specific bill
cannot be taken up today for procedural reasons, I ask my colleagues to
join me in a sense-of-the-Senate amendment recognizing that we must
work with the Pentagon and State and local governments to reduce the
employment barriers for military spouses, without whom we would not
have the superb military we have today.
I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting these important
amendments.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer for his
patience and long period of time in the chair today. We, obviously,
have a couple of members in the media who have no other lives.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank Senator McCain. He very humorously, with his
great, good nature, kind of joshes himself comparing his patience to
mine. My standard is not the one that anybody wants to follow around
here; We will never get anything done.
He is more than patient, and I am very grateful that he is standing
there in that ranking position and sitting right in that ranking
position. I hope he stays in that ranking position in some committee at
least for many, many, many years--in the ranking position.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank our distinguished chairman. Obviously, you have
been here a long time.
I also appreciate our staffs who, again, show that work-release
programs are quite successful in the Senate. Thank you very much.
Mr. LEVIN. I join in that too.
Now, we have to close. I don't know if we have the closing. We do.
____________________