[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 153 (Monday, December 3, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7312-S7332]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 3254, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 3254) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2013 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for and for 
     other purposes.

  Pending:

       Kyl modified amendment No. 3123, to require briefings on 
     dialogue between the United States and the Russian Federation 
     on nuclear arms, missile defense, and long-range conventional 
     strike systems.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me thank the majority leader 
while he is still here on the floor for the support he has given to 
Senator McCain and myself and all of us who are working so hard to get 
a Defense authorization bill passed for the 52nd straight time, I 
believe. We haven't missed a year in 51, and I think this will be the 
51st and 52nd.
  I want to thank Senator McCain and his staff and all of my staff for 
the extraordinarily hard work they have put in on the bill, both in 
committee and here on the floor. I thank all of my colleagues for the 
cooperation which has been shown to allow us to dispose of somewhere 
now in the area of 100 amendments.
  There will be even more amendments that can be cleared this 
afternoon. We, I believe, have a package that is ready, or almost 
ready, of amendments. I believe that after that, this afternoon there 
could be a second package of amendments which has been cleared for 
action by the body.
  We will be here this afternoon. I haven't had a chance to talk yet 
with Senator McCain today, but I am sure it is his plan, as it is mine, 
to be here with our staffs this afternoon to work with colleagues to 
see if we can't clear additional amendments.
  The cloture vote is scheduled. There has been more than adequate 
time. I want to thank the leader, again, for giving this time. We are 
now into our fourth day where we are able to address the issues on this 
bill.
  I hope cloture will pass this afternoon when the vote is taken, and 
that early tomorrow, since I am hopeful there won't be a need for 
postcloture time, we can perhaps adopt even a third package of cleared 
amendments tomorrow morning at some point, and then move to final 
passage at some time as determined by the leader, of course.
  I want to again urge colleagues who have amendments that we have been 
working on to keep working with our staffs so we can hopefully clear as 
many amendments as possible prior to cloture. I think that would be 
beneficial to all of us. We have worked together well as a body.
  There have been a number of accommodations which have been made by 
many of our colleagues to each other and to us as managers which has 
made it possible for us to have a smooth passage at least until this 
point.
  With that, again, I give thanks to my ranking member.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. I want to thank Senator Levin and also the majority 
leader for giving us this time. Also I am in agreement that the time 
has come for cloture to be invoked, unfortunately. The total time of 
debate for this bill up to now has been 27 hours of debate and 371 
amendments have been filed. We have disposed of 94 amendments, some by 
voice vote, some by rollcall vote.
  Of those amendments, many of them were offered by members of the 
committee, but a majority of them were offered by nonmembers of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee. So I think we have had a very 
inclusive and interesting debate and voting.
  I tell my friend Senator Levin, I have just been informed that the 
Senator from Kentucky has objected, voiced an objection to taking up 
any further unanimous consent agreements or votes. That means that 
there will be many amendments which have been approved by both sides 
which will now not be allowed to be offered or acted upon. It also 
means that if cloture is invoked, and I anticipate that cloture will be 
invoked--I understand that will be the second vote we have today--a 
number of those amendments that are nongermane, which we have cleared 
and would have been passed, will now be put aside.
  I will have a reading of a number of those amendments. There are 15 
to 16 amendments that we would be ready shortly to approve. I am not 
exactly sure how many of them are nongermane in nature, which will fall 
when cloture is invoked.
  All I can say to my friend the chairman is that, again, I find it 
disappointing that one Member of the Senate feels his particular agenda 
is so important that it affects the lives, the readiness, and the 
capabilities of the men and women who are serving in the military and 
our ability to defend this Nation. I think it is hard to answer to the 
men and women in the military with this kind of behavior, but I will 
leave that up to the Senator from Kentucky to do so.
  In the meantime, I guess postcloture, we will continue with the 
legislation and try to get it completed. I have some guarded optimism 
that we may be able to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I again apologize for what seems to have happened. Much 
to my dismay, it lends some credence to the argument that maybe we 
ought not to do business the way we are doing here in the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.

[[Page S7313]]

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first of all, let me tell my dear friend 
from Arizona that I am sorry to hear about that objection that 
apparently is going to be placed against the unanimous consent 
agreement to adopt amendments which had been cleared by both sides. But 
perhaps during the afternoon we could hear from the Senator from 
Kentucky. Perhaps he can come over and talk to us about what the 
problem is. But in the meantime, we are going to continue to try to 
line up cleared amendments in the chance he will relent from his 
position.
  Sometimes with these packages, when they are put together and someone 
says they object at the last minute, that objection can be addressed in 
some way or another. So I hope our staffs will continue to try to find 
ways to clear amendments--subject, of course, to there being an 
objection. If there is an objection, then that, of course, given the 
fact that we are late in the day here now and having a cloture vote 
late this afternoon, would be able to thwart the will of the rest of 
the body.
  But I hope the Senator from Kentucky can personally come over and let 
us know what the problem is. Perhaps my friend from Arizona knows what 
it is, but I don't. I would like to get involved in it.
  I yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. In the meantime, I would ask my friend if he agrees that 
colleagues with amendments they would like to debate or wish to come 
and talk about them--we are certainly open to that.
  Mr. LEVIN. The floor is open.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I will proceed under my leader time.


                   RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.


                             Rules Changes

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we have been discussing the plans of 
the Democratic majority to repudiate its clear commitment to respect 
the rights of the minority, which is a hallmark of the Senate, and 
instead to break the rules to change the rules. That is how my friend 
from Nevada repeatedly described it when Republicans were considering 
doing something similar several years ago. Of course, Republicans never 
did break the rules to change the rules, but Democrats are 
contemplating doing so in the name of ``efficiency.''
  Last week I noted how my Democratic colleagues seek to minimize this 
major change in how the Senate governs itself by calling this 
heavyhanded power play ``tiny'' and a ``minor change'' and adjusting 
the Senate rules just ``a little bit.'' But this eleventh-hour rhetoric 
stands in stark contrast to what they have previously said and what 
they have systematically done.
  My friend the majority leader told one of my new Members, in essence, 
that even if this new so-called ``tiny'' rules change removed all 
chance that this new Member would have any recourse to get an amendment 
to a bill, that new Member could simply ``vote against the bill.'' And 
my friend told Senator McCain this fall that ``the amendment days are 
over'' in the Senate. That was the majority leader to Senator McCain 
earlier this year.
  But, of course, it is much more than what has been said that is at 
issue, it is what the Democratic leadership has systematically done to 
marginalize the voice of the minority. As I noted, it has used, to an 
unprecedented extent, Senate rule XIV. This rule allows the majority to 
bypass committees and write bills behind closed doors--doing so, of 
course, to deprive all of us, Republicans and Democrats, of the chance 
to have their committee work matter.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, the majority has 
used this rule to bypass committees nearly 70 times. When Republicans 
were last in the majority under Senator Frist, we used that rule less 
than half as often--only 30 times. And when a bill that has bypassed 
committee goes straight to the floor, under the current majority there 
often isn't an opportunity to participate there either. Again, 
according to the Congressional Research Service, the current Democratic 
leadership has blocked Senators from both sides of the aisle from 
offering amendments on the floor 68 times--68 times. No amendments at 
all. This is 70 percent greater than the number of times the six prior 
majority leaders combined--combined--shut their colleagues out of the 
amendment process.
  Now, the majority leader dismissed this unprecedented practice, 
saying it ``has no bearing on what is going on around here.'' Well, 
maybe it doesn't to him, but he is the only one who, under this 
unprecedented amendment blockage, is picking amendments. It is a little 
bit bigger deal to the other 99 of us who are shut out from 
representing our constituents by having our ability to offer any 
amendments on their behalf blocked.
  By the way, that is not how the majority leader viewed this practice 
when he was in the minority. When Senator Frist, as majority leader, 
blocked his colleagues from offering amendments a relatively modest 15 
times in 4 years--15 times in 4 years--my friend from Nevada said it 
was ``a bad way to run the Senate'' and a ``very bad practice'' and it 
ran ``against the basic nature of the Senate.'' That is when Senator 
Frist did it 15 times over 4 years. This majority leader has done it 
nearly 70 times in his tenure. What would be a fair way to describe 
that record?
  But the current Democratic leadership hasn't been content to stop 
there in marginalizing the minority. They have prevented the minority 
from offering amendments in committee, they have prevented them from 
offering amendments on the floor before cloture, and then they changed 
Senate procedure with a heavyhanded majoritarian motion to stop the 
minority from offering motions after cloture was invoked. Since such 
motions to suspend the rules require 67 votes to be successful, I 
gather that having even to deal with such motions interfered with 
``efficiency,'' as did allowing bills to be marked up in committee, as 
did allowing Senators of both parties to have amendments on the floor. 
So our Democratic colleagues have shut out the minority there too.
  But even that is not enough. Now the same Democratic leadership wants 
to take away the right to extend a debate on motions to proceed to a 
measure. Throughout its history, the unique role of the Senate has been 
to protect the voice of the minority, expressed through the equal 
rights of all Senators to debate and amend legislation. This has stood 
in contrast with the House of Representatives, where a simple majority 
rules. So it should be startling--literally startling--to every Senator 
and to the people who elected us to represent them to look at the 
facts.

  How does the Senate compare with the House of Representatives? This 
is something we have not discussed before in this debate. How does the 
Senate compare with the House of Representatives? At the same time the 
current Senate majority is finding every way it can to marginalize the 
minority, the majority in the House is moving in the opposite 
direction--in exactly the opposite direction.
  The Wall Street Journal reported last year that the majority in the 
House was ``giving lawmakers more opportunity to amend bills on the 
floor'' and that ``even some Democrats acknowledged that the GOP 
leaders have done a better job than their predecessors.'' According to 
the article, last year the House held more votes on amendments on the 
floor than the two previous years combined when congressional Democrats 
were in the majority. How does that compare to the Senate? According to 
the Congressional Research Service, this year the majority in the House 
has given the minority in the House 214 occasions to affect legislation 
on the House floor through amendments and motions to commit or 
recommit. That is what they have done in the House this year. By 
contrast, the majority in the Senate has only allowed the minority in 
the Senate 67 occasions to affect legislation on the Senate floor in 
the same way.
  So listen to this, Mr. President. This is astonishing. The minority 
in the House has had more than three times

[[Page S7314]]

the opportunity to express its views and to represent its constituents 
than the minority in the Senate. The minority in the House has had more 
than three times as many opportunities to record its views than the 
minority in the Senate. It appears that in terms of respect for 
minority rights and the constituents the minority represents, the House 
is becoming more like the Senate and, unfortunately, the Senate is 
becoming more like the House.
  Now, it doesn't have to be this way in the Senate, of course. 
Senators Levin and McCain are reminding those of us who have been here 
a while and showing those who haven't that it is possible for the 
Senate to actually legislate. We are in the process of doing that right 
now.
  Despite the fact that the Senate has devoted much less floor time to 
the Defense authorization bill than is historically the practice and 
many fewer amendments than are historically the practice, the majority 
is allowing amendments to receive votes and the minority, for our part, 
is not insisting that we get to vote on every single amendment we want. 
We need to get back to conducting business that way again, and the 
majority leader and I need to discuss how to achieve that.
  But what the Democratic majority must not do is change the Senate by 
using a bare majority to ram through a rules change as if this were the 
House. Such a rules change will not do them any good in the short 
term--the House is in the hands of the Republicans. But it will do the 
institution irreparable damage in the long term and will establish 
precedent in the Senate for breaking the rules to change the rules that 
our Democratic colleagues will have to endure when they are in the 
minority again, which will certainly happen.
  We should work together, instead, to resolve our differences. As I 
said last week, that is what the Standing Rules of the Senate 
anticipate and that has been how changes to the Senate rules have 
occurred in our history.
  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. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 20 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Will the Chair please let me know when 5 minutes 
remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Certainly. The Senator is 
recognized.


                             The Filibuster

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I want to speak this afternoon about 
the Senate as an institution; about its majority leader, Senator Reid, 
who is my friend; about various conversations we have been having in 
the Senate and discussions about what the majority leader has said 
about how the Senate should operate. I know the majority leader cares 
about this institution. I believe it. He has said it. He shows it. He 
has one of the most difficult jobs anybody could possibly have.
  One time he told me: My job is to make everybody mad. In many ways it 
is, when you have a body of 100 that operates by unanimous consent and 
every one of us is equal. It is a very difficult job to be the minority 
leader, which the Republican leader is today. It is a more difficult 
job to be the majority leader.
  I emphasize this because I know Senator Reid cares about this 
institution, and I know Senator Reid does not want to go down in 
history as the man who ended the Senate. But if he persists in doing 
what he says he will do--which is to break the rules of the Senate to 
change the filibuster rules--that will be his legacy. He will go down 
in history as the Senator who ended the Senate.
  You might say: Senator Alexander, that is a very serious charge to 
make about a majority leader whom you know and respect and who you just 
said cares about this institution. It is a serious charge to make. The 
only reason I would say it is because Senator Reid said it himself.
  Shortly after I came to the Senate, in 2005, we Republicans, 
including this Senator, were very upset about what we believed were 
unfair efforts by Democrats to keep President Bush from securing an up-
or-down vote on his judicial nominees. We were in the majority, we 
Republicans. We had a Republican President of the United States. We 
believed that attacks on the President's nominees were extraordinarily 
unfair, and the other side was using the rules of the Senate to prevent 
an up-or-down vote. They were filibustering President Bush's nominees.
  We could not change their minds, so a number of Senators persuaded 
Senator Frist, my colleague from Tennessee who was then the majority 
leader, that we should then change the filibuster rules in order to get 
an up-or-down vote on the judges. We knew our goal was right, so we 
were going to, if we had to, break the rules to change the rules.
  As you might guess, the minority, the Democrats at the time, erupted 
in indignation. They said this has not been done in the 240 or 250 
years of the Senate. They pointed out the differences between the 
Senate and the House of Representatives. Almost every distinguished 
Member of the Democratic side of the Senate--the majority leader; 
Senator Biden, now the Vice President of the United States; Senator 
Obama, now the President of the United States; Senator Clinton, now the 
Secretary of State of the United States--denounced this evil Republican 
plan to change the rules of the Senate, to in effect break the rules of 
the Senate--because the rule says we can only change the rules with 67 
votes--in order to change the filibuster rule.
  Here is what the majority leader said in his book, ``The Good 
Fight.''

       The storm had been gathering all year and word from 
     conservative columnists and in conservative circles was that 
     Senator Frist of Tennessee, who was the majority leader, had 
     decided to pursue a rules change that would kill the 
     filibuster for judicial nominations. And once you opened that 
     Pandora's box it was just a matter of time before a Senate 
     leader who couldn't get his way on something moved to 
     eliminate the filibuster for regular business as well. And 
     that, simply put, would be the end of the United States 
     Senate.

  That is Senator Reid when he was the minority leader of the Senate.
  Today another storm is gathering, and the shoes are reversed. The 
majority leader is the one who wants to invoke what he then called the 
nuclear option. That was the Democrats' name for what the Republicans 
were trying to do, and we are the ones who are saying: Please don't do 
that; stop and think about this; this is not what you want to do to the 
Senate.
  People who are listening might say: Wait a minute. This filibuster 
business has gotten out of hand. What is wrong with having a majority 
vote in the Senate? Don't we learn in the first grade--at least we did 
in Maryville, TN--if we have an election for the class president 
everyone raises their hands and whoever gets the majority wins. That is 
the American way.
  That is the American way except it is not the way of the Senate from 
the beginning of our country. We had a Frenchman who wandered through 
this country in the 1830s, a young man called de Tocqueville. He wrote 
a book called ``Democracy In America,'' which is still the finest 
exposition of our democracy that we have because it was an outsider's 
look at us. He saw two great dangers to the United States at the time. 
One was Russia. He was prescient about that. But the second was what he 
called the tyranny of the majority--that in a great, big, complicated 
country like this that somehow the majority, in its passions and 
suddenness and enthusiasm, would run over the minorities. Somehow he 
must have known we would be a nation filled with minorities; that we 
would be almost a minority nation, and somehow those minorities needed 
protection.
  What has happened over all those years is that the Senate has stood, 
as Senator Byrd used to say, as the necessary fence that protected 
minorities in America from the tyranny of the majority. That is why we 
have a Senate, so if a freight train runs through the House it cannot 
run through here.

[[Page S7315]]

It has to slow down and stop and we have to think about it.
  That is why we have a tradition in the Senate of unlimited amendment 
and unlimited debate on any subject until 60 of us decide that is 
enough--which is what we are about to do with the Defense authorization 
bill. We have had, under the leadership of Senator McCain and Senator 
Levin, the chairman--and I give Senator Reid great credit for this as 
well--I think it is 90 amendments that have been dealt with. We will 
have a cloture vote tomorrow. It will probably pass. I will vote for 
it. That means it is time to end the debate, time to limit the 
discussion and come to a conclusion. That is the way the Senate is 
supposed to work.
  Here is an image of the difference between the House and the Senate. 
Most of us know of the work of Robert Caro, who has written the book on 
Lyndon Johnson. When I first came to the Senate 10 years ago I read 
that first chapter in Caro's book, the chapter called ``The Desks Of 
The Senate.'' I imagine the Presiding Officer has had a chance to read 
that as well. I still say to new Senators or anybody else interested in 
this body, if they really want to understand the Senate, read Robert 
Caro's chapter ``The Desks Of The Senate.''
  He talked about all these desks and how after an election--just as 
they will this time--they move two from over here to over there because 
Democrats won a couple of seats, and that is the way this works. This 
is the image of the Senate where everybody is equal, and it takes 60 to 
get a result. The idea is unlimited debate and consideration to protect 
the minority. It also reminds us that the people who are out of the 
majority right now may not be out tomorrow.
  What is the image of the House? The image of the House is that all 
legislation goes to the House Rules Committee. I have been there. David 
Dreier took me there. He is the chairman of the House Rules Committee. 
It is an ornate office. Every piece of legislation in the House has to 
go through the Rules Committee. Republicans have a narrow majority in 
the House of Representatives but, guess what, the composition of the 
Rules Committee is eight Republicans, four Democrats. What if the 
Democrats gained a one-vote majority in the House? Eight Democrats and 
four Republicans.
  What would happen is any piece of legislation the majority wants to 
push would run through the House like a freight train. That is not what 
the U.S. Senate is about. That is why Senator Dodd, in his farewell 
address, said to those who have never been the minority in the Senate, 
please be careful before changing these filibuster rules.

  In January, we will have 30 Democratic Members of the U.S. Senate who 
have never been in the minority. They have not had a chance to 
experience what some of us have had a chance to experience. While I 
have not been in the Senate all that long by Senate standards--I have 
been here 10 years--I have watched the Senate for a long time. I first 
came here in 1967 as a legislative aide to Howard Baker. Everett 
Dirksen was the Republican leader and Mike Mansfield was the Democratic 
leader. The Senate has never worked perfectly. Every majority and 
minority leader will say that.
  In the 1960s it was Senator Williams from Delaware who would object 
and slow down things. In the 1970s it was Senator Allen from Alabama. 
He would tie up the Senate in complete knots. Because of the individual 
rights a Senator has, it was just one Senator. In the 1980s it was 
Senator Metzenbaum. He held up my own nomination to be U.S. Education 
Secretary for 3 or 4 months, and there was nothing I could do about it. 
I thought that was very unfair, but it was part of this process whereby 
a Senator can slow down things.
  How do leaders respond to that? Well, in 2005 I was as angry as 
anyone about the Bush judges who were not getting an up-or-down vote, 
but I did not think it was right to break or change the rules of the 
U.S. Senate. I didn't want to turn the Senate into the House of 
Representatives.
  I made two speeches on the floor and suggested what became, in 
effect, the Gang of 14. I didn't participate in the gang because my 
colleague Senator Frist was the Republican leader, and out of respect 
to him I didn't want to undermine him. Fourteen Senators, including 
Senator Pryor and Senator McCain on this side, got together and said we 
cannot let this happen. They met and worked and agreed they would not 
change the rules and would not filibuster. So when that happened, that 
meant there could not be a change of the rules by the Republicans and 
there could not be a filibuster by the Democrats if these 14 Senators 
agreed with one another. They then created a compromise solution which 
is where we are today.
  There have been other ways that leaders have responded. During the 
Panama Canal debates in 1978 and 1979, I believe Senator Byrd and 
Senator Baker were the leaders. I believe Senator Byrd was the majority 
leader. The opponents of the Panama Canal--and this was a time when the 
Panama Canal was very unpopular with a lot of people. According to 
Senator Byrd, opponents centered their efforts of winning approval of 
killer amendments. We all know what those are. I believe one of the 
main reasons the majority leader does not like bills to come to the 
floor is because he thinks some of the amendments offered by the 
minority are going to be unpleasant for Democrats, or even Republicans, 
to vote for. Well, my feeling about that is: Why would you join the 
Grand Ole Opry if you don't want to sing? We come here to debate, 
amend, and vote.
  Here is what Senator Byrd said: Opponents centered their efforts on 
winning approval of killer amendments. I made it clear that only the 
leadership amendments and certain clarifying reservations and 
understandings would be acceptable. Opponents attempted to circumvent 
this strategy by offering amendments that were phrased in such a way 
that Senators would find them difficult to turn down.
  At first glance many of the amendments seemed innocuous and pro-
American. Had they succeeded, however, they would have effectively 
killed the treaty--this is Senator Byrd. In all 145 amendments, 26 
reservations, 18 understandings, 3 declarations--for a total of 192 
changes--were proposed. 88 of these were voted on. In the final 
analysis, nothing passed that was not acceptable to the joint 
leadership.
  In other words, the joint leadership sat up there, let everybody 
vote, let them ventilate, have their say, do their job, and then they 
defeated them. They either tabled their amendment or they beat them. 
That is what they were able to do. That is very different from way we 
are operating today, and that is the way I respectfully suggest we 
should operate.
  In the 1980s--and I mentioned it was never perfect--during the Byrd-
Baker era, basically the leaders would put a bill on the floor. If it 
was a bill like the one we are currently considering--the Defense 
authorization bill--and it had the support of the chairman and ranking 
minority member, they would simply open the bill for amendments. They 
might get 300 amendments. They would then ask for unanimous consent to 
close off amendments and, of course, they would get it because if 
anybody objected, they would tell them to throw their amendment in 
there and then they would start voting.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. For example, during the Panama Canal debate, they 
would table a lot and vote a lot. They would stay up on Monday, 
Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday nights. Pretty soon Senators would be 
thinking about going home or seeing their grandchildren or maybe their 
amendment was not so important and their bill would either be passed or 
defeated, but everybody went home thinking: I have had a chance to be a 
U.S. Senator. I may be in the minority, I may be in the majority, but I 
have given voice to the feelings of the people of my State which is 
what I was elected to do.
  So is the filibuster rule a problem? No, the filibuster rule is not 
the problem. The problem is if I come down to the floor with an 
amendment, the majority leader uses a procedural motion to cut me off 
and I don't get to vote on it. I don't get to talk about it and I don't 
get to vote on it.
  To his great credit, he is not doing that with the Defense 
authorization bill. He did not do that with the postal reform bill. 
There have been a number of other bills this year that proved the 
Senate can work. There is even an

[[Page S7316]]

amendment by the Senator from Kentucky that Members of both sides did 
not want to vote on. It had to do with cutting off aid to three Middle 
Eastern countries. The administration did not want to vote, but we 
finally voted and what happened? We had a huge, great debate. Many 
Senators spoke their feelings, and in the end the vote was 81-10 and 
the amendment failed. It did not do any damage to anybody. In fact, it 
made the Senate look more like what it should be.
  The filibuster is and has been democracy's greatest show: the right 
to talk your head off. We need to get back to the situation where we 
have committee bills like the Defense authorization bill where we bring 
them to the floor and the majority leader asks for amendments. Let us 
all put our amendments in and let us start voting. Let's get back to 
the time where the majority leader and the minority leader, or the 
committee chairman and the ranking member, have a product they are 
invested in and they work together to keep it intact. If they do that, 
they usually defeat Republican amendments or Democratic amendments, or 
occasionally an amendment will come along that has so much support that 
it seems like an improvement to the bill, and it is adopted.
  My purpose today is not to make a hard job harder. I said at the 
beginning the majority leader has the toughest job in town and maybe 
one of the toughest in the country. My hope is that maybe if he has a 
few minutes tonight, he would go back home and reread his own book. He 
and I agreed at that time that that would be a bad result. And remember 
the words he said in 2005 about the value of the filibuster, the value 
of having a body that protected the minority rights and how damaging it 
would be to make the Senate like the House.

  I hope the majority leader and the Republican leader could quietly 
meet and talk this through. Senator Schumer and I and many others spent 
a lot of time on this 2 years ago. It took 6 months and we thought we 
had an agreement, but somehow it broke down. There is no reason it 
should break down. We can operate the Senate under the rules we have. 
We can get bills through committee. We can get them to the floor. We 
can let anybody have an amendment and we can talk about it, vote on it, 
and pass it or defeat it. That is what we should be doing.
  I know the majority leader cares about this institution. I know he 
cares about it deeply. He spent his life here devoted to it. I know he 
is responding to a variety of suggestions from Members of his caucus as 
to what is best to do. I think it is the responsibility of the leaders 
of both sides and people who have seen this body for a while to remind 
everyone, particularly those who have never been in the minority, that 
this is a body to protect the minority. Any of us can be in the 
minority at some time. I know he does not want to destroy the U.S. 
Senate, but in his words: If we change the filibuster rule, it would be 
the end of the United States Senate. I don't want that to happen. I 
don't want that to be the majority leader's legacy, and I don't believe 
he wants that. I, as one Senator, am willing to encourage the 
Republican leader and the majority leader to work together, solve this 
problem, and get our attention focused back on the big problem facing 
our country, which is how to get a budget agreement that gets our 
economy moving again.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to put into the Record a few 
articles: a excerpt from the majority leader's book, an article from 
The Hill by Martin Paone--who used to work here and makes the points I 
have been making--an article by Richard Arenberg, who worked on Senate 
and House staffs for 30 or 40 years. We find that people who have 
worked in the Senate and leave it, whether they are Republicans or 
Democrats, seem to have the same view.
  I wish also to put in Senator Byrd's statement which he made during 
his last appearance before the Senate Rules Committee before he died. I 
was there and he urged us not to break down this fence. His comments go 
hand in hand with those of Senator Chris Dodd's final address to the 
Senate on November 30, 2010. And finally, I include a copy of an 
address I gave at the Heritage Foundation on this subject 2 years ago.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           The Nuclear Option

       Peaceable and productive are not two words I would use to 
     describe Washington in 2005.
       I just couldn't believe that Bill Frist was going to do 
     this.
       The storm had been gathering all year and word from 
     conservative columnists and in conservative circles was that 
     Senator Frist of Tennessee, who was the Majority Leader, bad 
     decided to pursue a rules change that would kill the 
     filibuster for judicial nominations. And once you opened that 
     Pandora's box, it was just a matter of time before a Senate 
     leader who couldn't get his way on something moved to 
     eliminate the filibuster for regular business as well. And 
     that, simply put, would be the end of the United States 
     Senate.
       It is the genius of the founders that they conceived the 
     Senate as a solution to the small state/big state problem. 
     And central to that solution was the protection of the rights 
     of the minority. A filibuster is the minority's way of not 
     allowing the majority to shut off debate, and without robust 
     debate, the Senate is crippled. Such a move would transform 
     the body into an institution that looked just like the House 
     of Representatives, where everything passes with a simple 
     majority. And it would tamper dangerously with the Senate's 
     advise-and-consent function as enshrined in the Constitution. 
     If even the most controversial nominee could simply be 
     rubber-stamped by a simple majority, advise-and-consent would 
     be gutted. Trent Lott of Mississippi knew what he was talking 
     about when he coined a name for what they were doing: the 
     nuclear option.
       And that was their point. They knew--Lott knew--if they 
     trifled with the basic framework of the Senate like that it 
     would be nuclear. They knew that it would be a very radical 
     thing to do, They knew that it would shut the Senate down. 
     United States senators can be a self-regarding bunch 
     sometimes, and I include myself in that description, but 
     there will come a time when we will all be gone, and the 
     institutions that we now serve will be run by men and women 
     not yet living, and those institutions will either function 
     well because we've taken care with them, or they will be in 
     disarray and someone else's problem to solve. Well, because 
     the Republicans couldn't get their way getting some radical 
     judges confirmed to the federal bench, they were threatening 
     to change the Senate so fundamentally that it would never be 
     the same again. In a fit of partisan fury they were trying to 
     blow up the Senate. Senate rules can only be changed by a 
     two-thirds vote of the Senate, or sixty-seven senators. The 
     Republicans were going to do it illegally with a simple 
     majority, or fifty-one, Vice President Cheney was prepared to 
     overrule the Senate parliamentarian. Future generations be 
     damned.
       Given that the filibuster is a perfectly reasonable tool to 
     effect, compromise, we had been resorting to the filibuster 
     on a few judges. And that's just the way it was. For 230 
     years, the U.S. Senate had been known as the world's greatest 
     deliberative body--not always efficient, but ultimately 
     effective.
                                  ____


                     [From The Hill, May 14, 2012]

                   Senate Rule Changes Come With Risk

                          (By Martin P. Paone)

       It's an election year, and the Senate can't agree on how to 
     keep the student loan interest rate from doubling on July 1 
     from 3.4 percent to 6.8. While both sides agree that it 
     should be done, how to pay for it is the stumbling block. A 
     party-line cloture vote failure has once again brought calls 
     for changing the Senate's rules by majority vote at the 
     beginning of the next Congress, bypassing the two-thirds 
     cloture requirement if there's opposition.
       The Senate's membership has changed considerably in the 
     last decade, but the Senate rules, with the exception of some 
     changes that were enacted in the Ethics in Government Act, 
     have not undergone any major changes since the Senate went on 
     TV in 1986. While the House has its Rules Committee, which 
     allows the majority to exert its will and control the flow of 
     legislation, the Senate has a tradition of protecting the 
     rights of the minority and of unfettered debate. Its own 
     website describes ``[t]he legislative process on the Senate 
     floor [as] a balance between the rights guaranteed to 
     Senators under the standing rules and the need for senators 
     to forgo some of these rights in order to expedite 
     business.''
       The Senate has for centuries functioned by this compact of 
     selectively forgoing one's rights, but now that compact, to 
     some, seems to have broken down--hence the call to enact 
     rules changes at the beginning of the next Congress by 
     majority vote. These calls have come from Democrats, but they 
     are quick to admit that it should apply regardless of who is 
     in the majority at the time.
       Such changes can certainly quicken the process and allow 
     for the majority to pass legislation and confirm presidential 
     nominees with little hindrance. While the initial rules 
     reforms will probably be limited to restricting debate on a 
     motion to proceed and other less dramatic changes, eventually 
     such majority rules changes at the beginning of a Congress 
     will result in a majority-controlled body similar to the 
     House. Once the Pandora's Box of granting the majority the 
     unfettered ability to change the rules every

[[Page S7317]]

     two years has been opened, having seen how the current 
     situation has escalated, tit for tat over the last 30 years, 
     it is difficult to believe that strict majority rule would 
     not be the ultimate result. Thereafter, a member of the 
     minority in the Senate will be just as impotent as his or her 
     House counterparts.
       Filibusters and the forcing of a cloture vote have been 
     repeatedly used to stop legislation and nominations and to 
     waste time. This is why the number of successful cloture 
     votes, many on noncontroversial nominations and on motions to 
     proceed to bills, has gone up dramatically in recent years. 
     By requiring the cloture vote and then voting for it, the 
     minority has been able to waste considerable time and thus 
     reduce the amount of time available to act on other items of 
     the president's agenda.
       The call for changing the Senate's rules by majority vote 
     at the beginning of a Congress is not new; it was attempted 
     without success in 1953 and 1957 and in 1959. When faced with 
     such an effort, then-Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson 
     negotiated a cloture change back down two-thirds of those 
     present and voting, but as part of the compromise he had to 
     add Paragraph 2 to Senate Rule V, which states ``The rules of 
     the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next 
     Congress unless they are changed as provided in these 
     rules.''
       So is it time to ignore the existing rules and change them 
     at the beginning of the next Congress by a majority vote? 
     Perhaps it is time--so many other changes have occurred in 
     our lives in the recent past, why shouldn't the Senate change 
     the way it does business? However, should that occur, one 
     must be prepared to live with the eventual outcome of a 
     Senate where the majority rules and the rights of the 
     minority have been severely curtailed.
       While I can sympathize with those demanding such changes, 
     it's the manner of their implementation that keeps reminding 
     me of the exchange between Sir Thomas Moore and his son-in-
     law, William Roper, in the movie ``A Man For All Seasons'':
       Roper: ``So, now you give the devil the benefit of law!''
       Moore: ``Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through 
     the law to get after the devil?'' Roper: ``Yes, I'd cut down 
     every law in England to do that!''
       Moore: ``Oh? And when the last law was down, and the devil 
     turned `round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws 
     all being flat? . . . Yes, I'd give the devil benefit of law, 
     for my own safety's sake!''
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Nov. 14, 2012]

             Filibuster Reform: Avoid the `Nuclear Option'

                        (By Richard A. Arenberg)

       Richard A. Arenberg, who worked on Senate and House staffs 
     for 34 years, is co-author of ``Defending the Filibuster: The 
     Soul of the Senate.'' He is an adjunct professor at Brown 
     University, Northeastern University and Suffolk University.
       Majority Leader Harry Reid, frustrated by abuse of the 
     filibuster, has vowed to change the Senate's rule on the 
     first day of the new Congress.
       If he chooses to invoke the ``constitutional option''--the 
     assertion that the Senate can, on the first day of a session, 
     change its rules by a majority vote--he will be heading down 
     a slippery slope that the current president of the Senate, 
     Vice President Biden, once excoriated as an abuse of power by 
     a majority party.
       The argument over the constitutional option is more than 
     200 years old. The Senate has consistently held that it is a 
     continuing body since at least two-thirds of its members are 
     always in office. That's why it uses a rule book written in 
     1789 by the first Senate and does not adopt rules on the 
     first day of a new Congress, as the House of Representatives 
     does. To underscore the point, the Senate adopted in 1965 
     Rule V, which states, ``The rules of the Senate shall 
     continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they 
     are changed as provided in these rules.''
       Senate Rule XXII requires a two-thirds vote to end a 
     filibuster against a rules change. This means that changing 
     Senate rules must be a bipartisan matter. The danger is that 
     the majority party will attempt to use the ``constitutional 
     option'' and ignore the Senate's rules. Republicans 
     threatened this in 2005 when Democrats were filibustering 10 
     of President George W. Bush's judicial nominations. Because 
     Democrats vowed to respond by bringing the Senate to a near-
     halt, the tactic was widely referred to as the ``nuclear 
     option.''
       The ``constitutional option'' could be accomplished in 
     January (or, really, any time) if the Senate's presiding 
     officer decides to ignore the rules and the advice of the 
     parliamentarian--which presiding officers usually rely upon--
     and declares that debate can be ended by majority vote. 
     Republicans would appeal, but if 51 Democrats hold the line 
     they can table the appeal, which would allow the ruling to 
     stand as the new precedent of the Senate.
       No one should be fooled. Once the majority can change the 
     rules by majority vote, the Senate will soon be like the 
     House, where the majority doesn't consult the minority but 
     simply controls the process. Gone would be the Senate's 
     historic protection of the minority's right to speak and 
     amend. In the House, the majority tightly controls which 
     bills will be considered; what amendments, if any, will be in 
     order; how much time is allotted for debate; and when and 
     under what rules votes occur. Often, no amendments are 
     permitted.
       Since the Senate's presiding officer is likely to be the 
     vice president, it is instructive to remember what Biden said 
     about this ploy from the floor of the Senate in 2005:
       ``This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the 
     arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab by the 
     majority party . . . to eliminate one of the procedural 
     mechanisms designed for the express purpose of guaranteeing 
     individual rights and they also, as a consequence, would 
     undermine the protections of the minority point of view. . . 
     .
       ``[Q]uite frankly it's the ultimate act of unfairness to 
     alter the unique responsibility of the United States Senate 
     and to do so by breaking the very rules of the United States 
     Senate. . . . But the Senate is not meant to be a place of 
     pure majoritarianism. . . . At its core, . . . the filibuster 
     is not about stopping a nominee or a bill. It's about 
     compromise and moderation.''
       He went on to call the constitutional option ``a lie about 
     the rule.''
       Reid said at the time, ``If there were ever an example of 
     an abuse of power, this is it. The filibuster is the last 
     check we have against the abuse of power in Washington.''
       In 2005, crisis was averted by the bipartisan ``Gang of 
     14'' senators who forged a compromise. Perhaps it's time for 
     a new gang. Five of the original 14 will be in the 113th 
     Congress. They would no doubt be joined by others of both 
     parties. A critical mass of senators who revere the 
     institution can arrive at a bipartisan approach, reshaping 
     the filibuster rule while retaining it as a protection for 
     minority rights.
       In recent days President Obama and the leaders of the House 
     and Senate have called for bipartisan cooperation. Imposing 
     rules changes by partisan fiat would be just the opposite and 
     would destroy the fabric of the Senate. Now is a good time 
     for a new gang of senators to rise above partisan bickering 
     and negotiate changes based on what's best for the Senate and 
     our democracy, not just what's best for the majority.
                                  ____


    Statement of Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), Senate Rules and 
                 Administration Committee, May 19, 2010


                ``the filibuster and its consequences''

       On September 30, 1788, Pennsylvania became the first state 
     to elect its United States senators, one of whom was William 
     Maclay. In his 1789 journal Senator Maclay wrote, ``I gave my 
     opinion in plain language that the confidence of the people 
     was departing from us, owing to our unreasonable delays. The 
     design of the Virginians and of the South Carolina gentlemen 
     was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill 
     passed.''
       Our Founding Fathers intended the Senate to be a continuing 
     body that allows for open and unlimited debate and the 
     protection of minority rights. Senators have understood this 
     since the Senate first convened.
       In his notes of the Constitutional Convention on June 26, 
     1787, James Madison recorded that the ends to be served by 
     the Senate were ``first, to protect the people against their 
     rulers, secondly, to protect the people against the transient 
     impressions into which they themselves might be led. . . They 
     themselves, as well as a numerous body of Representatives, 
     were liable to err also, from fickleness and passion. A 
     necessary fence against this danger would be to select a 
     portion of enlightened citizens, whose limited number, and 
     firmness might seasonably interpose against impetuous 
     councils.'' That ``fence'' was the United States Senate.
       The right to filibuster anchors this necessary fence. But 
     it is not a right intended to be abused.
       During this 111th Congress in particular the minority has 
     threatened to filibuster almost every matter proposed for 
     Senate consideration. I find this tactic contrary to each 
     Senator's duty to act in good faith.
       I share the profound frustration of my constituents and 
     colleagues as we confront this situation. The challenges 
     before our nation are far too grave, and too numerous, for 
     the Senate to be rendered impotent to address them, and yet 
     be derided for inaction by those causing the delay.
       There are many suggestions as to what we should do. I know 
     what we must not do.
       We must never, ever, tear down the only wall--the necessary 
     fence--this nation has against the excesses of the Executive 
     Branch and the resultant haste and tyranny of the majority.
       The path to solving our problem lies in our thoroughly 
     understanding it. Does the difficulty reside in the construct 
     of our rules or in the ease of circumventing them?
       A true filibuster is a fight, not a threat or a bluff. For 
     most of the Senate's history, Senators motivated to extend 
     debate had to hold the floor as long as they were physically 
     able. The Senate was either persuaded by the strength of 
     their arguments or unconvinced by either their commitment or 
     their stamina. True filibusters were therefore less frequent, 
     and more commonly discouraged, due to every Senator's 
     understanding that such undertakings required grueling 
     personal sacrifice, exhausting preparation, and a willingness 
     to be criticized for disrupting the nation's business.
       Now, unbelievably, just the whisper of opposition brings 
     the ``world's greatest deliberative body'' to a grinding 
     halt. Why?
       Because this once highly respected institution has become 
     overwhelmingly consumed by a fixation with money and media.
       Gone are the days when Senators Richard Russell and Lyndon 
     Johnson, and Speaker

[[Page S7318]]

     Sam Rayburn gathered routinely for working weekends and 
     couldn't wait to get back to their chambers on Monday 
     morning.
       Now every Senator spends hours every day, throughout the 
     year and every year, raising funds for re-election and 
     appearing before cameras and microphones. Now the Senate 
     often works three-day weeks, with frequent and extended 
     recess periods, so Senators can rush home to fundraisers 
     scheduled months in advance.
       Forceful confrontation to a threat to filibuster is 
     undoubtedly the antidote to the malady. Most recently, Senate 
     Majority Leader Reid announced that the Senate would stay in 
     session around-the-clock and take all procedural steps 
     necessary to bring financial reform legislation before the 
     Senate. As preparations were made and cots rolled out, a deal 
     was struck within hours and the threat of filibuster was 
     withdrawn.
       I heartily commend the Majority Leader for this progress, 
     and I strongly caution my colleagues as some propose to alter 
     the rules to severely limit the ability of a minority to 
     conduct a filibuster. I know what it is to be Majority 
     Leader, and wake up on a Wednesday morning in November, and 
     find yourself a Minority Leader.
       I also know that current Senate Rules provide the means to 
     break a filibuster. I employed them in 1977 to end the post-
     cloture filibuster of natural gas deregulation legislation. 
     This was the roughest filibuster I have experienced during my 
     fifty-plus years in the Senate, and it produced the most-
     bitter feelings. Yet some important new precedents were 
     established in dealing with post-cloture obstruction. In 
     1987, I successfully used Rules 7 and 8 to make a non-
     debatable motion to proceed during the morning hour. No 
     leader has attempted this technique since, but this procedure 
     could be and should be used.
       Over the years, I have proposed a variety of improvements 
     to Senate Rules to achieve a more sensible balance allowing 
     the majority to function while still protecting minority 
     rights. For example, I have supported eliminating debate on 
     the motion to proceed to a matter (except for changes to 
     Senate rules), or limiting debate to a reasonable time on 
     such motions, with Senators retaining the right to unlimited 
     debate on the matter once before the Senate. I have authored 
     several other proposals in the past, and I look forward to 
     our committee work ahead as we carefully examine other 
     suggested changes. The Committee must, however, jealously 
     guard against efforts to change or reinterpret the Senate 
     rules by a simple majority, circumventing Rule XXII where a 
     two-thirds majority is required.
       As I have said before, the Senate has been the last 
     fortress of minority rights and freedom of speech in this 
     Republic for more than two centuries. I pray that Senators 
     will pause and reflect before ignoring that history and 
     tradition in favor of the political priority of the moment.
                                  ____


The Filibuster: ``Democracy's Finest Show . . . The Right To Talk Your 
                               Head Off''

(Address by Senator Lamar Alexander, Heritage Foundation, Jan. 4, 2011)

       Voters who turned out in November are going to be pretty 
     disappointed when they learn the first thing some Democrats 
     want to do is cut off the right of the people they elected to 
     make their voices heard on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
       In the November elections, voters showed that they remember 
     the passage of the health care law on Christmas Eve, 2009: 
     midnight sessions, voting in the midst of a snow storm, back 
     room deals, little time to read, amend or debate the bill, 
     passage by a straight party line vote.
       It was how it was done as much as what was done that 
     angered the American people. Minority voices were silenced. 
     Those who didn't like it were told, ``You can read it after 
     you pass it.'' The majority's attitude was, ``We won the 
     election. We'll write the bill. We don't need your votes.''
       And of course the result was a law that a majority of 
     voters consider to be an historic mistake and the beginning 
     of an immediate effort to repeal and replace it.
       Voters remembered all this in November, but only 6 weeks 
     later Democratic senators seemed to have forgotten it. I say 
     this because on December 18, every returning Democratic 
     senator sent Senator Reid a letter asking him to ``take steps 
     to bring [Republican] abuses of our rules to an end.''
       When the United States Senate convenes tomorrow, some have 
     threatened to try to change the rules so it would be easier 
     to do with every piece of legislation what they did with the 
     health care bill: ram it through on a partisan vote, with 
     little debate, amendment, or committee consideration, and 
     without listening to minority voices.
       The brazenness of this proposed action is that Democrats 
     are proposing to use the very tactics that in the past almost 
     every Democratic leader has denounced, including President 
     Obama and Vice President Biden, who has said that it is ``a 
     naked power grab'' and destructive of the Senate as a 
     protector of minority rights.
       The Democratic proposal would allow the Senate to change 
     its rules with only 51 votes, ending the historical practice 
     of allowing any senator at any time to offer any amendment 
     until sixty senators decide it is time to end debate.
       As Investor's Business Daily wrote, ``The Senate Majority 
     Leader has a plan to deal with Republican electoral success. 
     When you lose the game, you simply change the rules. When you 
     only have 53 votes, you lower the bar to 51.'' This is called 
     election nullification.
       Now there is no doubt the Senate has been reduced to a 
     shadow of itself as the world's greatest deliberative body, a 
     place which, as Sen. Arlen Specter said in his farewell 
     address, has been distinctive because of ``the ability of any 
     Senator to offer virtually any amendment at any time.''
       But the demise of the Senate is not because Republicans 
     seek to filibuster. The real obstructionists have been the 
     Democratic majority which, for an unprecedented number of 
     times, used their majority advantage to limit debate, not to 
     allow amendments and to bypass the normal committee 
     consideration of legislation.
       To be specific, according to the Congressional Research 
     Service:
       1. the majority leader has used his power to cut off all 
     amendments and debate 44 times--more than the last six 
     majority leaders combined;
       2. the majority leader has moved to shut down debate the 
     same day measures are considered (same-day cloture) nearly 
     three times more, on average, than the last six majority 
     leaders;
       3. the majority leader has set the record for bypassing the 
     committee process, bringing a measure directly to the floor 
     43 times during the 110th and 111th Congresses.
       Let's be clear what we mean when we say the word 
     ``filibuster.'' Let's say the majority leader brings up the 
     health care bill. I go down to the floor to offer an 
     amendment and speak on it. The majority leader says ``no'' 
     and cuts off my amendment. I object. He calls what I tried to 
     do a filibuster. I call what he did cutting off my right to 
     speak and amend which is what I was elected to do. So the 
     problem is not a record number of filibusters; the problem is 
     a record number of attempts to cut off amendments and debate 
     so that minority voices across America cannot be heard on the 
     floor of the Senate.
       So the real ``party of no'' is the majority party that has 
     been saying ``no'' to debate, and ``no'' to voting on 
     amendments that minority members believe improve legislation 
     and express the voices of the people they represent. In fact, 
     the reason the majority leader can claim there have been so 
     many filibusters is because he actually is counting as 
     filibusters the number of times he filed cloture--or moved to 
     cut off debate.
       Instead of this power grab, as the new Congress begins, the 
     goal should be to restore the Senate to its historic role 
     where the voices of the people can be heard, rather than 
     silenced, where their ideas can be offered as amendments, 
     rather than suppressed, and where those amendments can be 
     debated and voted upon rather than cut off.
       To accomplish this, the Senate needs to change its 
     behavior, not to change its rules. The majority and minority 
     leaders have been in discussion on steps that might help 
     accomplish this. I would like to discuss this afternoon why 
     it is essential to our country that cooler heads prevail 
     tomorrow when the Senate convenes.
       One good example Democrats might follow is the one 
     established by Republicans who gained control of both the 
     Senate and House of Representatives in 1995. On the first day 
     of the new Republican majority, Sen. Harkin proposed a rule 
     change diluting the filibuster. Every single Republican 
     senator voted against the change even though supporting it 
     clearly would have provided at least a temporary advantage to 
     the Republican agenda.
       Here is why Republicans who were in the majority then, and 
     Democrats who are in the majority today, should reject a 
     similar rules change:
       First, the proposal diminishes the rights of the minority. 
     In his classic Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville 
     wrote that one of his two greatest fears for our young 
     democracy was the ``tyranny of the majority,'' the 
     possibility that a runaway majority might trample minority 
     voices.
       Second, diluting the right to debate and vote on amendments 
     deprives the nation of a valuable forum for achieving 
     consensus on difficult issues. The founders knew what they 
     were doing when they created two very different houses in 
     Congress. Senators have six-year terms, one-third elected 
     every two years. The Senate operates largely by unanimous 
     consent. There is the opportunity, unparalleled in any other 
     legislative body in the world, to debate and amend until a 
     consensus finally is reached. This procedure takes longer, 
     but it usually produces a better result--and a result the 
     country is more likely to accept. For example, after the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted, by a bipartisan 
     majority over a filibuster led by Sen. Russell of Georgia, 
     Sen. Russell went home to Georgia and said that, though he 
     had fought the legislation with everything he had, ``As long 
     as it is there, it must be obeyed.'' Compare that to the 
     instant repeal effort that was the result of jamming the 
     health care law through in a partisan vote.
       Third, such a brazen power grab by Democrats this year will 
     surely guarantee a similar action by Republicans in two years 
     if Republicans gain control of the Senate as many believe is 
     likely to happen. We have seen this happen with Senate 
     consideration of judges. Democrats began the practice of 
     filibustering President Bush's judges even though they were 
     well-qualified; now Democrats are unhappy because many 
     Republicans regard that as a precedent and have threatened to 
     do the same to President Obama's nominees. Those who want to 
     create a freight train

[[Page S7319]]

     running through the Senate today, as it does in the House, 
     might think about whether they will want that freight train 
     in two years if it is the Tea Party Express.
       Finally, it is hard to see what partisan advantage 
     Democrats gain from destroying the Senate as a forum for 
     consensus and protection of minority rights since any 
     legislation they jam through without bipartisan support will 
     undoubtedly die in the Republican-controlled House during the 
     next two years.
       The reform the Senate needs is a change in its behavior, 
     not a change in its rules. I have talked with many senators, 
     on both sides of the aisle, and I believe most of us want the 
     same thing: a Senate where most bills are considered by 
     committee, come to the floor as a result of bipartisan 
     cooperation, are debated and amended and then voted upon.
       It was not so long ago that this was the standard operating 
     procedure. I have seen the Senate off and on for more than 
     forty years, from the days in 1967 when I came to the Senate 
     as Sen. Howard Baker's legislative assistant. That was when 
     each senator had only one legislative assistant. I came back 
     to help Sen. Baker set up his leadership office in 1977 and 
     watched the way that Sen. Baker and Sen. Byrd led the Senate 
     from 1977 to 1985, when Democrats were in the majority for 
     the first four years and Republicans were the second four 
     years.
       Then, most pieces of legislation that came to the floor had 
     started in committee. Then that legislation was open for 
     amendment. There might be 300 amendments filed and, after a 
     while, the majority would ask for unanimous consent to cut 
     off amendments. Then voting would begin. And voting would 
     continue.
       The leaders would work to persuade senators to limit their 
     amendments but that didn't always work. So the leaders kept 
     the Senate in session during the evening, during Fridays, and 
     even into the weekend. Senators got their amendments 
     considered and the legislation was fully vetted, debated and 
     finally passed or voted down.
       Sen. Byrd knew the rules. I recall that when Republicans 
     won the majority in 1981, Sen. Baker went to see Sen. Byrd 
     and said, ``Bob I know you know the rules better than I ever 
     will. I'll make a deal with you. You don't surprise me and I 
     won't surprise you.''
       Sen. Byrd said, ``Let me think about it.''
       And the next day Sen. Byrd said yes and the two leaders 
     managed the Senate effectively together for eight years.
       What would it take to restore today's Senate to the Senate 
     of the Baker-Byrd era?
       Well, we have the answer from the master of the Senate 
     rules himself, Sen. Byrd, who in his last appearance before 
     the Rules Committee on May 19, 2010 said: ``Forceful 
     confrontation to a threat to filibuster is undoubtedly the 
     antidote to the malady [abuse of the filibuster ]. Most 
     recently, Senate Majority Leader Reid announced that the 
     Senate would stay in session around-the-clock and take all 
     procedural steps necessary to bring financial reform 
     legislation before the Senate. As preparations were made and 
     cots rolled out, a deal was struck within hours and the 
     threat of filibuster was withdrawn . . . I also know that 
     current Senate Rules provide the means to break a 
     filibuster.''
       Sen. Byrd also went on to argue strenuously in that last 
     speech that ``our Founding Fathers intended the Senate to be 
     a continuing body that allows for open and unlimited debate 
     and the protection of minority rights. Senators,'' he said, 
     ``have understood this since the Senate first convened.''
       Sen. Byrd then went on: ``In his notes of the 
     Constitutional Convention on June 26, 1787, James Madison 
     recorded that the ends to be served by the Senate were 
     `first, to protect the people against their rulers, secondly, 
     to protect the people against the transient impressions into 
     which they themselves might be led. . . . They themselves, as 
     well as a numerous body of Representatives, were liable to 
     err also, from fickleness and passion. A necessary fence 
     against this danger would be to select a portion of 
     enlightened citizens, whose limited number, and firmness 
     might seasonably interpose against impetuous councils. ``That 
     fence,'' Sen. Byrd said in that last appearance, ``was the 
     United States Senate. The right to filibuster anchors this 
     necessary fence. But it is not a right intended to be 
     abused.''
       ``There are many suggestions as to what we should do. I 
     know what we must not do. We must never, ever, ever, ever 
     tear down the only wall--the necessary fence--this nation has 
     against the excess of the Executive Branch and the resultant 
     haste and tyranny of the majority.''
       What would it take to restore the years of Sens. Baker and 
     Byrd, when most bills that came to the floor were first 
     considered in committee, when more amendments were 
     considered, debated and voted upon?
       1. Recognize that there has to be bipartisan cooperation 
     and consensus on important issues. The day of ``we won the 
     election, we jam the bill through'' will have to be over. 
     Sen. Baker would not bring a bill to the floor when 
     Republicans were in the majority unless it had the support of 
     the ranking Democratic committee member.
       2. Recognize that senators are going to have to vote. This 
     may sound ridiculous to say to an outsider, but every Senate 
     insider knows that a major reason why the majority cuts off 
     amendments and debate is because Democratic members don't 
     want to vote on controversial issues. That's like 
     volunteering to be on the Grand Ole Opry but then claiming 
     you don't want to sing. We should say, if you don't want to 
     vote, then don't run for the Senate.
       3. Finally, according to Sen. Byrd, it will be the end of 
     the three-day work week. The Senate convenes on most Mondays 
     for a so-called bed-check vote at 5:30. The Senate during 
     2010 did not vote on one single Friday. It is not possible 
     either for the minority to have the opportunity to offer, 
     debate and vote on amendments or for the majority to 
     forcefully confront a filibuster if every senator knows there 
     will never be a vote on Friday.
       There are some other steps that can be taken to help the 
     Senate function better without impairing minority rights.
       One bipartisan suggestion has been to end the practice of 
     secret holds. It seems reasonable to expect a senator who 
     intends to hold up a bill or a nomination to allow his 
     colleagues and the world know who he or she is so that the 
     merits of the hold can be evaluated and debated.
       Second, there is a crying need to make it easier for any 
     President to staff his government with key officials within a 
     reasonable period of time. One reason for the current delay 
     is the President's own fault, taking an inordinately long 
     time to vet his nominees. Another is a shared responsibility: 
     the maze of conflicting forms, FBI investigations, IRS 
     audits, ethics requirements and financial disclosures 
     required both by the Senate and the President of nominees. I 
     spoke on the Senate floor on this, titling my speech 
     ``Innocent until Nominated.'' The third obstacle is the 
     excessive number of executive branch appointments requiring 
     Senate confirmation. There have been bipartisan efforts to 
     reduce these obstacles. With the support the majority and 
     minority leaders, we might achieve some success.
       Of course, even if all of these efforts succeed there still 
     will be delayed nominations, bills that are killed before 
     they come to the floor and amendments that never see the 
     light of day. But this is nothing new. I can well remember 
     when Sen. Metzenbaum of Ohio put a secret hold on my 
     nomination when President George H.W. Bush appointed me 
     education secretary. He held up my nomination for three 
     months, never really saying why.
       I asked Sen. Rudman of New Hampshire what I could do about 
     Sen. Metzenbaum, and he said, ``Nothing.'' And then he told 
     me how President Ford had appointed him to the Federal 
     Communications Commission when he, Rudman, was Attorney 
     General of New Hampshire. The Democratic senator from New 
     Hampshire filibustered Rudman's appointment until Rudman 
     finally asked the president to withdraw his name.
       ``Is that the end of the story?'' I asked Rudman.
       ``No,'' he said. ``I ran against the [so-and -so] and won, 
     and that's how I got into the Senate.''
       During his time here Sen. Metzenbaum would sit at a desk at 
     the front of the Senate and hold up almost every bill going 
     through until its sponsor obtained his approval. Sen. Allen 
     of Alabama did the same before Metzenbaum. And Sen. John 
     Williams of Delaware during the 1960's was on the floor 
     regularly objecting to federal spending when I first came 
     here forty years ago.
       I have done my best to make the argument that the Senate 
     and the country will be served best if cooler heads prevail 
     and Democrats don't make their power grab tomorrow to make 
     the Senate like the House, to permit them to do with any 
     legislation what they did with the health care law. I have 
     said that to do so will destroy minority rights, destroy the 
     essential forum for consensus that the Senate now provides 
     for difficult issues, and surely guarantee that Republicans 
     will try to do the same to Democrats in two years. More than 
     that, it is hard to see how Democrats can gain any partisan 
     advantage from this destruction of the Senate and invitation 
     for retribution since any bill they force through the Senate 
     in a purely partisan way during the next two years will 
     surely be stopped by the Republican-controlled House of 
     Representatives.
       But I am not the most persuasive voice against the wisdom 
     of tomorrow's proposed action. Other voices are. And I have 
     collected some of them, mostly Democratic leaders who wisely 
     argued against changing the institution of the Senate in a 
     way that would deprive minority voices in America of their 
     right to be heard:


          Quotes from Members and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

       Senator Robert Byrd: We must never, ever, ever, ever, tear 
     down the only wall, the necessary fence, that this nation has 
     against the excesses of the Executive Branch.
       Sen. Byrd: That's why we have a Senate, is to amend and 
     debate freely.


             Congressional Record, January 4, 1995, S40-41

       The filibuster has become a target for rebuke in this 
     efficiency-obsessed age in which we live. We have instant 
     coffee, instant potatoes to mix, instant this and instant 
     that. So everything must be done in an instant; must be done 
     in a hurry. . . .
       Anyhow, everything has to be done in a hurry. We have to 
     bring efficiency to this Senate. That was not what the 
     Framers had in mind.
       Recently, much of the talk of abolishing filibusters was 
     coming from the other body, but apparently the criticism has 
     begun to seep in the Senate Chamber, as well.
       The filibuster is one of the easier targets in this town. 
     It does not take much imagination to decry long-winded 
     speeches and to deplore delay by a small number of determined

[[Page S7320]]

     zealots as getting in the way of the greater good.
       It does, however, take more than a little thought to 
     understand the true purpose of the tactic known as 
     filibustering and to appreciate its historic importance in 
     protecting the viewpoint of the minority.
       In many ways, the filibuster is the single most important 
     device ever employed to ensure that the Senate remains truly 
     the unique protector of the rights of the people that it has 
     been throughout our history.


  Byrd did voice support for limiting debate on the motion to proceed 
                                 though

       So we have had unlimited debate in the Senate now for 200 
     years, and surely with 200 years of trial and testing, we 
     should know by now it is something to be prized beyond 
     measure.
       And so it is not a matter of pride and prerogative and 
     privilege and power with this Senator. It is a matter not 
     only of protecting this institution, it is a matter of 
     protecting the liberties of free men under our Constitution. 
     And as long as I can stand on this floor and speak, I can 
     protect the liberties of my people. If I abuse the power by 
     threatening to filibuster on motions to proceed, take away 
     that power of mine to abuse. Let us change the rule and allow 
     a motion to proceed under a debate limitation of 2 hours, 1 
     hour, or whatever, except on motions to proceed to a rules 
     change. I am for that.

       Sen. Dodd: I'm totally opposed to the idea of changing the 
     filibuster rules. I think that's foolish in my view.
       Sen. Dodd: I can understand the temptation to change the 
     rules that make the Senate so unique and simultaneously so 
     terribly frustrating. But whether such temptation is 
     motivated by a noble desire to speed up the legislative 
     process or by pure political expediency, I believe such 
     changes would be unwise.
       Sen. Dodd: Therefore to my fellow Senators, who have never 
     served a day in the minority, I urge you to pause in your 
     enthusiasm to change Senate rules.

       Sen. Reid: The Filibuster is far from A `Procedural 
     Gimmick.' It's part of the fabric of this institution that we 
     call the Senate. For 200 years we've had the right to extend 
     the debate. It's not procedural gimmick. Some in this chamber 
     want to throw out 214 years of Senate history in the quest 
     for absolute power. They want to do away with Mr. Smith, as 
     depicted in that great movie, being able to come to 
     Washington. They want to do away with the filibuster. They 
     think they're wiser than our Founding Fathers, I doubt that's 
     true.
       SEN Reid: In a fit of partisan fury, they were trying to 
     blow up the Senate. Senate rules can only be changed by a 
     two-thirds vote of the Senate, or sixty-seven senators. The 
     Republicans were going to do it illegally with a simple 
     majority, or fifty-one. Vice President Cheney was prepared to 
     overrule the Senate parliamentarian. Future generations be 
     damned.
       Sen. Reid: Given that the filibuster is a perfectly 
     reasonable tool to effect compromise, we had been resorting 
     to the filibuster on a few judges. And that's just the way it 
     was. For 230 years, the U.S. Senate had been known as the 
     world's greatest deliberative body--not always efficient, but 
     ultimately effective.

       Former Sen. Obama: Then if the Majority chooses to end the 
     filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end 
     to Democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness 
     and the gridlock will only get worse.

       Former Sen. Clinton: You've got majority rule. Then you've 
     got the Senate over here where people can slow things down 
     where they can debate where they have something called the 
     filibuster. You know it seems like it's a little less than 
     efficient, well that's right, it is. And deliberately 
     designed to be so.

       Sen. Chuck Schumer: The checks and balances which have been 
     at the core of this Republic are about to be evaporated. The 
     checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the 
     vote, you don't get your way 100% of the time.

       Sen. Gregg: You just can't have good governance if you 
     don't have discussion and different ideas brought forward.

       Sen. Roberts: The Senate is the only place in government 
     where the rights of a numerical minority are so protected. A 
     minority can be right, and minority views can certainly 
     improve legislation.


                   From Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

       Jimmy Stewart: Wild horses aren't going to drag me off this 
     floor until those people have heard everything I've got to 
     say, even if it takes all winter.
       Reporter: H.V. Kaltenborn speaking, half of official 
     Washington is here to see democracy's finest show. The 
     filibuster--the right to talk your head off.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and 
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.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. I ask consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          U.S.-CUBA RELATIONS

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I recently had an opportunity to visit 
Cuba for the first time. I have been frustrated for many years about 
the impasse between the United States and Cuba. I believed, and 
continue to believe, that the best way to change the Castro regime in 
Cuba is to open Cuba. As we learned in Eastern Europe, once those who 
have lived under a controlled economy and autocratic rule are exposed 
to the real world and the opportunities of that world, they start 
pushing for change.
  I went to Cuba hoping that with the transitional leadership from 
Fidel Castro to his brother Raul, there might be an opportunity to turn 
a new page. President Raul Castro has taken a number of small but 
notable steps to opening his country's economy. He has also released a 
number of political prisoners, albeit forcing many of them to leave 
Cuba if they wish to be released.
  Yet a genuine start to turning the page with the United States would 
also have to include the release of a detained U.S. citizen, Alan 
Gross, a man with whom the Presiding Officer and I have met. Today 
marks the third full year in prison in Cuba for Alan Gross. What was 
Alan Gross's crime? He provided Internet equipment to some of the Cuban 
population. That is right, Internet equipment.

  The Presiding Officer may have read that in war-torn Syria under the 
ruthless dictator Bashar al Assad, the Internet was recently turned off 
for a few days but was restored. In fact, Internet access in Cuba is 
between 1 percent to 3 percent, making it among the lowest rates in the 
world. The Cubans have tried to exclude news from the outside world to 
those living on the island.
  In 2011, the Cuban and Venezuelan Governments--two governments not 
known for political freedoms--launched a much ballyhooed project to lay 
an undersea fiber optic cable between the two countries to help improve 
Cuba's phone and Internet services.
  The $70 million project was expected to be in operation for the 
entire Nation by the summer of 2011, but as of May 2012 reports 
indicate that use has been restricted to only Cuban and Venezuelan 
Government entities, and Internet access by the general public still 
remains slow and very expensive. It is no wonder that trying to use the 
Internet in Cuba can land a person in jail, but 15 years in jail for 
American Alan Gross?
  I have come to this floor many times to plead for his freedom, and I 
will continue to do so. Gross's incarceration is a tragic reminder of 
the stale and tired policies from another era. It is difficult to 
imagine how relationships between the United States and Cuba can 
improve while Alan Gross continues to be held as a hostage to the 
contrived grievances of the Cuban Government.
  Today, December 3, marks the third anniversary of Alan's detention--3 
long, painful, and damaging years--3 years. However, that is only a 
small fraction of his 15-year sentence. Alan is a 63-year-old man from 
Maryland who simply wanted to give basic communication tools--just a 
shadow of what average Americans enjoy every day--to the Cuban people.
  When he arrived in Cuba, he went through their customs with all of 
his equipment and handed over everything he brought in, which they 
dutifully inspected. They proceeded to allow him to leave with the 
equipment and then turned around and arrested him for being a spy 
trying to sneak something into the country. He fully disclosed 
everything he brought in. He didn't believe he was violating the law. 
It is a mere technicality that has him sitting in prison today.
  Now he is fighting for his life, trying to sustain his emotional and 
physical health, and that is a growing concern. When I met with Alan 
Gross, he explained to me his daily routine. It is the only thing that 
keeps him sane. He gets up and marches around his room, pacing off the 
feet as he goes, trying to make sure he walks a certain distance

[[Page S7321]]

each day. They let him outside in the sunlight for a little while each 
day, and he tries to do exercises outside to maintain his physical 
condition.
  Recently, they found a mass on his shoulders. The Cuban doctors 
diagnosed it as hematoma and said it would go away, but it hasn't. It 
is a source of growing concern. His family is worried that it may be 
worse than a hematoma--perhaps even a tumor--and Alan Gross repeatedly 
has asked for a doctor of his own to examine him, but Cuba has refused.
  Facing outside pressure, Cuban doctors recently took another biopsy 
of the mass and made a big effort to publicly announce last week that 
their tests concluded it wasn't cancerous, but Alan and his doctor in 
the United States are not satisfied with the methods the Cubans used 
and don't trust the results.
  Just last week, Judy Gross, Alan's wife, came to see me again. She 
has been in before. She talked about her worry and the worry of her 
family about her husband's condition. Who can blame them. Alan's 
daughter and mother are both battling cancer. He has reason to fear 
that he could have it too. Alan deserves a medical evaluation from a 
doctor he knows and believes in. Cuba should at least give him that. 
Furthermore, they should allow the examination to take place in the 
United States so he can visit his ailing mother and daughter.
  I have pleaded with them to give him a chance to come home. One of 
the Cuban Five, a group of five Cubans who were arrested for espionage, 
was given that opportunity to return to Cuba so they could visit a sick 
brother. During my visit to Cuba, I had the privilege of meeting with 
Alan in person, and I thank the Cuban Government for that visit. I was 
moved by our conversation and impressed by the sincerity of Alan's 
affection for the Cuban people.
  This is a picture that was taken during the course of my visit with 
Alan. Alan Gross is not a threat to the sovereignty of the Cuban 
Government as they claim. He is a good man with good intentions, an 
honest man who just wants to come home to his family. Instead, he is 
trapped in Cuba, now for 3 years, being used by a regime as a pawn in a 
standoff with the United States. Holding Alan Gross as a political 
hostage is the wrong way to solve any problem between our countries.
  I am no fan of this Cuban regime. Its disregard for human rights and 
basic freedoms trouble me greatly. The recent suspicious death of Cuban 
democracy leader Owaldo Paya and continued harassment of blogger Yoani 
Sanchez are deeply troubling, but I believe in the Cuban people and in 
their right for economic and political expression. I am inspired by the 
passionate and courageous activists on the island--those who follow the 
example of Paya and Sanchez--and I am hopeful they will break through 
the repression and bring real change to that country.
  Today Senators Cardin and Moran submitted a resolution calling for 
the immediate and unconditional release of Alan Gross. I support it and 
join them as a cosponsor, and I call on my colleagues to do the same.
  Last week when I met with Alan's wife Judy, it almost broke my heart. 
She has fought tirelessly for her husband's release and her pain is 
palpable. As is Alan, she is frustrated, but she continues to fight for 
his freedom and works hard to ensure he is not forgotten.
  Judy Gross, I assure you, Alan is not forgotten. I hope the Cuban 
Government takes note of the same. Alan Gross deserves to come home, 
and we will continue to fight for him until he does.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. 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.


                       Honoring Our Armed Forces

                       Sergeant Joseph Richardson

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, the men and women who wear our Nation's 
uniform are selfless heroes who embody the American spirit, courage, 
honor, and patriotism. We must always remember to honor those who risk 
their lives to protect our country because our troops have given the 
greatest sacrifice in defense of our freedoms.
  Today I am here to pay my respects to Army SGT Joseph A. Richardson, 
an Arkansas soldier who sacrificed his life for his country while in 
support of Operation Enduring Freedom.
  As a student at Booneville High School in Booneville, AR, Sergeant 
Richardson took an interest in the military. His guidance counselor 
told Arkansas media outlets that during his sophomore year he became 
interested in military service and was anxious to take the necessary 
entrance exams even before he could qualify. His counselor said, ``He 
felt like it was going to be an honor to serve his country.'' In 2008, 
he joined the Army.
  His passion for his service to his country remained constant. 
Sergeant Richardson's family said he loved his job, he loved fighting 
for his country and our freedom. He liked it so much he recently 
reenlisted for 6 more years of service in the Army.
  While Sergeant Richardson's desire to serve his country was well 
known, so was his enthusiasm for life. His family and friends describe 
Sergeant Richardson as a kind-hearted man who always put others first 
and made those around him laugh.
  As a member of A Company, 1st Battalion, 28th Infantry Regiment, 
First Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kansas, 23-year-old Sergeant 
Richardson gave his life for his country on November 16, 2012, while on 
patrol in Afghanistan.
  SGT Joseph Richardson is a true American hero who paid the ultimate 
sacrifice. I ask my colleagues to keep his wife Ashley and the rest of 
his family and friends in their thoughts and prayers during this very 
difficult time. On behalf of a grateful nation, I humbly offer my 
sincerest gratitude for his patriotism and selfless service.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  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. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Medicare and Medicaid

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, America faces no greater threat 
to its growth and prosperity than our uncontrolled national debt. 
Currently, the country's debt exceeds $16 trillion. We are passing this 
amount of money on to our children and grandchildren to pay off. It is 
simply far too large a burden to be placing on them.
  As we move forward, it is clear that we must discuss spending.
  I know that President Obama is hyper-focused on increasing taxes as 
part of a deficit-reduction proposal. However, if we are serious about 
reducing our debt, we must talk about spending--not sometime next year, 
not only after we talk about taxes. We must talk about our spending 
Now.
  We need to have a thoughtful conversation that focuses on where our 
Federal spending most calls for control and containment.
  I would like to begin by drawing your attention to this chart I have 
in the Chamber.
  This chart from the Congressional Budget Office details noninterest 
spending as a percentage of GDP.
  We already know the significant role health care spending plays in 
our budget.
  Over the next decade, the Federal Government will spend over $7 
trillion on Medicare and $4.5 trillion on Medicaid. Together these two 
programs account for one-quarter of the entire Federal Government's 
spending throughout the next 10 years. But look closely at the even 
longer term projections of our spending.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, this middle graph--
Social Security, as a percentage of GDP--will remain relatively stable 
over the next 25 years.

[[Page S7322]]

  Noninterest spending, the bottom graph, as a percentage of GDP will 
also remain relatively stable over the same period.
  Now, look at this top graph. Over the next 25 years, spending on 
health care entitlements will basically double as a percentage of GDP.
  Unless we take a serious look at health care spending, we aren't 
genuinely acting to reduce our country's debt.
  Twenty-five years is not a lot of time. We need to be talking about 
health care spending now--not sometime next year, not just once we have 
discussed taxes; now.
  In Washington, we can get all wrapped up over semantic terms. Do we 
need Medicare and Medicaid reform? Should we call it restructuring, 
reorganization, improving and strengthening?
  To me, the terms are irrelevant and the conclusion is undeniable. We 
must gain control of health care spending.
  As we move forward in debt talks, I know a lot of attention will be 
devoted to taxes and revenue. Those conversations are important and 
should conclude with tax policy that fosters economic growth. But 
conversations about the health care entitlements should not be 
postponed or relegated to second-tier status, and they certainly should 
not be confined to cost reduction exercises that ignore the fundamental 
cost drivers.
  I have read reports of the savings in Medicare and Medicaid that 
President Obama has proposed. In my mind, they do little more than take 
cash out of the system without making fundamental changes necessary to 
bend the growth curve. Let's take a look at a few of those in the 
President's 2013 budget.
  There is increasing income-relating of Medicare premiums. That one 
takes more money from rich seniors. There is increasing copays for home 
health. That will increase costs for all seniors. There is getting 
bigger rebates from drug companies, even if it harms Part D. That one 
takes money from drug companies. There is cutting provider taxes in 
Medicaid. That one will take money from States at a time when the 
administration is encouraging them to expand Medicaid to cover 
childless adults. As an aside, I notice that the Washington Post had a 
banner editorial last Friday supporting a reduction in Medicaid 
provider taxes. I wish that the Post had been so helpful in 2006 when 
the Bush administration made a similar proposal.

  There is also something called a ``blended rate'' for State 
reimbursement under Medicaid.
  That breaks the promise to pay for 100 percent of the costs of those 
made eligible under Obamacare.
  These proposals will certainly reduce the Federal outlay in Medicare 
and Medicaid. However, these proposals will not solve the larger 
problem of health care spending growth. Instead, we should also focus 
on where our spending really is.
  I am fully aware that there is significant opposition from Democrats 
to Republican ideas like premium support for Medicare and block grants 
for Medicaid. I am not here promoting either of those ideas. But 
opposition to those ideas should not allow Democrats to walk away from 
the issue. We must address the growth of health care entitlements.
  I believe our Medicare and Medicaid spending problems can be 
explained in three straightforward charts. This chart I have in the 
Chamber is the first one.
  Here we look at the Federal Medicare and Federal and State Medicaid 
spending divided into three groups.
  On the left is spending by the Federal Government for people who are 
eligible only for Medicare.
  On the right is Federal and State spending for people only eligible 
for Medicaid.
  In the middle is Federal and State spending for people eligible for 
both Medicare and Medicaid, also known as dual eligibles or duals.
  This middle group, the duals, accounts for just over 10 percent of 
the entire Medicare and Medicaid population. However, there is more 
spending on duals than on the Medicare-only beneficiaries or the 
Medicaid-only beneficiaries.
  When we talk about the need to find ways to control spending on 
duals, it is for good reason. We must find ways to realign the 
disparate incentives of the federally run Medicare Program and the 
State-run Medicaid Programs.
  However, focusing on solutions exclusive to duals misses the fullness 
of the problem. For one, the duals are not a homogeneous population. 
While most people consider people on Medicare to be typically elderly, 
fully 38 percent of the duals are nonelderly. Also, while many of the 
duals are clearly high-cost, there are a large number of duals who 
utilize very few services.
  So while improvements to the care model that we use for duals are 
necessary, they are far from sufficient in reducing the totality of the 
growth driving health care costs.
  Consider this next chart, I have in the Chamber.
  In this chart, we see the most expensive individuals in the Medicare 
program. This is a population who has two to three chronic conditions 
and functional impairments. Among the most expensive Medicare 
beneficiaries, more than half--57 percent--qualify only for Medicare.
  Providing better coordinated care and reducing costs for high-cost 
beneficiaries is critical for the future of Medicare and Medicaid. I 
have strong reservations about splitting these two groups based solely 
on individuals' income.
  Proposals that give the States greater control of acute care services 
for the 43 percent who are duals, essentially, divide two similarly 
situated, expensive individuals between one Federal model and 50 States 
models based solely on their income. That makes no sense to me. A 
Medicare-only beneficiary may exhaust income and assets and become 
dually eligible. The separation between the two populations is 
arbitrary and artificial.
  Whatever we do to find a better model to coordinate care and reduce 
costs for high-cost beneficiaries, it needs to address all 
beneficiaries, not just duals.
  To find rational solutions to our health care spending, we must first 
accurately target the populations who incur the most significant 
expenditures. This includes individuals who are not only the duals but 
also those Medicare-only seniors with multiple chronic conditions and 
functional impairments.
  Finally I would like to draw attention to this chart I have in the 
Chamber.
  This final chart details spending on long-term services and supports 
in 2010. Two years ago, a total of $208 billion--8 percent of all U.S. 
personal health care spending--was spent on long-term services and 
supports. Among this spending, Medicaid, the single largest payer of 
such services, picked up 62.2 percent of the cost, while the private 
market paid for just over a third of it.
  With 80 million baby boomers entering retirement age, and 7 out of 
every 10 seniors needing long-term care at a certain point in their 
lives, the demand for those services will only increase and further 
drive health care spending if we don't take action. We must find ways 
to increase private spending and decrease public spending on long-term 
services and supports.
  If we are going to argue that we are reducing the growth of health 
care costs, we must actually do it.
  In closing, we have an opportunity before us. We can either make real 
changes to our health care entitlements that will impact the growth 
curve for years to come, or we can simply take cash out of the system 
and call it reform. We have to be willing to re-examine the 
effectiveness of our current overall Medicare and Medicaid structure. 
We should not be afraid to ask tough questions.
  Should Medicare and Medicaid be structured in a way that provides 
benefits to individuals in the most efficient and effective way 
possible?
  Are Medicare and Medicaid, in fact, structured in a way that 
guarantees we will spend Federal and State dollars inefficiently or 
ineffectively?
  When you look at the spending on duals, the spending on high-cost 
beneficiaries and the spending on long-term supports and services, I 
believe the answer to both questions is yes.
  Medicare and Medicaid proposals must address these three areas.
  President Obama hasn't come to the table yet. I know there are people 
telling us we shouldn't talk about health care entitlements now. We 
don't have a choice. Look at the numbers. Look at

[[Page S7323]]

the spending. We only make the problem worse by putting it off. We can 
save Federal dollars by extracting more from beneficiaries, providers, 
and States, but that won't bend the long-term growth curve. We have to 
talk about solutions to actually lower the growth curve now.
  We are $16 trillion in debt. One of every four dollars we will spend 
in this next decade will be on Medicare and Medicaid. We will see 
health care entitlements double as a percentage of GDP in the next 25 
years. If we want Medicare and Medicaid to not only survive but also 
thrive for the next generation, we need to be willing to ask 
fundamental questions and seek solutions that can affect the growth 
curve.
  I sincerely hope we are willing to look for solutions that can make a 
real difference.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. 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, as a member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee--and I appreciate your leadership in that role as well on 
that committee--I would like to speak for a few minutes on the National 
Defense Authorization Act.
  In the midst of an ongoing war, with our brave sons and daughters, 
husbands and wives fighting in Afghanistan, our country continues to 
face a very serious threat from radical Islamist terrorists and other 
challenges and threats throughout the world. With increased threats 
posed by rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, it is so important 
that we pass the Defense Authorization Act.
  I would like to take a minute to thank Chairman Levin and Ranking 
Member McCain for their leadership and for the hard work and dedication 
they have shown in bringing us together around this Defense 
authorization. In a place where we typically have seen many times that 
things have come down on party lines, I can tell you that the Senate 
Armed Services Committee is a welcome exception to the gridlock and 
partisanship in Washington, and both of them have brought us together. 
In fact, the Defense authorization bill passed out of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee unanimously. It reflects the committee's bipartisan 
commitment to making sure our troops and their families have what they 
need to ensure our Nation is protected.
  As the ranking member of the readiness subcommittee, I have had the 
pleasure of working with Chairman McCaskill to ensure that our men and 
women in uniform have the resources they need to protect themselves and 
our country. At the same time, the readiness subcommittee has also 
worked very hard to achieve significant reforms that save taxpayer 
dollars without endangering our military readiness. I look forward to 
continuing to work with the chairman to seek additional efficiencies 
within the Department of Defense budget, while guarding against 
irresponsible cuts that would leave our troops and our Nation less 
prepared for future contingencies and increase the likelihood of 
conflict.
  I also wish to recognize the work I have had the opportunity to do 
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that further supports our 
troops, our veterans, and their families. I am proud to have worked 
with my colleagues across the aisle to include several very important 
provisions in this year's Defense Authorization Act.
  During the markup, Senator Begich, Senator McCain, Senator Shaheen, 
Senator Vitter, and Senator Udall joined me--three Republicans and 
three Democrats working together--to introduce and successfully 
incorporate an amendment to the Defense authorization that would save 
$400 million by cutting off funding to the over-cost and behind-
schedule Medium Extended Air Defense System, or MEADS. This is a 
weapons program that the Pentagon has said it will never procure, it 
will never happen. Yet we continue to put taxpayer dollars into this 
weapons system. I know that in the President's comments about the bill, 
he has expressed concern about this--his administration has--but at a 
time when we are facing grave fiscal challenges in this country, we 
cannot afford to spend $400 million on a weapons system that will never 
come to be when there are so many other needs that need to be 
addressed.
  In another bipartisan effort, more than a dozen of my colleagues 
joined Senator Begich and me in ensuring that veterans buried at the 
Clark Veterans Cemetery in the Philippines will have the dignified and 
final resting place they deserve. There is still more work we have to 
do on this issue.
  What this comes down to is when the Air Force abandoned Clark Air 
Force Base in 1991 in the wake of a volcanic eruption, Clark Veterans 
Cemetery was abandoned and the tombstones and the remains of 8,300 U.S. 
servicemembers and their dependents were left buried in ash and 
overgrown weeds. That is completely unacceptable for those who have 
served our Nation, that we would not ensure that this cemetery would be 
kept in a way that is dignified and consistent with the respect they 
deserve, having served our Nation.
  To prevent this from ever happening again, I am pleased that the 
Defense authorization includes my provision, which would require the 
Secretary of Defense to provide Congress a plan to ensure that an 
appropriate Federal or private agency assumes responsibility for the 
continued maintenance and oversight of cemeteries located on overseas 
military bases after they close.
  What happened here is that we left, and there was nothing in place to 
ensure that we would take responsibility to make sure this cemetery was 
maintained with dignity and respect. This provision will make sure that 
if we are in that position again, this will not happen.
  Additionally, Senator Jack Reed and I worked together to include a 
provision aimed at enhancing the Department's research, treatment, 
education, and outreach initiatives focused on addressing the mental 
health needs of members of the National Guard and Reserve.
  In addition to the provisions I have just mentioned which we have 
been able to put in this bill on a bipartisan basis, I would also like 
to talk about some additional amendments that have already been 
included in the Defense authorization. Here are some of the provisions 
or reporting requirements that are included within this bill:
  First, requiring the Pentagon to complete a full statement of budget 
resources by 2014 to improve financial stewardship at the Pentagon.
  This has been an issue we have been working on for too long. It is 
time that the Pentagon is able to undergo an audit, and this 
requirement that is contained within the Defense Authorization Act is 
consistent with what Secretary Panetta has said he is seeking to do, to 
make sure the Pentagon can complete a full statement of budget 
resources by 2014.
  When we are at a time when we are $16 trillion in debt, the fact that 
we are not able to audit the Pentagon, aren't able to really take that 
information and make critical decisions on what we need versus what we 
would want to do and what we can afford to do, this is very important, 
that the Pentagon get to a position where it can be audited. This 
provision ensures that this critical step is in this bill, and I am 
hopeful it will get passed.
  Additional provisions that will save millions of dollars in 
acquisitions by prohibiting the Department of Defense from using cost-
type contracts for the production of major defense acquisition programs 
are in this bill.
  We can't afford the years where we are paying much more for weapons 
systems than we can afford and it takes much longer to produce them. We 
can improve our acquisition systems, and by prohibiting the Department 
of Defense from using cost-type contracts for the production of major 
defense acquisition programs, this is a very important step.
  There are also provisions in this bill to ensure that our nuclear 
deterrent remains strong as we modernize our nuclear arsenal.
  Without a nuclear deterrent, if you look at what is happening around 
the world, with Iran trying to acquire the

[[Page S7324]]

capability of having a nuclear weapon, with North Korea having that 
capability, it is very important that we have that deterrent in our 
country and that it remains modern and able if, God forbid--we hope we 
will never have to use that, but it is a very strong deterrent to rogue 
actors around the world that are seeking this capability.
  In addition, there are provisions that increase oversight of the 
Department of Defense's proposed reduction in the number of soldiers 
and marines and looks at the issue of minimizing involuntary 
separations.
  This is one of the things we are facing right now. With the defense 
cuts, some of our men and women in uniform who have served multiple 
tours on our behalf are now in a position where they may receive a pink 
slip. We owe it to them to make sure we minimize the situation where 
they come home, they are given a pink slip, and then they are put in a 
situation where they are looking for a job. We need to make sure we do 
this in a way that they can assimilate into the civilian society 
without being left unemployed, given the sacrifices they have made for 
our country.
  There are other provisions I would like to highlight briefly. There 
is a provision to ensure that military amputees have access to top-
quality prostheses and prosthetic sockets. Whether servicemembers who 
require prosthesis choose to leave the military or continue to serve, 
they deserve the best, top-quality prostheses and prosthetic sockets, 
and included in this mark is a provision that will ensure there are 
standards to make certain they receive the best. They deserve it.

  In addition, there is a provision that will require that the Navy let 
us know what our current military capabilities require in terms of the 
number of ships and submarines that are in our fleet. The Chief of 
Naval Operations testified last year the Navy needs 313 ships and 
submarines to meet its strategic requirements. Right now we only have 
285. If sequestration goes forward, we are going to have dramatically 
less. Right now, we can only meet 61 percent of attack submarine 
requirements set by our combatant commanders. The administration has 
said we are going to shift to the Asia Pacific region given the rise in 
investments China is making in its navy, so I am simply asking that the 
Navy tell us what they need to make sure our country is protected.
  We have conflicting information, and it is important that we have a 
strong and robust Navy to make sure America is protected from the 
threats we face around the world.
  In conclusion, I want to just thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member 
McCain for all their hard work and leadership on the Armed Services 
Committee. This is a bill of which we can be proud. I am pleased that 
last week the Senate adopted my amendment to ban terrorists who are 
being held at Guantanamo Bay from being transferred to U.S. soil. I 
know that is something the American people feel strongly about.
  I know the bill, overall, will continue to have debate on a number of 
amendments, but it is a bill that is very important to our 
servicemembers--the men and women in uniform who serve us--and their 
families. They deserve the very best. They deserve to know we will pass 
this bill to make sure they have the equipment and the support they 
need given the sacrifices they have made for our country.
  Again, I thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for all their 
hard work.
  I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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.


Amendments Nos. 2954, 2978, 3015, 3022, 3024, 3028, 3042, as Modified, 
   3054, as Modified, 3066, 3091, as Modified, 3160, 3164, 3176, as 
         Modified, 3188, 3208, 3218, 3227, 3268, 3289, and 3119

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I now call up a list of 20 amendments which 
have been cleared by myself and Senator McCain: Begich amendment No. 
2954; Inhofe amendment No. 2978; Blumenthal amendment No. 3015; Cardin 
amendment No. 3022; Cardin amendment No. 3024; Tester amendment No. 
3028; Collins amendment No. 3042, as modified by the changes at the 
desk; McCain amendment No. 3054, as modified by the changes at the 
desk; Toomey amendment No. 3066; McCain amendment No. 3091, as modified 
by the changes at the desk; Brown of Massachusetts amendment No. 3160; 
Levin amendment No. 3164; Rubio amendment No. 3176, as modified by the 
changes at the desk; Warner amendment No. 3188; Bingaman amendment No. 
3208; Snowe amendment No. 3218; Conrad amendment No. 3227; Hatch 
amendment No. 3268; Coons amendment No. 3289; and Paul amendment No. 
3119.
  Mr. McCAIN. The amendments have been cleared by our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments en 
bloc?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendments?
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2954

(Purpose: To authorize space-available travel on Department of Defense 
 aircraft of certain unremarried spouses of members and former members 
                          of the Armed Forces)

       On page 187, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       ``(4) The unremarried spouses of members of the armed 
     forces who were killed on active duty or otherwise died in 
     the line of duty, and the unremarried spouses of former 
     members of the armed forces who died of a combat-related 
     illness or injury, who hold a valid Uniformed Services 
     Identification and Privilege Card.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2978

   (Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Air Force to submit to 
 Congress a plan to increase the number of contractors eligible to be 
  awarded contracts under the Air Force's Network-Centric Solution-2 
 (NETCENTS-2) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract)

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

     SEC. 888. PLAN TO INCREASE NUMBER OF CONTRACTORS ELIGIBLE FOR 
                   CONTRACTS UNDER AIR FORCE NETCENTS-2 CONTRACT.

       (a) Plan 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 plan to 
     increase the number of contractors eligible to be awarded 
     contracts under the Air Force's Network-Centric Solutions-2 
     (NETCENTS-2) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) 
     contract.
       (b) Content.--The plan required under subsection (a) shall 
     include the following elements:
       (1) A recommendation and rationale for a maximum number of 
     contractors to be eligible for contract awards under 
     NETCENTS-2 to foster competition and reduce overall costs 
     associated with hardware and operation and maintenance of Air 
     Networks.
       (2) The methodology used to periodically review existing 
     eligible NETCENTS-2 contractors and contracts.
       (3) A timeline to increase the current number of eligible 
     contractors under NETCENTS-2 and dates of future ``on-ramps'' 
     under NETCENTS-2 to assess current eligible contractors and 
     add additional eligible contractors.


                           AMENDENT NO. 3015

  (Purpose: To extend the stolen goods offense to cover all veterans' 
                               memorials)

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

     SEC. 1084. PROTECTION OF VETERANS' MEMORIALS.

       (a) Transportation of Stolen Memorials.--Section 2314 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``In the case of an offense under the first paragraph of 
     this section, if the goods, wares, or merchandise consist of 
     or include a veterans' memorial, the requirement of that 
     paragraph that the goods, wares, or merchandise have a value 
     of $5,000 or more does not apply. In this paragraph, the term 
     `veterans' memorial' means a grave marker, headstone, 
     monument, or other object, intended to permanently honor a 
     veteran or mark a veteran's grave, or any monument that 
     signifies an event of national military historical 
     significance.''.
       (b) Sale or Receipt of Stolen Memorials.--Section 2315 of 
     such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``In the case of an offense under the first paragraph of 
     this section, if the goods, wares, or merchandise consist of 
     or include a veterans' memorial, the requirement of that 
     paragraph that the goods, wares, or merchandise have a value 
     of $5,000 or more does not apply. In this paragraph, the term 
     `veterans' memorial' means a grave marker, headstone, 
     monument, or other object, intended to permanently honor a 
     veteran or mark a veteran's grave, or any monument that 
     signifies an event of national military historical 
     significance.''.


                           AMENDENT NO. 3022

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning the conflict-
                   induced Afghan refugee situation)

       On page 405, line 4, strike ``Section'' and insert the 
     following:

[[Page S7325]]

       (a) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the Senate is deeply concerned with the dramatic rise 
     in conflict-induced displacement in Afghanistan and the 
     corresponding increase in humanitarian need, especially as 
     winter approaches;
       (2) there have been several reports of children freezing to 
     death in various refugee settlements in Afghanistan during 
     the winter of 2011-12;
       (3) the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of 
     the Department of State and the Special Representative for 
     Afghanistan and Pakistan should jointly develop a 
     comprehensive strategy to address the displacement and human 
     suffering referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2), which shall 
     include--
       (A) an assessment of the capacity of the Government of 
     Afghanistan--
       (i) to prevent, mitigate, and respond to forced 
     displacement; and
       (ii) to provide durable solutions for internally displaced 
     Afghans and Afghan refugees; and
       (B) a coherent plan to strengthen the capacity of the 
     Government of Afghanistan to address the causes and 
     consequences of displacement within Afghanistan.
       (b) Extension of Authority.--Section


                           AMENDMENT No. 3024

   (Purpose: To include the Coast Guard in the requirements for the 
             achievement of diversity in the Armed Forces)

       On page 124, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       (f) Applicability to Coast Guard.--The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall apply the provisions of this section 
     (other than subsection (d)) to the Coast Guard when it is not 
     operating as a service in the Navy in order to achieve 
     diversity in the Coast Guard in the same manner, under the 
     same schedule, and subject to the same conditions as 
     diversity is achieved in the other Armed Forces under this 
     section. The Secretary shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees the reports required by subsection (e) 
     with respect to the implementation of the provisions of this 
     section regarding the Coast Guard when it is not operating as 
     a service in the Navy.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3028

(Purpose: To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military 
activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 
   for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
   military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
                               purposes)

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

     SEC. 1084. TRANSPORTATION OF INDIVIDUALS TO AND FROM 
                   FACILITIES OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 38, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 111 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 111A. Transportation of individuals to and from 
       Department facilities

       ``(a) Transportation by Secretary.--The Secretary may 
     transport any person to or from a Department facility or 
     other place in connection with vocational rehabilitation, 
     counseling required by the Secretary pursuant to chapter 34 
     or 35 of this title, or for the purpose of examination, 
     treatment, or care.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (h) of section 111 of 
     such title is--
       (1) transferred to section 111A of such title, as added by 
     subsection (a);
       (2) redesignated as subsection (b);
       (3) inserted after subsection (a) of such section; and
       (4) amended by inserting ``Transportation by Third-
     Parties.--'' before ``The Secretary''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 1 of such title is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 111 the following new 
     item:

       ``111A. Transportation of individuals to and from 
           Department facilities.''.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 3042, as Modified

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

     SEC. 1536. REPORT ON INSIDER ATTACKS IN AFGHANISTAN AND THEIR 
                   EFFECT ON THE UNITED STATES TRANSITION STRATEGY 
                   FOR AFGHANISTAN.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State and the Commander of 
     North Atlantic Treaty Organization/International Security 
     Assistance Force forces in Afghanistan, submit to Congress a 
     report on the attacks and associated threats by Afghanistan 
     National Security Forces personnel, Afghanistan National 
     Security Forces impersonators, and private security 
     contractors against United States, Afghanistan, and coalition 
     military and civilian personnel (``insider attacks'') in 
     Afghanistan, and the effect of these attacks on the overall 
     transition strategy in Afghanistan.
       (b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A description of the nature and proximate causes of the 
     attacks described in subsection (a), including the following:
       (A) An estimate of the number of such attacks on United 
     States, Afghanistan, and coalition military personnel since 
     January 1, 2007.
       (B) An estimate of the number of United States, 
     Afghanistan, and coalition personnel killed or wounded in 
     such attacks.
       (C) The circumstances or conditions that may have 
     influenced such attacks.
       (D) An assessment of the threat posed by infiltration, and 
     a best assessment of the extent of infiltration by insurgents 
     into the Afghanistan National Security Forces.
       (E) A description of trends in the prevalence of such 
     attacks, including where such attacks occur, the political 
     and ethnic affiliation of attackers, and the targets of 
     attackers.
       (2) A description of the restrictions and other actions 
     taken by the United States and North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization/International Security Assistance Force forces 
     to protect military and civilian personnel from future 
     insider attacks, including measures in predeployment 
     training.
       (3) A description of the actions taken by the Government of 
     Afghanistan to prevent and respond to insider attacks, 
     including improved vetting practices.
       (4) A description of the insider threat-related factors 
     that will influence the size and scope of the post-2014 
     training mission for the Afghanistan National Security 
     Forces.
       (5) An assessment of the impact of the insider attacks in 
     Afghanistan in 2012 on the overall transition strategy in 
     Afghanistan and its prospects for success, including an 
     assessment how such insider attacks impact--
       (A) partner operations between North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization/International Security Assistance Force forces 
     and Afghanistan National Security Forces;
       (B) training programs for the Afghanistan National Security 
     Forces, including proposed training plans to be executed 
     during the post-2014 training mission for the Afghanistan 
     National Security Forces;
       (C) United States Special Forces training of the Afghan 
     Local Police and its integration into the Afghanistan 
     National Security Forces; and
       (D) the willingness of North Atlantic Treaty Organization/
     International Security Assistance Force allies to maintain 
     forces in Afghanistan or commit to the post-2014 training 
     mission for the Afghanistan National Security Forces.
       (6) An assessment of the impact that a reduction in 
     training and partnering would have on the independent 
     capabilities of the Afghanistan National Security Forces, and 
     whether the training of the Afghanistan National Security 
     Forces should remain a key component of the United States and 
     North Atlantic Treaty Organization strategy in Afghanistan.
       (c) Unclassified Executive Summary.--The report submitted 
     under subsection (b) shall include an executive summary of 
     the contents of the report in unclassified form.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 3054, as Modified

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1024. NOTICE TO CONGRESS FOR THE REVIEW OF PROPOSALS TO 
                   NAME NAVAL VESSELS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Navy traces its ancestry to October 13, 1775, when 
     an Act of the Continental Congress authorized the first 
     vessel of a navy for the United Colonies. Vessels of the 
     Continental Navy were named for early patriots and military 
     heroes, Federal institutions, colonial cities, and positive 
     character traits representative of naval and military 
     virtues.
       (2) An Act of Congress on March 3, 1819, made the Secretary 
     of the Navy responsible for assigning names to vessels of the 
     Navy. Traditional sources for vessel names customarily 
     encompassed such categories as geographic locations in the 
     United States; historic sites, battles, and ships; naval and 
     military heroes and leaders; and noted individuals who made 
     distinguished contributions to United States national 
     security.
       (3) These customs and traditions provide appropriate and 
     necessary standards for the naming of vessels of the Navy.
       (b) Notice to Congress.--Section 7292 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(d)(1) The Secretary of the Navy may not announce or 
     implement any proposal to name a vessel of the Navy until 30 
     days after the date on which the Secretary submits to the 
     Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives a report setting forth such proposal.
       ``(2) Each report under this subsection shall describe the 
     justification for the proposal covered by such report in 
     accordance with the standards referred to in section 1024(a) 
     of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2013.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section and the amendment made by 
     this section shall go into effect on the date that is 30 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3066

   (Purpose: To require an independent study and report on simulated 
      tactical flight training in a sustained gravity environment)

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

     SEC. 1064. REPORT ON SIMULATED TACTICAL FLIGHT TRAINING IN A 
                   SUSTAINED GRAVITY ENVIRONMENT.

       (a) Independent Study Required.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall provide for the conduct by an appropriate federally 
     funded research and development center (FFRDC) of a study on 
     the effectiveness of simulated tactical flight training in a 
     sustained gravity environment.

[[Page S7326]]

       (b) Elements.--The study conducted pursuant to subsection 
     (a) shall include the following:
       (1) An assessment of the effectiveness of high fidelity 
     simulated tactical flight training in a sustained gravity 
     environment generally, and, in particular, the effectiveness 
     of such training in preparing pilots to withstand and 
     tolerate the high-gravity forces associated with the 
     operation of high-performance combat aircraft (commonly 
     referred to as ``G readiness'' and ``G tolerance'').
       (2) An assessment of the cost savings to be achieved 
     through the use of simulated tactical flight training in a 
     sustained gravity environment, including cost savings 
     associated with operation and maintenance and life cycle 
     savings associated with aircraft and airframe usage.
       (3) An assessment of the safety benefits to be achieved 
     through the use of simulated tactical flight training in a 
     sustained gravity environment.
       (4) An identification and assessment of other benefits to 
     be achieved through the use of simulated tactical flight 
     training in a sustained gravity environment, including 
     benefits relating to physiological research and benefits 
     relating to reductions in carbon emissions.
       (5) An evaluation and comparison of tactical flight 
     simulators that could be used for simulated tactical flight 
     training in a sustained gravity environment.
       (6) Such other matters relating to the use of simulated 
     tactical flight training in a sustained gravity environment 
     as the Secretary shall specify for purposes of the study.
       (c) Report.--In providing for study pursuant to subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall require the federally funded 
     research and development center conducting the study to 
     submit to the Secretary a report on the results of the study, 
     including the matters specified in subsection (b), by not 
     later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (d) Transmittal to Congress.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the submittal to the Secretary of the report required by 
     subsection (c), the Secretary shall transmit the report to 
     the congressional defense committees, together with any 
     comments of the Secretary in light of the report and such 
     recommendations for legislative or administrative action as 
     the Secretary considers appropriate regarding the use of 
     simulated tactical flight training in a sustained gravity 
     environment in light of the report.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 3091, as Modified

 (Purpose: To authorize additional amounts for new programs identified 
 and requested by the Department of Defense as unforeseen, urgent, and 
         high priority requirements, and to provide an offset)

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

     SEC. 132. SPIDERNET/SPECTRAL WARRIOR HARDWARE.

       (a) Additional Amount for Other Procurement, Navy.--The 
     amount authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013 by 
     section 101 is hereby increased by $2,000,000, with the 
     amount of the increase to be available for amounts authorized 
     to be appropriated by that section and available for other 
     procurement, Navy, Satellite Communications, line 085, 
     Satellite Communications Systems, as specified in the funding 
     table in section 4101.
       (b) Availability of Amount.--To the extent provided in 
     appropriations Acts, the amount authorized and made available 
     by subsection (a) may be obligated and expended for a new 
     program to procure SPIDERNet/Spectral Warrior Hardware and 
     installation in order to provide a cloud network for Spectral 
     Warrior terminals in support of requirements of the 
     commanders of the combatant commands.

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

     SEC. 154. AC-130 AIRCRAFT ELECTRO-OPTICAL AND INFRARED 
                   SENSORS.

       (a) Additional Amount for Procurement, Defense-wide.--The 
     amount authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013 by 
     section 101 is hereby increased by $6,000,000, with the 
     amount of the increase to be available for amounts authorized 
     to be appropriated by that section and available for 
     procurement, Defense-wide, other procurement programs, line 
     079, Combat mission requirements, as specified in the funding 
     table in section 4101.
       (b) Availability of Amount.--To the extent provided in 
     appropriations Acts, the amount authorized and made available 
     by subsection (a) may be obligated and expended for a new 
     program to procure color electro-optical and infrared imaging 
     sensors for AC-130 aircraft used by the United States Special 
     Operations Command in ongoing contingency operations.

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

     SEC. 216. RELOCATION OF C-BAND RADAR FROM ANTIGUA TO H.E. 
                   HOLT STATION IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA TO ENHANCE 
                   SPACE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS CAPABILITIES.

       To the extent provided in appropriations Acts, of the 
     amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013 by 
     section 201 and available for research, development, test, 
     and evaluation for Space Situation Awareness Systems (PE 
     0604425F) for System Development and Demonstration as 
     specified in the funding table in section 4201, $3,000,000 
     may be obligated and expended for a new program for the 
     relocation and research and development activities to enhance 
     Space Situational Awareness capabilities through--
       (1) the repurposing of the C-Band Radar at Antigua;
       (2) the relocation of that radar to the H.E. Holt Station 
     in Western Australia;
       (3) upgrades of the hardware and software of that radar to 
     meet Space Situational Awareness mission needs;
       (4) operational testing of that radar; and
       (5) transfer of jurisdiction of that radar to the Air Force 
     Space Command for operations and sustainment by September 30, 
     2016.

     SEC. 217. DETAILED DIGITAL RADIO FREQUENCY MODULATION 
                   COUNTERMEASURES STUDIES AND SIMULATIONS.

       (a) Additional Amount for RDT&E, Army.--The amount 
     authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013 by section 
     201 is hereby increased by $38,000,000, with the amount of 
     the increase to be available for amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated by that section and available for research, 
     development, test, and evaluation, Army, for system 
     development and demonstration (PE 0605457A) Army Integrated 
     Air and Missile Defense (AIAMD), as specified in the funding 
     table in section 4201.
       (b) Availability of Amount.--To the extent provided in 
     appropriations Acts, the amount authorized and made available 
     by subsection (a) may be obligated and expended for a new 
     program to conduct detailed digital radio frequency 
     modulation (DRFM) countermeasures studies and simulations to 
     develop algorithms to address this threat change in support 
     of the accelerated fielding of a new capability in Patriot, 
     Sentinel, and Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) for 
     the requirements of the commanders of the combatant commands.

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

     SEC. 1005. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND 2013 
                   FUNDS.

       (a) Transfer Authorized.--To the extent provided in 
     appropriations Acts, the Secretary of Defense may transfer 
     from fiscal year 2012 and 2013 procurement or research, 
     development, test, and evaluation accounts an aggregate of 
     $46,000,000 to be available for the additional authorizations 
     in sections 132, 154, and 217.
       (b) Covered Funds.--In subsection (a), the term ``fiscal 
     year 2012 and 2013 procurement or research, development, 
     test, and evaluation accounts'' means--
       (1) amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
     2012 by sections 101 and 201 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) 
     and available as specified in the funding tables in sections 
     4101 and 4201 of that Act for Army tactical bridging, BLIN-
     133, $12.5 million; Army C-RAM, BLIN-90, 158 million; Army 
     non-system training devices, BLIN-182, $9.8 million; Defense 
     wide 12/14 VSSOCOM C-150 modifications, $4.0 million; Defense 
     wide 12/14 combat mission requirements, $4.2 million.
       (c) Effect on Authorization Amounts.--A transfer made from 
     one account to another under the authority of this section 
     shall be deemed to change the amount authorized for the 
     account to which the amount is transferred by an amount equal 
     to the amount transferred.
       (d) Construction of Authority.--The transfer authority in 
     this section is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     provided in this Act.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3160

    (Purpose: To improve the authorities relating to rates of basic 
allowance for housing for National Guard members on full-time National 
                              Guard duty)

       On page 176, line 8, insert before the period the 
     following: ``, unless the transition results in a permanent 
     change of station and shipment of household goods''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3164

    (Purpose: To authorize the transfer of defense articles and the 
 provision of defense services to the military and security forces of 
                Afghanistan and certain other countries)

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

     SEC. 1221. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER DEFENSE ARTICLES AND PROVIDE 
                   DEFENSE SERVICES TO THE MILITARY AND SECURITY 
                   FORCES OF AFGHANISTAN AND CERTAIN OTHER 
                   COUNTRIES.

       (a) Nonexcess Articles and Related Services.--The Secretary 
     of Defense may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 
     State, transfer nonexcess defense articles from the stocks of 
     the Department of Defense, without reimbursement from the 
     government of the recipient country, and provide defense 
     services in connection with the transfer of such defense 
     articles, as follows:
       (1) To the military and security forces of Afghanistan to 
     support the efforts of those forces to restore and maintain 
     peace and security in that country.
       (2) To the military and security forces of Yemen to support 
     the efforts of those forces to conduct counterterrorism 
     operations and counter al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
       (3) To the military and security forces of Somalia and 
     other countries in the East Africa region to support the 
     efforts of those forces to conduct counterterrorism and 
     postconflict stability operations in Somalia.
       (b) Limitations.--
       (1) Value.--The aggregate replacement value of all defense 
     articles transferred and defense services provided in 
     connection with such defense articles under subsection (a) in 
     any fiscal year may not exceed $250,000,000.

[[Page S7327]]

       (2) Source of transferred articles.--The authority under 
     subsection (a) may only be used for defense articles that--
       (A) were present in Afghanistan as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act;
       (B) immediately before transfer were in use to support 
     operations in Afghanistan; and
       (C) are no longer required by United States forces in 
     Afghanistan.
       (c) Applicable Law.--Any defense articles transferred or 
     defense services provided under the authority of subsection 
     (a) shall be subject to the authorities and limitations 
     applicable to excess defense articles under section 516 of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j), other 
     than the authorities and limitations in subsections 
     (b)(1)(B), (e), (f), and (g) of such section.
       (d) Report Required Before Exercise of Authority.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense may not exercise 
     the authority under subsection (a) until 15 days after the 
     Secretary submits to the appropriate committees of Congress a 
     report on the equipment and other property of the Department 
     of Defense in Afghanistan.
       (2) Elements.--The report required under paragraph (1) 
     shall include the following:
       (A) A description of the process for inventorying equipment 
     and property, including defense articles, in Afghanistan 
     owned by the Department of Defense, including equipment and 
     property owned by the Department and under the control of 
     contractors in Afghanistan.
       (B) An estimate of the types and quantities of equipment 
     and property of the Department of Defense, including defense 
     articles, anticipated to be withdrawn from Afghanistan in 
     connection with the drawdown of United States military forces 
     from Afghanistan between the date of the enactment of this 
     Act and December 31, 2014, including equipment and property 
     owned by the Department and under the control of contractors 
     in Afghanistan.
       (e) Notice on Exercise of Authority.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense may not transfer 
     defense articles or provide defense services under subsection 
     (a) until 15 days after the date on which the Secretary of 
     Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, 
     submits to the appropriate committees of Congress notice of 
     the proposed transfer of defense articles and provision of 
     defense services.
       (2) Elements.--A notice under paragraph (1) shall include 
     the following:
       (A) A description of the amount and types of defense 
     articles to be transferred and defense services to be 
     provided.
       (B) A statement describing the current value of the defense 
     articles to be transferred and the estimated replacement 
     value of such articles.
       (C) An identification of the element of the military or 
     security force that is the proposed recipient of the defense 
     articles to be transferred and defense service to be 
     provided.
       (D) An identification of the military department from which 
     the defense articles to be transferred are to be drawn.
       (E) An assessment of the impact, if any, of the transfer of 
     defense articles on the readiness of units from which the 
     defense articles are to be transferred, and the plan, if any, 
     for mitigating such impact or reimbursing the military 
     department of such units for such defense articles.
       (F) An assessment of the ability of the recipient 
     government to sustain the costs associated with receiving, 
     possessing, and using the defense articles to be transferred.
       (G) A determination and certification by the Secretary of 
     Defense that--
       (i) the proposed transfer of the defense articles to be 
     transferred and the provision of defense services to be 
     provided in connection with such transfer is in the national 
     interest of the United States;
       (ii) for the transfer of defense articles under the 
     authority in subsection (a)(1), such defense articles are 
     required by the military and security forces of Afghanistan 
     to build their capacity to restore and maintain peace and 
     security in that country;
       (iii) for the transfer of defense articles and provision of 
     defense services under the authority in subsection (a)(2), 
     the transfer of such defense articles and provision of such 
     defense services will contribute significantly to building 
     key capacities of the military and security forces of Yemen 
     required to conduct counterterrorism operations and counter 
     al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula; and
       (iv) for the transfer of defense articles and provision of 
     defense services under the authority in subsection (a)(3), 
     the transfer of such defense articles and provision of such 
     defense services will contribute significantly to building 
     key capabilities of the military and security forces of the 
     recipient country to conduct counterterrorism and 
     postconflict stability operations in Somalia.
       (f) Quarterly Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the first transfer of defense articles and provision of 
     defense services under the authority in subsection (a), and 
     at the end of each calendar quarter, if any, thereafter 
     through March 31, 2015, in which the authority in subsection 
     (a) is exercised, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
     the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the 
     implementation of the authority in subsection (a). Each 
     report shall include the replacement value of the defense 
     articles transferred pursuant to subsection (a), both in the 
     aggregate and by military department, and defense services 
     provided to recipient countries, during the 90-day period 
     ending on the date of such report.
       (2) Inclusion in other report.--A report required under 
     paragraph (1) may be included in the report required under 
     section 9204 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 
     (Public Law 110-252; 122 Stat. 2410) or any follow on report 
     to such other report.
       (g) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Appropriate committees of congress.--The term 
     ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (2) Defense articles.--The term ``defense articles'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 644(d) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2403(d)).
       (3) Defense services.--The term ``defense services'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 644(f) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2403(f)).
       (4) Military and security forces.--The term ``military and 
     security forces'' means national armies, national air forces, 
     national navies, national guard forces, police forces, and 
     border security forces, but does not include nongovernmental 
     or irregular forces (such as private militias).
       (5) East africa region.--The term ``East Africa region'' 
     means Burundi, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, and 
     Uganda.
       (h) Expiration.--The authority provided in subsection (a) 
     may not be exercised after December 31, 2014.
       (i) Excess Defense Articles.--
       (1) Additional authority.--The authority provided by 
     subsection (a) is in addition to the authority provided by 
     section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
       (2) Exemptions.--(A) During fiscal years 2013 and 2014, the 
     value of excess defense articles transferred from the stocks 
     of the Department of Defense in Afghanistan to Afghanistan, 
     Yemen, Somalia, or other countries in the East Africa region 
     pursuant to section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     shall not be counted against the limitation on the aggregate 
     value of excess defense articles transferred contained in 
     subsection (g) of such section.
       (B) During fiscal years 2013 and 2014, any excess defense 
     articles specified in subparagraph (A) shall not be subject 
     to the authorities and limitations applicable to excess 
     defense articles under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961 contained in subsections (b)(1)(B) and (e) of 
     such section.
       (3) Construction equipment.--Notwithstanding section 644(g) 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2403(g)) and 
     section 2562 of title 10, United States Code, construction 
     equipment from the stocks of the Department of Defense in 
     Afghanistan may be transferred as excess defense articles 
     under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and 
     subject to the provisions of this subsection.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 3176, as Modified

       At the end of title XXVII, add the following:

     SEC. 2705. REPORT ON REORGANIZATION OF AIR FORCE MATERIEL 
                   COMMAND ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--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 reorganization of Air Force Materiel Command 
     organizations.
       (b) Content.--The report required under subsection (a) 
     shall include the following elements:
       (1) An assessment of the efficiencies and effectiveness 
     associated with the reorganization of Air Force Materiel 
     Command organizations.
       (2) An assessment of the organizational construct to 
     determine how institutional synergies that were previously 
     available in a collocated center can be replicated in the new 
     Air Force Materiel Command Center reorganization, including 
     an assessment of the following Air Force Materiel Command 
     capabilities:
       (A) Science and Technology, Acquisition.
       (B) Developmental Test and Evaluation.
       (3) An assessment of synergistic efficiencies associated 
     with capabilities of collocated organizations of other 
     commands, including an assessment of the impact of the Air 
     Force Materiel Command's reorganization on other commands' 
     responsibilities for--
       (A) Operational Test and Evaluation; and
       (B) Follow-on Operational Test and Evaluation.
       (4) An assessment of how the Air Force reorganization of 
     Air Force Materiel Command is in adherence with section 2687 
     of title 10, United States Code.
       (5) An analysis of the extent to which the proposed changes 
     in the Air Force management structure were coordinated with 
     the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Director, Test 
     Resource Management Center and the degree to which their 
     concerns, if any, were addressed in the approach selected by 
     the Air Force.

[[Page S7328]]

                           AMENDMENT NO. 3188

  (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on the Joint Warfighting 
                            Analysis Center)

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

     SEC. 1048. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE JOINT WARFIGHTING 
                   ANALYSIS CENTER.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Joint Warfighting 
     Analysis Center (JWAC) should have adequate resources to meet 
     the continuing requirements of the combatant commands.


                           Amendment No. 3208

  (Purpose: To promote the production of molybdenum-99 in the United 
 States for medical isotope production, and to condition and phase out 
  the export of highly enriched uranium for the production of medical 
                               isotopes.)

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Thursday, November 29, 
2012, under ``Text of Amendments.'')


                           Amendment No. 3218

   (Purpose: To remove the limit on the anticipated award price for 
 contracts awarded under the procurement program for women-owned small 
                           business concerns)

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

     SEC. 847. CONTRACTING WITH SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS OWNED AND 
                   CONTROLLED BY WOMEN.

       (a) Procurement Program for Women-owned Small Business 
     Concerns.--Section 8(m)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 637(m)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``who are economically 
     disadvantaged'';
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``paragraph (3)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (4)'';
       (3) by striking subparagraph (D); and
       (4) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as 
     subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively.
       (b) Study and Report on Representation of Women.--Section 
     29 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(o) Study and Report on Representation of Women.--
       ``(1) Study.--The Administrator shall periodically conduct 
     a study to identify industries, as defined under the North 
     American Industry Classification System, underrepresented by 
     small business concerns owned and controlled by women.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, and every 5 years thereafter, 
     the Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Small 
     Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Small Business of the House of Representatives a report on 
     the results of each study under paragraph (1) conducted 
     during the 5-year period ending on the date of the report.''.


                           Amendment No. 3227

 (Purpose: To require the Director of the American Folklife Center at 
 the Library of Congress to carry out a national public awareness and 
    participation campaign for the Veterans' History Project of the 
                       American Folklife Center)

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

     SEC. 1084. NATIONAL PUBLIC AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION 
                   CAMPAIGN FOR VETERANS' HISTORY PROJECT OF 
                   AMERICAN FOLKLIFE CENTER.

       (a) In General.--The Director of the American Folklife 
     Center at the Library of Congress shall carry out a national 
     public awareness and participation campaign for the program 
     required by section 3(a) of the Veterans' Oral History 
     Project Act (20 U.S.C. 2142(a)). Such campaign shall provide 
     for the following:
       (1) Encouraging the people of the United States, veterans 
     organizations, community groups, and national organizations 
     to participate in such program.
       (2) Ensuring greater awareness and participation throughout 
     the United States in such program.
       (3) Providing meaningful opportunities for learning about 
     the experiences of veterans.
       (4) Complementing the efforts supporting the readjustment 
     and successful reintegration of veterans into civilian life 
     after service in the Armed Forces.
       (b) Coordination and Cooperation.--To the degree 
     practicable, the Director shall, in carrying out the campaign 
     required by subsection (a), coordinate and cooperate with 
     veterans service organizations.
       (c) Veterans Service Organization Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``veterans service organization'' means any 
     organization recognized by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     for the representation of veterans under section 5902 of 
     title 38, United States Code.


                           Amendment No. 3268

(Purpose: To modify the age and retirement treatment under the Federal 
 Employees Retirement System for certain retirees of the Armed Forces)

       At the end of title XI, add the following:

     SEC. 1104. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM AGE AND 
                   RETIREMENT TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RETIREES OF 
                   THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) Increase in Maximum Age Limit for Positions Subject to 
     FERS.--
       (1) Law enforcement officers.--Section 3307(e) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or (3)'' after 
     ``paragraph (2)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) The maximum age limit for an original appointment to 
     a position as a law enforcement officer (as defined in 
     section 8401(17)) shall be 47 years of age, in the case of an 
     individual who on the effective date of such appointment is 
     eligible to receive retired pay or retainer pay for military 
     service, or pension or compensation from the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs instead of such retired or retainer pay.''.
       (2) Other positions.--The maximum age limit for an original 
     appointment to a position as a member of the Capitol Police 
     or Supreme Court Police, nuclear materials courier (as 
     defined under section 8401(33) of such title), or customs and 
     border protection officer (as defined in section 8401(36) of 
     such title) shall be 47 years of age, in the case of an 
     individual who on the effective date of such appointment is 
     eligible to receive retired pay or retainer pay for military 
     service, or pension or compensation from the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs instead of such retired or retainer pay.
       (b) Eligibility for Annuity.--Section 8412(d) of such title 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (2), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) after becoming 57 years of age and completing 10 
     years of service as a law enforcement officer, member of the 
     Capitol Police or Supreme Court Police, nuclear materials 
     courier, customs or border protection officer, or any 
     combination of such service totaling 10 years, if such 
     employee--
       ``(A) is originally appointed to a position as a law 
     enforcement officer, member of the Capitol Police or Supreme 
     Court Police, nuclear materials courier, or customs and 
     border protection officer on or after the effective date of 
     this paragraph under section 1104(e) of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, and
       ``(B) on the date that original appointment met the 
     requirements of section 3307(e)(2) of this title or section 
     1104(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2013,''.
       (c) Mandatory Separation.--Section 8425 of such title is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1), in the first sentence, by 
     inserting ``, except that a law enforcement officer, nuclear 
     materials courier, or customs and border protection officer 
     eligible for retirement under section 8412(d)(3) shall be 
     separated from the service on the last day of the month in 
     which that employee becomes 57 years of age'' before the 
     period;
       (2) in subsection (c), in the first sentence, by inserting 
     ``, except that a member of the Capitol Police eligible for 
     retirement under section 8412(d)(3) shall be separated from 
     the service on the last day of the month in which that 
     employee becomes 57 years of age'' before the period; and
       (3) in subsection (d), in the first sentence, by inserting 
     ``, except that a member of the Supreme Court Police eligible 
     for retirement under section 8412(d)(3) shall be separated 
     from the service on the last day of the month in which that 
     employee becomes 57 years of age'' before the period.
       (d) Computation of Basic Annuity.--Section 8415(e) of such 
     title is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
       (2) by striking ``The annuity of an employee'' and 
     inserting ``(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     annuity of an employee''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2)(A) The annuity of an employee retiring under 
     subsection (d) or (e) of section 8412 or under subsection 
     (a), (b), or (c) of section 8425 who is an employee described 
     in subparagraph (B) is--
       ``(i) 1 7/10 percent of that individual's average pay 
     multiplied by so much of such individual's civilian service 
     as a law enforcement officer, member of the Capitol Police or 
     Supreme Court Police, nuclear materials courier, customs and 
     border protection officer, or air traffic controller that, in 
     the aggregate, does not exceed 20 years; plus
       ``(ii) 1 percent of that individual's average pay 
     multiplied by the remainder of such individual's total 
     service.
       ``(B) An employee described in this subparagraph is an 
     employee who--
       ``(i) is originally appointed to a position as a law 
     enforcement officer, member of the Capitol Police or Supreme 
     Court Police, nuclear materials courier, or customs and 
     border protection officer on or after the effective date of 
     this paragraph under section 1104(e) of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013; and
       ``(ii) on the date that original appointment met the 
     requirements of section 3307(e)(2) of this title or section 
     1104(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2013.''.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section (including the amendments 
     made by this section) shall take effect 60 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act and shall apply to appointments 
     made on or after that effective date.


                           Amendment No. 3289

 (Purpose: To make technical amendments relating to the termination of 
the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology under defense base closure and 
                              realignment)

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

[[Page S7329]]

     SEC. 1084. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE TERMINATION 
                   OF THE ARMED FORCES INSTITUTE OF PATHOLOGY 
                   UNDER DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT.

       Section 177 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``those professional societies'' and all 
     that follows through ``the Armed Forces Institute of 
     Pathology'' and inserting ``the professional societies and 
     organizations that support the activities of the American 
     Registry of Pathology''; and
       (ii) by striking the second sentence; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``with the concurrence of 
     the Director of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1);
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) as 
     paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4), respectively; and
       (C) in paragraph (2), as redesignated by subparagraph (B)--
       (i) by striking ``accept gifts and grants from and''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``and accept gifts and grants from such 
     entities'' before the semicolon; and
       (3) in subsection (d), by striking ``to the Director'' and 
     all that follows through ``it deems desirable,'' and 
     inserting ``annually to its Board and supporting 
     organizations referred to in subsection (a)(2)''.


                           Amendment No. 3119

(Purpose: To provide for the more accurate and complete enumeration of 
 members of the Armed Forces in any tabulation of total population by 
                       the Secretary of Commerce)

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

     SEC. 1084. IMPROVED ENUMERATION OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
                   FORCES IN ANY TABULATION OF TOTAL POPULATION BY 
                   SECRETARY OF COMMERCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 141 of title 13, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
       ``(g) Effective beginning with the 2020 decennial census of 
     population, in taking any tabulation of total population by 
     States, the Secretary shall take appropriate measures to 
     ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that all members 
     of the Armed Forces deployed abroad on the date of taking 
     such tabulation are--
       ``(1) fully and accurately counted; and
       ``(2) properly attributed to the State in which their 
     residence at their permanent duty station or homeport is 
     located on such date.''.
       (b) Construction.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall not be construed to affect the residency status of any 
     member of the Armed Forces under any provision of law other 
     than title 13, United States Code.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider that vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay the motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3124, as Further Modified

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding the adoption of the Blumenthal amendment No. 3124, as 
modified, the amendment be modified further with the changes that are 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:


                AMENDMENT NO. 3124, as further modified

       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

[[Page S7330]]

     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.
       (3) Criminal investigation.--If the matter is referred to 
     the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, the 
     Inspector General may suspend any investigation under this 
     subsection pending the outcome of the criminal prosecution. 
     If the criminal investigation results in an indictment of the 
     recipient of a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement; any 
     subgrantee or subcontractor of the recipient; or any agent of 
     the recipient or of a subgrantee or subcontractor, the 
     Inspector General shall notify the head of the executive 
     agency that awarded the contract, grant, or cooperative 
     agreement of the indictment. If the criminal investigation 
     results in a decision not to prosecute, the Inspector General 
     shall resume any investigation that was suspended pursuant to 
     this paragraph.
       (b) Report and Determination.--
       (1) Report.--Upon completion of an investigation under 
     subsection (a), the Inspector General shall submit a report 
     on the investigation, including conclusions about whether the 
     recipient of a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement; any 
     subcontractor or subgrantee of the recipient; or any agent of 
     the recipient or of such a subcontractor or subgrantee, 
     engaged in any of 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 893, to the head of the 
     executive agency that awarded the contract, grant, or 
     cooperative agreement.
       (2) Determination.--Upon receipt of an Inspector General's 
     report pursuant to paragraph (1), the head of the executive 
     agency shall make a written determination whether the 
     recipient of a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement; any 
     subgrantee or subcontractor of the recipient; or any agent of 
     the recipient or of a subgrantee or subcontractor, engaged in 
     any of 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 893.
       (c) Remedial Actions.--
       (1) In general.--If the head of an executive agency 
     determines pursuant to subsection (b)(2) that the recipient 
     of a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement; any 
     subgrantee or subcontractor of the recipient; or any agent of 
     the recipient or of a subgrantee or subcontractor, engaged in 
     any of 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 893, or is notified of an 
     indictment for an offense under subsection (a)(3), the head 
     of agency shall consider taking one or more of the following 
     remedial actions:
       (A) Requiring the recipient to remove an employee from the 
     performance of work under the grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement.
       (B) Requiring the recipient to terminate a subcontract or 
     subgrant.
       (C) Suspending payments under the grant, contract, or 
     cooperative agreement until such time as the recipient of the 
     grant, contract, or cooperative agreement has taken 
     appropriate remedial action.
       (D) Withholding award fees, consistent with the award fee 
     plan, for the performance period in which the agency 
     determined the contractor or subcontractor engaged in any of 
     the activities described in such section 106(g).
       (E) Declining to exercise available options under the 
     contract.
       (F) Terminating the contract for default or cause, in 
     accordance with the termination clause for the contract.
       (G) Referring the matter to the agency suspension and 
     debarment official.
       (2) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed as limiting the scope of applicable remedies 
     available to the Federal Government.
       (3) Mitigating factor.--Where applicable, the head of an 
     executive agency may consider whether the contractor or 
     grantee had a plan in place under section 894, and was in 
     compliance with that plan at the time of the violation, as a 
     mitigating factor in determining which remedies, if any, 
     should apply.
       (4) Aggravating factor.--Where applicable, the head of an 
     executive agency may consider the failure of a contractor or 
     grantee to abate an alleged violation or enforce the 
     requirements of a compliance plan when directed by a 
     contracting officer pursuant to subsection (a)(1) as an 
     aggravating factor in determining which remedies, if any, 
     should apply.
       (d) Inclusion of Report Conclusions in FAPIIS.--
       (1) In general.--The head of an executive agency shall 
     ensure that any written determination under subsection (b) is 
     included in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity 
     Information System (FAPIIS).
       (2) Amendment to title 41, united states code.--Section 
     2313(c)(1)(E) of title 41, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(E) In an administrative proceeding--
       ``(i) a final determination of contractor fault by the 
     Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 823(d) of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (10 
     U.S.C. 2302 note; Public Law 111-84); or
       ``(ii) a final determination, pursuant to section 895(b)(2) 
     of the End Trafficking in Government Contracting Act of 2012, 
     that the contractor, a subcontractor, or an agent of the 
     contractor or subcontractor engaged in any of the activities 
     described in section 106(g) of the Trafficking Victims 
     Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7104(g)).''.

     SEC. 896. NOTIFICATION TO INSPECTORS GENERAL AND COOPERATION 
                   WITH GOVERNMENT.

       (a) In General.--The head of an executive agency making or 
     awarding a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement shall 
     require that the recipient of the grant, contract, or 
     cooperative agreement--
       (1) immediately inform the Inspector General of the 
     executive agency of any information it receives from any 
     source that alleges credible information that the recipient; 
     any subcontractor or subgrantee of the recipient; or any 
     agent of the recipient or of such a subcontractor or 
     subgrantee, has engaged in conduct described in section 
     106(g) of the Trafficking in Victims Protection Act of 2000 
     (22 U.S.C. 7104(g)), as amended by section 3 of this Act; and
       (2) fully cooperate with any Federal agencies responsible 
     for audits, investigations, or corrective actions relating to 
     trafficking in persons.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 897. EXPANSION OF FRAUD IN FOREIGN LABOR CONTRACTING TO 
                   INCLUDE ATTEMPTED FRAUD AND WORK OUTSIDE THE 
                   UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1351 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Whoever knowingly and with the intent to 
     defraud recruits, solicits or hires a person outside the 
     United States'' and inserting ``(a) Work Inside the United 
     States.--Whoever knowingly and with the intent to defraud 
     recruits, solicits, or hires a person outside the United 
     States, or attempts to do so,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Work Outside the United States.--Whoever knowingly 
     and with intent to defraud recruits, solicits, or hires a 
     person outside the United States, or attempts to do so, for 
     purposes of employment performed on a United States 
     Government contract performed outside the United States, or 
     on a United States military installation or mission outside 
     the United States or other property or premises outside the 
     United States owned or controlled by the United States 
     Government, by means of materially false or fraudulent 
     pretenses, representations, or promises regarding that 
     employment, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for 
     not more than 5 years, or both.''.
       (b) Special Rule for Alien Victims.--No alien may be 
     admitted to the United States pursuant to subparagraph (U) of 
     section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)) as a result of the alien being a victim 
     of a crime described in subsection (b) of section 1351 of 
     title 18, United States Code, as added by subsection (a).

     SEC. 898. IMPROVING DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR 
                   REPORTING TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS CLAIMS AND 
                   VIOLATIONS.

       Section 105(d)(7)(H) of the Trafficking Victims Protection 
     Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7103(d)(7)(H)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv);
       (3) by inserting after clause (ii) the following new 
     clause:
       ``(iii) all known trafficking in persons cases reported to 
     the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
     Readiness;'';
       (4) in clause (iv), as redesignated by paragraph (2), by 
     inserting ``and'' at the end after the semicolon; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(v) all trafficking in persons activities of contractors 
     reported to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
     Technology, and Logistics;''.

     SEC. 899. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Liability.--Excluding section 897, nothing in this 
     subtitle shall be construed to supersede, enlarge, or 
     diminish the common law or statutory liabilities of any 
     grantee, subgrantee, contractor, subcontractor, or other 
     party covered by section 106(g) of the Trafficking Victims 
     Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7104(g)), as amended by 
     section 893.

[[Page S7331]]

       (b) Authority of Department of Justice.--Nothing in this 
     subtitle shall be construed as diminishing or otherwise 
     modifying the authority of the Attorney General to 
     investigate activities covered by this subtitle.
       (c) Prospective Effect.--Nothing in this subtitle, or the 
     amendments made by this subtitle, shall be construed to apply 
     to a contract or grant entered into or renewed before the 
     date of the enactment of this subtitle.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we are making some very important progress. 
We are hopeful there may be another package of cleared amendments even 
before the vote on cloture later this afternoon. If not, we will 
nonetheless be offering that list of cleared amendments postcloture.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the previous hold objection has been 
lifted, which has allowed us now to continue with this process. We lost 
3 hours or so due to that, but we are still pleased to be able to make 
this progress. We will be having further cleared amendments, and 
hopefully we will have the end in sight after the cloture vote around 
5:30.
  I thank my friend from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I join in Senator McCain's thanks to our staff, which he 
invariably remembers, because they are critically important. They are 
helping us to clear additional amendments, and the progress is real. I 
think we are right at just about 100 amendments now that have been 
either adopted by rollcall vote, voice vote or by cleared unanimous 
consent.
  So I thank all our colleagues for working so closely with us and for 
their cooperation.
  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.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Casey-
Hutchison amendment which was added to the bill before us last week. I 
did not speak before the amendment was agreed to, but I think it is 
important to highlight it, particularly in light of things that 
happened just last week in Afghanistan.
  The amendment that was agreed to is an amendment that would focus on 
women and girls in Afghanistan and their plight. Sadly, the day before 
Senator Casey and I filed our amendment--with many wonderful cosponsors 
from the Senate--to help address the plight of women and girls, a 
tragedy was reported in the newspaper. A 14-year-old girl from a 
village in Afghanistan was beheaded by two men. The justification for 
beheading this child--who was going to fetch water--was that she, with 
the support of her family, had declined to marry one of the men.
  Gasitina was a student--a brave act in itself for a girl in 
Afghanistan--and she was butchered while fetching water because she 
would not, at the age of 14, marry one of the men.
  In October, another young woman's throat was slashed because she 
refused to work as a prostitute. Honestly, some of the women who are 
forced into prostitution are killed because of what they do.
  In September, three young women, two of them sisters, were attacked 
by six men because they were television actors and the six 
fundamentalists believed their dress was immodest. The sisters barely 
survived, but their friend bled to death from horrific stab wounds 
outside a mosque.
  This is life in a situation that has improved for women since the 
fall of the Taliban rule. Clearly, there are still entrenched cultural 
and societal ills that will take much more work to cure. Despite the 
strides that have been made, Afghanistan is still ranked as the most 
dangerous country for women in the world. Afghanistan falls behind the 
Democratic Republic of Congo, Pakistan, and Somalia.
  Women and girls are constantly under attack, particularly if they try 
to go to school in some areas where there are still police who do not 
believe girls should be able to do so. If they teach others, there is a 
price to pay, and if they want to participate or speak out, there is 
another price to pay.
  Women are frequently incarcerated for moral crimes--such as leaving 
home. It is estimated that half the country's imprisoned women and 
girls are incarcerated for such offenses.
  The life of many women in Afghanistan is, of course, incomprehensible 
to us. Here are a few statistics: An estimated 70 to 80 percent of 
marriages are forced; 87 percent of women face at least one form of 
physical, sexual or psychological violence or forced marriages in their 
lifetimes; women in Afghanistan have a 1 in 11 chance of dying in child 
birth and roughly 87 percent of women are illiterate.
  The Afghan Women and Girls Security Promotion Act--which Senator 
Casey and I cosponsored, along with many others in this body--will help 
improve the lives of these women and make Afghanistan a safer place, 
where our goal and their goal would be that they could freely 
participate in public life, get an education, raise their families 
without fear of retaliation for fully realizing their full potential 
and making their own life choices.
  Here is what the bill does. It requires the Department of Defense to 
produce a three-part plan to support the security of women and girls 
during and after the transition process. It is monitoring and 
responding to changes in women's security during and after the 
transition. If it appears there is a deterioration in women's security, 
the bill would require the DOD and our partners that will remain there 
to take concrete action to support the women in these situations.
  It also will improve their opportunities and treatment by the Afghan 
National Security Forces personnel, and it would increase the 
recruitment and retention of women in the Afghan National Security 
Forces.
  Last week, I read in the Washington Post about a 17-year-old Afghan 
girl who had dreamed of becoming a doctor. If she had been in America, 
we would have been speaking about her now as an example of success. 
Instead, I am speaking of a child so desperate to escape an arranged 
marriage that she had been promised to since she was 9 years old she 
jumped off the roof of her house. Killing herself was the outlet she 
could see. She survived this suicide attempt, though she is now 
paralyzed. While her story is tragic in every way, there is a glimmer 
of hope because, in fact, her family has backed her, now petitioned to 
annul her engagement. Her family stood with her after she took such a 
bold step. Even that would never have happened under Taliban rule.
  We know change will be slow, but if it is encouraged and if progress 
is protected it can come.
  I wish to say Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, when she was a 
Senator, and myself, were the honorary co-chairs of Vital Voices, which 
is an organization that looked for the women in Third World countries 
who are so mistreated yet still looked for things to celebrate in those 
countries. We have honored the women who have stood up in those 
countries and achieved great success, either in economics or in humane 
treatment for women in those countries. I think we have begun to raise 
the awareness in many areas.
  Our former First Lady Laura Bush, also reading of this amendment that 
was adopted last week, reached out to say what a great thing we are 
doing. I know Secretary of State Clinton also will be supportive of 
keeping this amendment in conference.
  I am very pleased we have been able to have the agreement of the 
managers who are on the floor to unanimously accept the Casey-Hutchison 
amendment. I am going to implore them or twist their arms to assure 
that this amendment stays in conference so there will be clear support 
and that the women and girls of Afghanistan will know they do not have 
to do such drastic things as try to kill themselves or be in harm's way 
such that a rejected suitor would actually murder his 14-year-old 
intended because she said she would not marry him. This is a human 
rights issue if there ever was one.
  I am very proud to cosponsor the amendment with Senator Casey, 
Senator Mikulski, Senator Feinstein, Senator Gillibrand, Senator 
Murkowski, Senator Snowe, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Cardin, Senator 
Boxer and Senator Franken. We must keep this as one of the things we 
wish to achieve

[[Page S7332]]

for the Afghan people as we exit militarily. We must keep the 
transition force to assure that all the lives of our brave military 
that have been lost in Afghanistan will not have been in vain.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent a vote on or in relation to the 
Kyl-Kerry amendment No. 3123, as modified, which has been cleared by 
both managers, will occur at a time to be determined by the managers in 
consultation with the leaders following the vote on cloture on the 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


             Amendments Nos. 3291, 3282, 3292, 3165 en bloc

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President I call up amendments en bloc: Pryor No. 
3291, Collins No. 3282, Reed No. 3292, and Reed No. 3165.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
amendments are pending en bloc.
  Mr. LEVIN. I know of no further debate on the amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendments.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           Amendment No. 3291

   (Purpose: To require, as a condition on the receipt by a State of 
  certain funds for veterans employment and training, that the State 
  ensures that training received by a veteran while on active duty is 
 taken into consideration in granting certain State certifications or 
                               licenses)

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

     SEC. 1084. STATE CONSIDERATION OF MILITARY TRAINING IN 
                   GRANTING CERTAIN STATE CERTIFICATIONS AND 
                   LICENSES AS A CONDITION ON THE RECEIPT OF FUNDS 
                   FOR VETERANS EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING.

       (a) In General.--Section 4102A(c) of title 38, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9)(A) As a condition of a grant or contract under which 
     funds are made available to a State in order to carry out 
     section 4103A or 4104 of this title for any program year, the 
     Secretary may require the State--
       ``(i) to demonstrate that when the State approves or denies 
     a certification or license described in subparagraph (B) for 
     a veteran the State takes into consideration any training 
     received or experience gained by the veteran while serving on 
     active duty in the Armed Forces; and
       ``(ii) to disclose to the Secretary in writing the 
     following:
       ``(I) Criteria applicants must satisfy to receive a 
     certification or license described in subparagraph (B) by the 
     State.
       ``(II) A description of the standard practices of the State 
     for evaluating training received by veterans while serving on 
     active duty in the Armed Forces and evaluating the documented 
     work experience of such veterans during such service for 
     purposes of approving or denying a certification or license 
     described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(III) Identification of areas in which training and 
     experience described in subclause (II) fails to meet criteria 
     described in subclause (I).''
       ``(B) A certification or license described in this 
     subparagraph is any of the following:
       ``(i) A license to be a State tested nursing assistant or a 
     certified nursing assistant.
       ``(ii) A commercial driver's license.
       ``(iii) An emergency medical technician license EMT-B or 
     EMT-I.
       ``(iv) An emergency medical technician-paramedic license.
       ``(C) The Secretary shall share the information the 
     Secretary receives under subparagraph (A)(ii) with the 
     Secretary of Defense to help the Secretary of Defense improve 
     training for military occupational specialties so that 
     individuals who receive such training are able to receive a 
     certification or license described in subparagraph (B) from a 
     State.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to a program year beginning on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.


                           Amendment No. 3282

  (Purpose: To provide for a prescription drug take-back program for 
           members of the Armed Forces and their dependents)

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

     SEC. 735. PRESCRIPTION DRUG TAKE-BACK PROGRAM FOR MEMBERS OF 
                   THE ARMED FORCES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS.

       (a) Program Required.--The Secretary of Defense and the 
     Attorney General shall jointly carry out a program (commonly 
     referred to as a ``prescription drug take-back program'') 
     under which members of the Armed Forces and dependents of 
     members of the Armed Forces may deliver controlled substances 
     to such facilities as may be jointly determined by the 
     Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General to be disposed 
     of in accordance with section 302(g) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 822(g)).
       (b) Program Elements.--The program required by subsection 
     (a) shall provide for the following:
       (1) The delivery of controlled substances under the program 
     to such members of the Armed Forces, medical professionals, 
     and other employees of the Department of Defense, and to such 
     other acceptance mechanisms, as the Secretary and the 
     Attorney General jointly specify for purposes of the program.
       (2) Appropriate guidelines and procedures to prevent the 
     diversion, misuse, theft, or loss of controlled substances 
     delivered under the program.


                           Amendment No. 3292

  (Purpose: To provide for the enforcement of protections on consumer 
      credit for members of the Armed Forces and their dependents)

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

     SEC. 655. ENFORCEMENT OF PROTECTIONS ON CONSUMER CREDIT FOR 
                   MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND THEIR 
                   DEPENDENTS.

       Section 987(f) of title 10, United States Code, as amended 
     by section 653 of this Act, is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Enforcement.--The provisions of this section (other 
     than paragraph (1) of this subsection) shall be enforced by 
     the agencies specified in section 108 of the Truth in Lending 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 1607) in the manner set forth in that section 
     or as set forth under any other applicable authorities 
     available to such agencies by law.''.


                           Amendment No. 3165

 (Purpose: To establish a pilot program to authorize the Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development to make grants to nonprofit organizations 
 to rehabilitate and modify homes of disabled and low-income veterans)

  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of Wednesday, 
November 28, 2012, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  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.


                           Amendment No. 3292

  Senator Reed's amendment, amendment No. 3292, to the National Defense 
Authorization Act, seeks to further address the problem of predatory 
lenders taking advantage of members of our Armed Forces. Predatory 
lending practices are a serious problem for members of the Armed 
Services throughout the country, and I know it has impacted Vermonters 
serving in our Nation's military.
  This amendment further strengthens the Military Lending Act by 
extending enforcement authority to certain Federal Agencies. Senator 
Reed's amendment seeks to expand the universe of parties who can bring 
enforcement actions against predatory lenders, and therefore provide 
additional protections to the members of our Armed Services. Allowing 
additional Federal Agencies to bring enforcement actions helps ensure 
that fewer instances of predatory lending in the Armed Services 
community go unprosecuted. It is important to me, as it is to Senator 
Reed, that members of our Armed Services be free from harmful and 
deceptive lending practices.
  I am glad Senator Reed reached out to me on this amendment regarding 
the expansion of enforcement authority, and I thank him for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, 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. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________