[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 165 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8158-S8181]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the time until 4 
p.m. be for debate only, with the time being equally divided and 
controlled between the two leaders or their designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I hope Members will now come down and 
debate, particularly if we can start off again with the legislation on 
Guantanamo. There will be two amendments here. One will be an amendment 
by Senator Ayotte and the other one would be an amendment by myself, 
with Senator McCain. It will be a Levin-McCain amendment. I hope those 
who are interested in this subject particularly would come down between 
now and then and we can perhaps even reach a vote on Guantanamo, the 
two amendments, side-by-side, even later this afternoon. That is the 
goal. It is not part of the unanimous consent proposal, but that would 
be a goal.
  I know my friend from Oklahoma and I are able to work things out most 
often, and we will try to figure out a way to hopefully get to a vote 
on two amendments which I think everybody agrees, not on the outcome of 
the vote, but agrees need to be debated and resolved.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, let me say I appreciate 
all the help the chairman has given us during the course of this very 
difficult time. I also suggest we have gone through this same thing 
other years in the past.
  One of the things is there are so many people demanding or wanting to 
have a system where we could have more amendments. I encourage anyone 
who has amendments to go ahead and send them to the floor. It doesn't 
do any good to talk about them unless you have them down here and in 
front of us. Then I hope the chairman and I could get together and we 
could have, actually, more amendments. Those people who want to be 
heard on this, we have adopted this timing, so we encourage you to come 
down and be heard.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma because 
he has said what needs to be said here, which is that we welcome 
amendments being brought to the floor. We will do our best to try to 
clear those amendments, which means obviously consulting with not just 
the sponsors but potential opponents to try to see if we can work 
things out. On this bill we have always been able to work out 
amendments, sometimes as many as 100. We need to have votes on this 
bill, but we also can clear amendments. We work together on a 
bipartisan basis to do that.
  I join in his request that Senators who have amendments get them to 
us to see if we can possibly work them out. We simply must finish this 
bill this week. The timetable is such that if we are going to finish 
this bill, as we have for 51 straight years, we have to get this bill 
to conference. That, in and of itself, will take a week. Then we have 
to bring the conference report back, if we can reach an agreement on 
it, to both Houses, and that will take as much as a week as well under 
the rules, so we really need the cooperation of every Member of this 
body.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I rise at this point to discuss Wicker 
amendment No. 2185. This is an important amendment. I hope the 
leadership of this committee is paying attention. My amendment would 
prohibit foreign governments from constructing, on U.S. soil, satellite 
positioning and ground monitoring stations. I think many Americans were 
surprised when, on November 16, the New York Times published an article 
by Michael Schmidt and Eric Schmitt entitled ``A Russian GPS Using U.S. 
Soil Stirs Spy Fears.''
  I ask unanimous consent a copy of this article be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Nov. 16, 2013]

             A Russian GPS Using U.S. Soil Stirs Spy Fears

                (By Michael S. Schmidt and Eric Schmitt)

       Washington.--In the view of America's spy services, the 
     next potential threat from Russia may not come from a 
     nefarious cyberweapon or secrets gleaned from the files of 
     Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency 
     contractor now in Moscow.
       Instead, this menace may come in the form of a seemingly 
     innocuous dome-topped antenna perched atop an electronics-
     packed building surrounded by a security fence somewhere in 
     the United States.
       In recent months, the Central Intelligence Agency and the 
     Pentagon have been quietly waging a campaign to stop the 
     State Department from allowing Roscosmos, the Russian space 
     agency, to build about half a dozen of these structures, 
     known as monitor stations, on United States soil, several 
     American officials said.
       They fear that these structures could help Russia spy on 
     the United States and improve the precision of Russian 
     weaponry, the officials said. These monitor stations, the 
     Russians contend, would significantly improve the accuracy 
     and reliability of Moscow's version of the Global Positioning 
     System, the American satellite network that steers guided 
     missiles to their targets and thirsty smartphone users to the 
     nearest Starbucks.
       ``They don't want to be reliant on the American system and 
     believe that their systems, like GPS, will spawn other 
     industries and applications,'' said a former senior official 
     in the State Department's Office of Space and Advanced 
     Technology. ``They feel as though they are losing a 
     technological edge to us in an important market. Look at 
     everything GPS has done on things like your phone and the 
     movement of planes and ships.''
       The Russian effort is part of a larger global race by 
     several countries--including China and European Union 
     nations--to perfect their own global positioning systems and 
     challenge the dominance of the American GPS.
       For the State Department, permitting Russia to build the 
     stations would help mend the Obama administration's 
     relationship with the government of President Vladimir V. 
     Putin, now at a nadir because of Moscow's granting asylum to 
     Mr. Snowden and its backing of President Bashar al-Assad of 
     Syria.
       But the C.I.A. and other American spy agencies, as well as 
     the Pentagon, suspect that the monitor stations would give 
     the Russians a foothold on American territory that would 
     sharpen the accuracy of Moscow's satellite-steered weapons. 
     The stations, they believe, could also give the Russians an 
     opening to snoop on the United States within its borders.
       The squabble is serious enough that administration 
     officials have delayed a final decision until the Russians 
     provide more information and until the American agencies sort 
     out their differences, State Department and White House 
     officials said.

[[Page S8159]]

       Russia's efforts have also stirred concerns on Capitol 
     Hill, where members of the intelligence and armed services 
     committees view Moscow's global positioning network--known as 
     Glonass, for Global Navigation Satellite System--with deep 
     suspicion and are demanding answers from the administration.
       ``I would like to understand why the United States would be 
     interested in enabling a GPS competitor, like Russian 
     Glonass, when the world's reliance on GPS is a clear 
     advantage to the United States on multiple levels,'' said 
     Representative Mike D. Rogers, Republican of Alabama, the 
     chairman of a House Armed Services subcommittee.
       Mr. Rogers last week asked the Pentagon to provide an 
     assessment of the proposal's impact on national security. The 
     request was made in a letter sent to Defense Secretary Chuck 
     Hagel, Secretary of State John Kerry and the director of 
     national intelligence, James R. Clapper, Jr.
       The monitor stations have been a high priority of Mr. Putin 
     for several years as a means to improve Glonass not only to 
     benefit the Russian military and civilian sectors but also to 
     compete globally with GPS.
       Earlier this year, Russia positioned a station in Brazil, 
     and agreements with Spain, Indonesia and Australia are 
     expected soon, according to Russian news reports. The United 
     States has stations around the world, but none in Russia.
       Russian and American negotiators last met on April 25 to 
     weigh ``general requirements for possible Glonass monitoring 
     stations in U.S. territory and the scope of planned future 
     discussions,'' said a State Department spokeswoman, Marie 
     Harf, who said no final decision had been made.
       Ms. Harf and other administration officials declined to 
     provide additional information. The C.I.A. declined to 
     comment.
       The Russian government offered few details about the 
     program. In a statement, a spokesman for the Russian Embassy 
     in Washington, Yevgeniy Khorishko, said that the stations 
     were deployed ``only to ensure calibration and precision of 
     signals for the Glonass system.'' Mr. Khorishko referred all 
     questions to Roscosmos, which did not respond to a request 
     for comment last week.
       Although the Cold War is long over, the Russians do not 
     want to rely on the American GPS infrastructure because they 
     remain suspicious of the United States' military 
     capabilities, security analysts say. That is why they have 
     insisted on pressing ahead with their own system despite the 
     high costs.
       Accepting the dominance of GPS, Russians fear, would give 
     the United States some serious strategic advantages 
     militarily. In Russians' worst fears, analysts said, 
     Americans could potentially manipulate signals and send 
     erroneous information to Russian armed forces.
       Monitor stations are essential to maintaining the accuracy 
     of a global positioning system, according to Bradford W. 
     Parkinson, a professor emeritus of aeronautics and 
     astronautics at Stanford University, who was the original 
     chief architect of GPS. As a satellite's orbit slowly 
     diverges from its earlier prediction, these small deviations 
     are measured by the reference stations on the ground and sent 
     to a central control station for updating, he said. That 
     prediction is sent to the satellite every 12 hours for 
     subsequent broadcast to users. Having monitor stations all 
     around the earth yields improved accuracy over having them 
     only in one hemisphere.
       Washington and Moscow have been discussing for nearly a 
     decade how and when to cooperate on civilian satellite-based 
     navigation signals, particularly to ensure that the systems 
     do not interfere with each other. Indeed, many smartphones 
     and other consumer navigation systems sold in the United 
     States today use data from both countries' satellites.
       In May 2012, Moscow requested that the United States allow 
     the ground-monitoring stations on American soil. American 
     technical and diplomatic officials have met several times to 
     discuss the issue and have asked Russian officials for more 
     information, said Ms. Harf, the State Department spokeswoman.
       In the meantime, C.I.A. analysts reviewed the proposal and 
     concluded in a classified report this fall that allowing the 
     Russian monitor stations here would raise counterintelligence 
     and other security issues.
       The State Department does not think that is a strong 
     argument, said an administration official. ``It doesn't see 
     them as a threat.''

  Mr. WICKER. This article elaborates on a proposal under review by our 
own State Department to allow the Russian space agency to construct 
half a dozen satellite ground monitoring stations on U.S. soil. The 
article describes these potential sites as ``seemingly innocuous, dome-
topped antenna perched atop an electronics-packed building surrounded 
by a security fence somewhere in the United States.'' Taken at face 
value, these Russian ground monitoring stations are supposed to improve 
the accuracy and reliability of Russia's version of the global 
positioning system.
  According to the Times article, the Obama administration is actively 
considering this request by Moscow in an attempt to reset once again 
the administration's failed reset policy which the President once 
hailed as the beginning of better U.S.-Russian relations. We have every 
reason to be skeptical of Russia's intentions to utilize GPS monitoring 
stations on U.S. soil. Let me repeat this: GPS monitoring stations 
controlled by Russia on U.S. soil.
  Time and again, President Putin has shown he is unwilling to 
cooperate with America. The list of grievances continues to grow. Let's 
not forget that Russia has granted asylum to Edward Snowden, who is 
charged with espionage and theft of U.S. government property after 
releasing up to 200,000 classified documents to the press.
  Let's not forget that Russia has defended the brutal regime of Syrian 
President Bashar al-Assad and helped perpetuate the dictator's grip on 
power with military aid.
  Let's not forget that Russia, the same Russia that wants to put GPS 
stations on U.S. soil, has denied Russian orphans a chance at a better 
life in the United States, with a ban on U.S. adoptions, ultimately 
victimizing the most vulnerable, in a desperate attempt to distract the 
world from Russia's human rights failings.
  It is clear Russia's interests are not often aligned with those of 
the United States. Accordingly, I am deeply concerned and people within 
the intelligence community are deeply concerned and people within the 
Defense Department are deeply concerned about the Russian proposal to 
use U.S. soil to strengthen Russia's GPS capabilities. These ground 
monitoring stations could be used for the purpose of gathering 
intelligence. Even more troubling, these stations could actually 
improve the accuracy of foreign missiles targeted at the United States.
  Our national security and foreign policy apparatus is large and 
widespread. I do not question anyone's patriotism or the intentions of 
the State Department. But it is clear that there are other parts of the 
administration that are very concerned about this.
  This morning I had the opportunity to review a classified report by 
DOD. I encourage all Members of the Senate to review this classified 
document and, to me, I think it will reaffirm the need for increased 
transparency on this very serious matter. Senators Lee, Fischer, and 
Cornyn so far have joined me in filing an amendment to the Defense 
authorization bill that would fully inform the American people about 
the implications of the Russian proposal.
  My amendment would prohibit the construction of GPS monitoring 
stations by any foreign government on U.S. soil until the Secretary of 
Defense and the Director of National Intelligence jointly certify to 
the Congress that these stations do not have the capability to gather 
intelligence or improve foreign weapons systems. My amendment would 
also require a report to Congress on the use of satellite positioning 
ground monitoring stations by foreign governments.
  This amendment is simple and straightforward, and I urge my 
colleagues to support its inclusion in the Defense authorization bill. 
I encourage cosponsors from both sides of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, on behalf of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, we are pleased to bring S. 1197, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, to the Senate floor. The Armed 
Services Committee approved the bill by a 23-3 vote on June 13, making 
this the 52nd consecutive year our committee has reported the Defense 
Authorization Act.
  The strong bipartisan vote for this bill in the Armed Services 
Committee continues the tradition of our committee, where our Members 
have continued to come together to support the national defense and our 
men and women in uniform. I thank Senator Inhofe for the major 
contribution he has made to this process in his first year as the 
ranking Republican on the committee.
  This year's bill would authorize $625.1 billion for national defense 
programs, the same amount as the President's budget request. Unless the 
Congress acts to modify or eliminate the sequestration required by the 
Budget Control Act, however, this amount will automatically be reduced 
by $50 billion, leaving the Department of Defense with far less than it 
needs to meet the requirements of our national military strategy.

[[Page S8160]]

  U.S. forces are drawing down in Afghanistan and are no longer 
deployed in Iraq. However, the real threats to our national security 
remain and our forces are deployed throughout the globe. Over the 
course of the last year, the civil war in Syria has become increasingly 
destructive, North Korea has engaged in a series of provocative acts, 
Iran has moved forward with its nuclear program, and Al Qaeda 
affiliates have continued to seek safe havens in Yemen, Somalia, North 
Africa, and elsewhere.
  It is particularly important that we do what we can to sustain the 
compensation and quality of life our service men and women and their 
families deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing 
military operations around the world. Toward this end, our bill, No. 1, 
authorizes a 1-percent across-the-board pay raise for all members of 
the uniformed services, consistent with the President's request; it 
reauthorizes over 30 types of bonuses and special pays aimed at 
encouraging enlistment, reenlistment, and continued service by Active-
Duty and Reserve component military personnel. It does not include 
Department of Defense proposals to establish or increase health care 
fees, deductibles, and copayments that would primarily affect working-
age military retirees and their families. It authorizes $25 million in 
supplemental impact aid to local educational agencies with military 
dependent children and $5 million in impact aid for schools with 
military dependent children with severe disabilities, and provides 
funding for the Department of Defense STARBASE Program. It enhances the 
Department of Defense programs to assist veterans in their transition 
to civilian life by improving access to credentialing programs for 
civilian occupational specialties.
  The bill also includes funding needed to provide our troops the 
equipment and support they need for ongoing combat, counterinsurgency, 
and stability operations around the world. For example, the bill funds 
the President's request for $80.7 billion for overseas contingency 
operations. It authorizes $9.9 billion for U.S. special operations 
command, including both base budget funding and OCO funding. It 
authorizes nearly $1 billion for counter-IED efforts, beginning to ramp 
down expenditures in this area while ensuring that we make investments 
needed to protect our forces from roadside bombs.
  The bill fully funds the President's request for the Afghan Security 
Forces Fund to train and equip the Afghan National Army and Afghan 
police, growing their capabilities so we can complete the transition of 
security responsibility as planned by the end of 2014.
  It reauthorizes the use of DOD funds to support a program to 
reintegrate insurgent fighters into the Afghan forces and into 
Afghanistan. It authorizes the Secretary of Defense--upon a 
determination from the President that it is in the national security 
interest of the United States--to use up to $150 million of amounts 
authorized for the Coalition Support Fund account in fiscal years 2013 
and 2014 to support the border security operations of the Jordanian 
Armed Forces, and it extends global train-and-equip authority, section 
1206, through 2018 to help build the capacity of foreign force partners 
to conduct counterterrorism and stability operations.
  The bill before us addresses major issues that are of particular 
importance to the Department of Defense, relative to the detention 
facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the problem of sexual assault and 
misconduct in the military.
  As to Guantanamo, this bill would provide our military with needed 
flexibility to determine how long we need to detain individuals now 
held in the Gitmo detention facility and where else we might hold them. 
For a number of years now Congress has enacted legislation eliminating 
this flexibility and requiring that we continue to hold all Gitmo 
detainees regardless of costs and whether it is needed in our national 
security interest. The existing legislation has made it more difficult 
to try detainees for their crimes and nearly impossible to return them 
to their home countries.
  For example, even if we have a strong case that a detainee has 
committed crimes for which he could be indicted and convicted in a 
Federal court, the existing law makes it impossible to try him there. 
Even if we have determined that a detainee poses no ongoing security 
threat to the United States, we cannot send them back to his home 
country unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to six stringent 
conditions. Even if the individual is likely to die without advanced 
medical treatment, we cannot remove him from Gitmo for the purpose of 
receiving such treatment.
  As a result, the legislation we have on the books has reinforced the 
impression held by many around the world that Guantanamo is a legal 
black hole where we hold detainees without recourse. This perception 
has been used by our enemies to recruit jihadists to attack us, and it 
has made our friends less willing to cooperate with us in our efforts 
to fight terrorism around the world.
  The Gitmo detention facility is not only a recruiting tool for our 
enemies, but it has become an obsolete white elephant that costs 
hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It can no longer be justified 
based on the rationale for creating Gitmo in the first place.
  One dozen years ago, the Bush administration started sending 
detainees to Gitmo in large part out of a desire to avoid the 
jurisdiction of the U.S. courts and ensure that detainees would have no 
legal avenue to appeal their convictions. Whether one supported that 
approach, that argument all but disappeared in 2008 when the Supreme 
Court ruled in the Boumediene case that Gitmo detainees would be 
treated as being inside the United States for the purpose of habeas 
corpus appeals.
  Instead of recognizing that the Gitmo detention facility is no longer 
needed, however, we have enacted legislation which makes it virtually 
impossible to move detainees anywhere else, ensuring that the facility 
will remain open whether it is needed for particular detainees or not. 
The current law prohibits the transfer of any detainee to the United 
States for detention under the law of armed conflict or trial before a 
military commission or in civilian court and includes unduly burdensome 
certification requirements that make it extremely difficult to transfer 
detainees back to their home countries.
  The basis for these legislative obstacles appears to be the fear that 
returning Gitmo detainees to their home countries or transferring them 
to the United States would pose an unacceptable threat to our national 
security. However, we have brought numerous terrorists to the United 
States for trial and incarceration without adverse effect to our 
national security.
  In just the last 3 years, for example, we have brought three foreign 
terrorists into the United States for trial. The first is Abu Ghaith, 
Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, who has been convicted in Federal court 
and remains in Federal custody without incident. The second is Ahmed 
Abdulkadir Warsame, who pled guilty in Federal court and remains in 
Federal custody without incident. The third is Ahmed Ghailani, a Gitmo 
detainee who was convicted in Federal court, received a life sentence, 
and remains in Federal custody without incident.
  Moreover, our military has routinely detained individuals on the 
battlefield in Afghanistan and then exercised the discretion to 
transfer them to local jurisdiction or to release them. If we can trust 
our military to make these determinations on a day-to-day basis, we 
should be able to trust them to make the same determinations at Gitmo.
  The risk that any of these detainees could once again engage in 
activities hostile to our interests around the world has been 
substantially reduced by the rigorous procedures our military has 
instituted to review individual cases and ensure that appropriate 
protections are in place before transferring any detainee back to his 
home country.
  These procedures have resulted in a dramatic decline in the so-called 
recidivism rate over the last 5 years. While more than 160 Gitmo 
detainees released by the Bush administration are known or suspected to 
have engaged in activities hostile to our interest after their transfer 
or release, only 7 detainees released by the Obama administration--less 
than 10 percent of the total--are known or suspected to have engaged in 
such activities.
  This rigorous review process would be codified by the provision in 
our bill

[[Page S8161]]

which would require that the Secretary of Defense determine, prior to 
transferring a Gitmo detainee, that the transfer is in our national 
security interest and that actions have been taken to mitigate any 
risks that the detainee could again engage in any activity that 
threatens U.S. persons or interest.
  It is time for us to move past the fear that our country somehow 
lacks the capacity to handle Gitmo detainees and allow our military to 
address the transfer of detainees in a rational manner based on the 
facts of each case.
  As to sexual misconduct, this bill includes the most comprehensive 
legislation targeting sexual misconduct and assault in the military 
ever considered by Congress. Our committee adopted more than two dozen 
separate provisions and a host of historic, significant reforms 
addressing sexual assault and prevention. In particular, the bill makes 
it a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to retaliate 
against a victim who reports a sexual assault, and it requires the DOD 
IG to review and investigate any allegation of such retaliation.
  Our bill establishes the expectation that commanders will be relieved 
of their command if they fail to maintain a climate in which victims 
can come forward without fear.
  Our bill requires service Secretaries to provide a special victims' 
counsel to provide legal advice and assistance to servicemembers who 
are victims of a sexual assault committed by a member of the Armed 
Forces.

  Our bill amends article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to 
limit the authority of a commander to overturn a verdict for rape, 
sexual assault, forcible sodomy, and other serious offenses.
  Our bill eliminates the element of the character of the accused from 
the factors to be considered in deciding how to proceed with the case.
  Our bill requires commanding officers to immediately refer any 
allegation of a sexual misconduct offense involving service members to 
the appropriate investigative agency.
  Our bill requires that the sentence for service members convicted of 
rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy or an attempt to commit one of 
those offenses, include, at a minimum, a dismissal or dishonorable 
discharge.
  Our bill requires that all substantiated complaints of sexual-related 
offenses be noted in the service record of the offender.
  Our bill eliminates the 5-year statute of limitations on trial by 
court-martial for certain sexual-related offenses.
  Our bill codifies a prohibition on military service by individuals 
convicted of sexual offenses.
  Some have argued we should also change the military justice system by 
removing commanders from their current role in deciding what cases 
should be prosecuted and instead place that authority in the hands of 
military lawyers. However, the testimony before our committee showed 
that commanders, far from being reluctant to prosecute sexual offenses, 
are more likely to prosecute those offenses than civilian or military 
lawyers.
  Further, removing authority from commanding officers would distance 
them from these cases and make them less accountable, making it more 
difficult for them to take the steps needed to protect victims from 
peer pressure, ostracism, and retaliation. While taking authority away 
from the chain of command would indeed be a dramatic change, this 
change would actually afford the victims of sexual assault less 
protection and make it less likely that sexual assaults will be 
prosecuted than the current system.
  For this reason, we adopted an alternative approach that will better 
protect victims. Our approach is to require a commander who receives an 
allegation of sexual assault to either prosecute it or have it 
automatically reviewed by his or her commander--almost a general or 
flag officer--and if a commander chooses not to prosecute against the 
advice of legal counsel, the case receives automatic review by a 
service Secretary. This approach will enable commanders to continue an 
aggressive approach to prosecuting sexual offenses while ensuring 
against the unusual case in which a commander might decide not to 
pursue a case that could be successfully prosecuted.
  An important part of this problem is the underreporting and 
inadequate investigation of sexual assaults. There is still inadequate 
reports for victims of sexual assaults. There is also a problem with 
retaliation, ostracism, and peer pressure from victims. Underneath it 
all remains a culture that has taken inadequate steps to correct this 
situation. In the end, getting this right will require sustained 
leadership by commanders who can be held accountable for conduct in 
their units. It is more difficult to hold someone accountable for 
failure to act if we reduce his or her authority to act.
  We want commanders fully engaged in the resolution of this problem 
and not divorced from it. Throughout our deliberations on this issue, 
we were guided by a single goal: passing the strongest, most effective 
measures to combat sexual assault by holding perpetrators accountable 
and protecting and supporting victims. We believe our bill does that.
  Our country relies on the men and women of our military and the 
civilians who support them to keep us safe and to help us meet U.S. 
national security objectives around the world. We expect them to put 
their lives on the line every day, and in return we tell them we will 
stand by them and their families, that we will provide them with the 
best training, the best equipment, and the best support available to 
any military anywhere in the world.
  As of today, we have roughly 1.4 million U.S. soldiers, sailors, 
airmen, and marines serving on Active Duty--with tens of thousands 
engaged in combat in Afghanistan and stationed in other regional 
hotspots around the globe.
  While there are issues on which Members may disagree, we all know we 
must provide our troops the support they need. Senate action on the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 will improve 
the quality of life for our men and women in uniform and their 
families. It will give them the tools they need to remain the most 
effective fighting force in the world, and most important of all, it 
will send an important message that we as a nation stand behind them 
and appreciate their service.
  I look forward to working with all of our colleagues to pass this 
vital legislation and again would urge all of our colleagues who have 
amendments to bring them to our attention so we can try very hard to 
clear amendments which can get support on both sides of the aisle and 
which have no strong objection.
  This has been a process which has worked for as many years as I have 
been here, and it is the only way we are going to be able to get a bill 
passed this week. Again, it is critically important that this bill pass 
this week or else there seems to be very little hope we could actually 
get a bill to conference and back to both Houses.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 5 minutes, and that after I conclude my remarks, Senator Chambliss 
be recognized, followed by Senator Ayotte.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise to highlight for Senators the 
important work of the Airland Subcommittee in the fiscal year 2014 
National Defense Authorization Act as reported by the Committee on 
Armed Services. I am very proud to be the chairman of the Airland 
Subcommittee and for the close working relationship I have with Senator 
Wicker, the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  The Airland Subcommittee has broad responsibilities for substantial 
parts of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force budgets. The 
Airland Subcommittee also has responsibility for National Guard and 
Reserve equipment and readiness. As a former governor, I know firsthand 
how effective the National Guard is, and they provide a great value for 
all Americans.
  Throughout this process the goal of the Airland Subcommittee has been 
to promote and improve current and future readiness of our military, 
all while ensuring the most efficient and effective use of taxpayer 
dollars. This year the Airland Subcommittee has jurisdiction over $49 
billion of the Defense

[[Page S8162]]

Department's base and overseas contingency budget. This includes $37.1 
billion for procurement and $11.9 billion for research and development.
  In this regard the Airland Subcommittee's recommendation fully 
supports the Department's budget request for Overseas Contingency 
Operations and would support most of the major weapons and equipment 
programs in the base as requested. However, sequestration presents many 
challenges. We can no longer spend billions of dollars buying equipment 
the military does not need or want. Just a few days ago, the chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of staff, General Dempsey, provided me with a list 
of programs the Department of Defense no longer needs and they want to 
retire.
  This much is clear: We can no longer conduct business as usual. In 
fact, the Bowles-Simpson Commission recommended the Department of 
Defense and Congress establish a commission that would review major 
weapons programs unneeded by the Department. This is something we 
should take a look at. I look forward to working with my colleagues on 
this important issue, and the National Commission on the Structure of 
the Air Force is already reviewing and will make recommendations on the 
retirements and divestiture of aircraft the military no longer needs.
  In future subcommittee work I will be reviewing General Dempsey's 
list and will be working with my colleagues on the programs the 
Department no longer needs.
  Congress must debate this important issue so that we spend every 
dollar we have wisely and keep our military the strongest in the world.
  I wish to compliment Senator Wicker again on how well we have worked 
together this year, and I thank Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Inhofe, 
and the wonderful committee staff who have worked so closely with my 
staff and me on this bill.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, first of all, let me say to my friend 
from West Virginia--I happen to serve on that subcommittee and I was in 
the hearing the other day when he asked a question of General Dempsey, 
a very appropriate question. We thought a very strong answer was going 
to be given by Senator Dempsey to the question of the Senator from West 
Virginia regarding weapons systems and other expenditures that are 
mandated by Congress that the chiefs and other folks at the Pentagon 
have said they don't need. As he and I were just discussing, we finally 
got that letter yesterday, and it was somewhat of a very tepid response 
rather than the strong response we had hoped for.
  In any event, the Senator from West Virginia, along with Senator 
Coburn and myself, are going to work together to develop a list of 
expenditures that are either unwanted by the Pentagon that Congress has 
mandated or expenditures that ought to be spent in some other agency 
but, unfortunately, are being charged to the Pentagon. So I look 
forward to working with the chairman on that issue, and I thank him and 
Senator Wicker for their leadership on the subcommittee.
  I rise principally today in support of the Ayotte-Chambliss-Inhofe 
amendment No. 2255, which would restore many of the legislative limits 
and requirements Congress has placed in recent years on the transfer of 
Guantanamo Bay detainees and prevent medical-related transfers to the 
United States. I believe these legislative safeguards are vital to our 
national security and essential to good intelligence collection.
  For several years now we have been debating the status of Guantanamo 
Bay and the detainees who remain there. Time and time again, during the 
course of these debates, I have asked this administration to come up 
with a viable, long-term detention and interrogation policy. Frankly, 
they have failed to do so because of a stubborn commitment to a poorly 
thought out campaign promise to close Guantanamo.
  The call to close Guantanamo may sound like a good campaign sound 
bite to some people but, frankly, in the real world of national 
security it undermines good intelligence collection and increases the 
risks that dangerous detainees will be back on the streets where they 
can continue, as they have, to kill and harm Americans. These are not 
abstract theories; they are facts. The recidivism rate is nearly 29 
percent and has been climbing steadily since detainees began being 
released from Guantanamo. This includes nearly 10 percent of detainees 
who have returned to the fight after being transferred by the current 
administration following the administration's extensive review of each 
detainee.
  Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula counts former Guantanamo detainees 
not just among its members but among its leaders. A former Guantanamo 
detainee is believed to have been involved in last year's Benghazi 
attacks that killed our ambassador and three other Americans.
  The administration's stubborn refusal to add even one more terrorist 
to the Gitmo detainee population has forced the executive branch back 
into the pre-9/11 mindset of treating terrorists as ordinary 
criminals--a mindset we know doesn't work. A lot of people will come to 
this floor on the other side of the aisle and say: Well, we have tried 
all of these terrorists in article III courts in the United States and 
it has worked. For the most part, they have been convicted, and they 
are now serving time. That is a fairly accurate statement. However, 
what they fail to say is that these article III trials of terrorists 
who have been arrested inside the United States are nowhere near the 
caliber of those who planned and carried out the attacks of 9/11 as 
well as those who were captured on the battlefield seeking to kill and 
harm Americans and, in a lot of instances, did kill Americans and maim 
Americans, and they are now housed at Guantanamo. That is a very, very 
distinct difference, and those prisoners should not be treated the same 
as an ordinary common burglar is treated in an article III court here 
in the United States.
  In response to criticisms of the approach that the mindset of 9/11 is 
being returned to, the administration now seems to favor interrogations 
on board naval vessels. The end result, however, has been no different. 
At the end of these brief interrogations, those individuals have been 
transferred to Federal courts here in the United States where they are 
unlikely to provide any more intelligence information because they have 
been Mirandized and are now awaiting trial.
  From the Christmas Day bomber to the Boston bomber to the East Africa 
embassies bomber, this preference for criminal prosecution at the 
expense of intelligence collection has become the administration's 
standard operating procedure. This is no way to defend our Nation, and 
it sends a message of weakness to terrorists and our allies alike.
  This amendment Senator Ayotte, Senator Inhofe, and I are putting 
forward sends the right message to the American people. It ensures that 
our detention practices have clarity for the next year and that on a 
permanent basis no detainee will be transferred overseas unless there 
is a clear certification that the transfer is in the best interests of 
the United States. This also sends a very clear message to the 
terrorists at Guantanamo Bay: You are not coming to the United States 
where you will have the advantage of article III courts.
  This amendment includes five provisions.
  No. 1, it imposes a 1-year ban on transfers to the United States of 
Guantanamo detainees, except in cases after the date of enactment where 
the detainee is sent to Guantanamo for purposes of interrogation.
  No. 2, it imposes a 1-year ban on transfers of detainees to Yemen--
and I will speak more about that in a minute.
  No. 3, it imposes a 1-year ban on building or modifying facilities 
inside the U.S. to house Guantanamo detainees.

  No. 4, it makes permanent the certification requirements needed 
before any transfer of a detainee overseas.
  Lastly, it strikes the provision in the bill that allows transfers of 
detainees to the United States purely for medical care.
  Let me address each provision very briefly. First, I have yet to hear 
why it is a good idea to bring Guantanamo detainees to the United 
States. While the President made a promise to close Guantanamo, the 
American people seem unified against bringing these detainees to the 
U.S. for any reason, and I believe we should listen to the American 
people.

[[Page S8163]]

  It is clear that giving the Secretary of Defense the authority to 
decide to bring detainees here for detention, trial, and incarceration 
will have the same impact as Congress lifting the prohibition outright. 
But the same issues we have been talking about for several years and 
that GAO identified in its 2012 report on detention options inside of 
the United States still exists. These include cost considerations, 
questions about the legal status of the detainees, and concerns about 
protecting the general public and personnel at these facilities or 
during trial.
  Let's look at who these 164 individuals are that remain at 
Guantanamo. We started out with about 860-something, as I recall, give 
or take a few. So we have already released both to other countries and, 
in some cases where we frankly made a mistake, individuals who should 
not have been there, or it has been determined by the appropriate 
reviewing committees that these detainees were OK to be sent back to 
their country of origin or to some other host country that was willing 
to take them and supervise them or keep them in detention but to get 
them out of Guantanamo. Now, the 164 who are remaining are the meanest, 
nastiest terrorists in the world, frankly. They are the ones nobody is 
going to want. So if nobody else wants them, why should we allow them 
to come to the United States?
  These are the individuals who either planned and masterminded the 
attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, such as Khalid 
Shaikh Mohammed, or they are individuals we picked up on the 
battlefield who were actively engaged in fighting and killing 
Americans, as well as engaged in building bombs that were intended to--
and in a lot of instances did--explode and kill or injure Americans.
  Some of these folks range from KSM to the USS Cole bomber who are 
awaiting trial and, frankly, should be tried at Guantanamo. In other 
words, they are dangerous detainees who should not and cannot be sent, 
as I said, to any other country.
  Many of us have been calling on the administration to send new 
detainees to Guantanamo simply for interrogation. Detainees such as al-
Shabaab leader Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, East Africa Embassies bombing 
suspect Abu Anas al-Libi, who was arrested in Libya recently, and 
suspects in the Benghazi attacks all belong at Guantanamo where they 
can be interrogated for a long time under the rules and articles of 
war, without Miranda rights or criminal defense lawyers.
  But this administration has consistently refused to even consider 
Guantanamo for interrogation of the meanest folks who still remain at 
large. It is off the table, as they tell us. Some have used the excuse 
that it is off the table because of this restriction in previous 
Defense authorization acts. In other words, the administration could 
not put any new detainees at Guantanamo for interrogation because they 
could not send them to Federal court for trial.

  If this administration had made any effort at all, even just once, 
over the past 4 years to interrogate detainees at Guantanamo rather 
than holding them on a ship, this excuse would have much more merit. 
But to make sure there are no excuses anymore, our amendment makes 
clear that detainees who are sent to Guantanamo specifically for the 
purposes of interrogation after the date of enactment may still be 
transferred to the United States for trial in article III courts or 
before military tribunals. That means there is absolutely no need to 
hold another detainee on board a ship just to interrogate him. And 
there is absolutely no excuse for not putting new detainees at 
Guantanamo Bay. This provision makes sense for the security of this 
country, and it makes sense for good intelligence collection.
  The ban on transfers to Yemen is a very critical aspect of this 
amendment. The amendment bans any detainee transfers to Yemen until 
December 31, 2014. It has been 4 years since the President imposed a 
moratorium on transfers to Yemen from Guantanamo following the failed 
airplane bombing attempt on Christmas Day 2009 by Umar Farouk 
Abdulmutallab. At that time, Yemen was viewed as a hotspot for 
terrorists, especially with the rise of Al Qaeda in the Arabian 
Peninsula. Now, 4 years later, not much has really changed except for 
the rising recidivism rate. We know that former detainees have rejoined 
AQAP both as leaders and as members. We know Yemen continues to 
struggle with terrorist groups who are trying to make sure it remains 
an AQAP stronghold. And we know AQAP continues to look for ways, like 
the 2009 failed Christmas Day bombing, to attack this country.
  We have all seen the reports that the administration wants to 
transfer detainees to Yemen and is working with the Yemeni Government 
to set up a detention or rehabilitation facility inside Yemen to house 
these prisoners. We learned from the Saudi rehabilitation program that 
rehabilitating hardened terrorists simply does not always work. The 
recidivism rate for the Saudi program is at least 20 percent. Many of 
these detainees, such as AQAP leader Said al-Shihri, ended up in Yemen 
fighting as terrorists again. Yemen, as one senior administration 
official described it, is like the Wild West. It is the last place we 
should send dangerous detainees. In other words, now is not the time to 
experiment with our national security.
  Our amendment ensures that no detainee can be sent to Yemen over the 
next year. I recognize that there are Yemeni detainees who have been 
cleared for transfer, so we do not permanently prohibit those 
transfers. But just because a detainee is eligible for transfer from 
Guantanamo does not mean he no longer poses any threat at all. We have 
to remember that the easiest transfers have already been done, and even 
among those easy transfers, over a quarter of them have been known to 
be reengaged in the fight against Americans.
  So our amendment imposes a reasonable time period on this 
prohibition: No transfers can occur until at least December 31, 2014. 
Over the next year we should have a better sense of how well the Yemeni 
Government is combating terrorists within its borders. Once we see 
their track record, we can decide whether it makes sense to send them 
any new detainees.
  In the past, under the previous Government of Yemen, the detainees 
who were transferred from Guantanamo to Yemen simply were allowed to 
wander around in Yemen with no supervision whatsoever, and I daresay 
that we now do not have any idea where most of those detainees are 
inside of Yemen or, more significantly, whether they are still in 
Yemen, whether they are reengaged in the fight, whether they are in 
Syria fighting on one side or the other, or what has gone on with those 
detainees.
  Al Qaeda and its affiliates look up to Guantanamo detainees. They 
have immediate street credibility among terrorists, which makes it more 
tempting for them to rejoin the fight. We should not make it easier to 
transfer detainees anywhere, much less places where there are confirmed 
recidivists or a real threat from AQAP. The detainees, including many 
of the Yemenis, who remain at Guantanamo are among the worst offenders.
  We should want all future transfers to be done wisely and fully in 
line with our national security interests. This amendment accomplishes 
those objectives.
  Third, this amendment continues the ban on building or modifying 
facilities inside the United States to hold those detainees. It does 
not prohibit any changes to the facilities at Guantanamo Bay, so those 
facilities will continue to be state-of-the-art.
  I understand that this administration wants to close Guantanamo and 
that the Justice Department has already purchased the correctional 
facility in Thomson, IL, to house them. But there is still overwhelming 
consensus here in Congress and among the American people that 
Guantanamo detainees should never set foot inside the United States. We 
need to listen to that consensus.
  With that in mind, our amendment ensures that not one penny of 
American taxpayer dollars will be spent on the Thomson facility or to 
build or modify any other facility inside the United States to house 
Guantanamo detainees. Our amendment applies not just to Defense 
Department funding but to all U.S. Government funds. That way, no other 
Department, including

[[Page S8164]]

the Justice Department, can try to circumvent the will of the American 
people and bring Guantanamo detainees to our homeland.
  Many of us have been to Guantanamo. I have been there several times 
to see for myself how the detainees live and are treated. It is a 
first-rate prison facility. I have been to many prison facilities in my 
State as well as other parts of the country. It is one that would 
probably make most inmates at prisons here inside the United States 
very envious.
  We should not forget that many of the detainees at Guantanamo are 
some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world. If they cannot be 
transferred to other countries, they do not belong in the United 
States.
  This amendment also makes permanent the certification requirements 
that are needed before any detainee can be transferred outside of 
Guantanamo Bay. As I mentioned, the recidivism rate today is almost 29 
percent and growing, so we should not make it easier to transfer 
detainees anywhere, much less to places where there are recidivists or 
real terrorist threats. The certification requirements and the ban on 
transfer if there is a confirmed recidivist in a host country were 
designed to lessen the likelihood that detainees would reengage.
  I understand that some people want Guantanamo closed, but eliminating 
commonsense measures that are there to protect American citizens is not 
the way to do it. These measures give Congress and the American people 
confidence that the Defense Secretary has fully considered all aspects 
of the transfer, especially the host country's past record and current 
capabilities.
  As the rising recidivism rate tells us, even detainees who have been 
cleared for transfer--through a very rigorous process, I might add--can 
still pose a threat. We have to remember that the easiest transfers 
have already been done, and even among those over a quarter have 
reengaged. The detainees who remain are among the worst offenders. We 
should want all future transfers to be done wisely and fully in line 
with our national security interests.
  I do not find persuasive the argument that these certification 
requirements are so burdensome that detainees cannot be transferred. In 
fact, this year alone detainees have been transferred to Algeria, and 
we continue to get notices of other proposed transfers.
  Not every detainee needs to stay at Guantanamo Bay. I recognize that, 
as do the other authors of this amendment. But not one should be 
released until we are absolutely certain that everything is being done 
to prevent new terrorist activity on the part of those individuals who 
are, in fact, released. These certification requirements give us that 
certainty. Making these requirements permanent is the only sure way to 
guarantee that each and every transfer is best for the national 
security of the United States.
  Finally, this amendment restores the status quo by striking section 
1032 in the bill, which allows the transfer of detainees into the 
United States for medical care. We need to remember that Guantanamo is 
a first-class facility, operated by dedicated military personnel who 
put up with an awful lot from detainees. I remember the first time I 
went to Guantanamo, they were housed in a facility that is not the 
facility they are in today. It was much more of an open facility where 
the guards simply would walk back and forth in very close range to the 
actual prisoners themselves. Those guards were subjected to being spit 
upon, having human waste thrown at them as well as food or anything the 
detainees could get their hands on. Needless to say, it was not a very 
nice place to be.
  But we need to remember also that Guantanamo possesses not only 
first-class medical facilities but also first-class judicial facilities 
for the trial of these individuals. There is a state-of-the-art 
courtroom down there, which is being virtually unused today, that ought 
to be used to try these individuals before a military tribunal.
  Section 1032 seems to be a solution in search of a problem. 
Guantanamo Bay has the facilities from a medical standpoint and the 
doctors within the military to treat these prisoners. And I am not 
aware of any instance in which a detainee has died or suffered further 
injury because of our inability to treat them at Guantanamo.
  Aside from being unnecessary, this provision does not make good 
policy. Over the past several years detainees at Guantanamo have waged 
repeated hunger strikes in an effort to gain sympathy so the United 
States will release them from prison. When inmates in our prisons here 
engage in such tactics, we do not reward them, but that is exactly what 
section 1032 would do. If we give detainees the ability to be brought 
to the United States even for what is supposed to be temporary 
treatment, that is a powerful incentive for a detainee to injure 
himself or go on a hunger strike.
  I am also concerned about how this provision would even be 
implemented. It is unclear whether we will have to modify military 
hospitals so they can handle high-value terrorist detainees. At what 
cost and at what risk to the safety of others, including the towns in 
which these facilities are located?
  I appreciate that the provision tries to limit the rights of 
detainees when they are brought here, but we have been down this road 
before with habeas corpus rights. Once a detainee is physically inside 
the United States, it becomes much more difficult to argue against any 
change in immigration or legal status.
  In my view, section 1032 is simply in this bill to further reduce the 
population at Guantanamo. This is not a goal I can support. Our 
amendment keeps the status quo and keeps these terrorist detainees 
where they belong--at Guantanamo Bay.
  It is time for this administration to provide real leadership on 
detention and interrogation issues instead of trying to keep ill-
conceived campaign promises that run contrary to the established facts 
and known threats to our national security. Keeping this country safe 
demands real-time intelligence--the kind we have gotten in the past 
from interrogating detainees for long periods of time, including those 
detainees at Guantanamo. It is time for us to end this dangerous 
practice of treating terrorists first and foremost like criminals who 
deserve Miranda warnings, attorneys, and court appearances.
  It is time for us to stop pretending that the detainees at Guantanamo 
are no different from common ordinary criminals. Our amendment ensures 
that the balance remains on the side of our national security and good 
intelligence collection. It ensures that common sense, not politics, 
will determine the future of Guantanamo detainees and the effectiveness 
of our intelligence collection.
  I am pleased to turn to the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator 
Ayotte, who has been such a champion on this issue. She and I have 
worked very closely, as well as any number of other national security 
issues, since she came to the Senate. She has been a tremendous asset. 
As a former prosecutor, she understands how serious these individuals 
are from a criminal standpoint.
  I commend her for the great work she has done, and I certainly look 
forward to hearing her comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I wish to thank my colleague from Georgia, who is the 
Republican ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator 
Chambliss has seen so much in terms of the real threats that we face 
from terrorists in this country. I appreciate his leadership on 
ensuring that America remains safe and his leadership on this issue of 
ensuring that the Guantanamo detainees are not released to get back in 
the fight against us, to attack not only our soldiers but us and our 
allies.
  I would start with the Defense authorization, as it stands, and even 
the side-by-side offered by Chairman Levin, is a dramatic change from 
current policy of where we are now with regard to Guantanamo and the 
transfer of Guantanamo detainees internationally and to the United 
States of America between last year's Defense authorization and this 
year's Defense authorization.
  What has changed? The only thing that has changed is the fact that 
the reengagement rate of those who are suspected of having been 
released--who have been released from Guantanamo and are suspected or 
actually have reengaged in the fight against us--has increased, not 
decreased.
  Yet the status quo of where we stand now, if our amendment just 
described

[[Page S8165]]

by Senator Chambliss is not adopted, amendment No. 2255--is that we 
would weaken what is required to be certified from people who are 
released from Guantanamo.
  In other words, the Defense authorization and the proposal offered by 
Chairman Levin would weaken the national security requirements that are 
currently in place; the standards which we have to meet before someone 
is transferred from Guantanamo to another country, even though the 
reengagement rate has actually increased.
  What else would it do? It would now allow the potential for 
transferring Guantanamo detainees to the United States of America. This 
would include Guantanamo detainees potentially such as Khalid Shaikh 
Mohammed whom Senator Chambliss has referenced. He is the mastermind of 
September 11. He is the key player behind the attacks on our country on 
September 11, and so we are going to allow the potential that he could 
be transferred to the United States of America.
  In addition, there is allowance for a potential transfer to the 
country of Yemen. As Senator Chambliss has talked about, the country of 
Yemen is the place where the head of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula 
is centered. Not only that, in Yemen, there have actually been 
instances where we have seen prison breaks in Yemen. In fact, it is a 
very destabilized place.
  In June I asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about 
Yemen, and he assessed it to be the most dangerous. Al Qaeda in the 
Arabian Peninsula, which is located in Yemen, is the most dangerous Al 
Qaeda affiliate. Again, when we look at Yemen, there have been breaks 
from detention facilities there.
  Senator Chambliss has described the 2009 Christmas Day Bomber who 
received his training in Yemen.
  We have Guantanamo detainees who have actually been captured--whom we 
have let out previously--captured, killed or spotted in Yemen. These 
included Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's former second in command, 
Said al-Shihri and Ibrahim Suleiman al Rubaish, alleged to be one of Al 
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's main religious leaders. We have 
instances where in Yemen there actually been have Al Qaeda terrorists, 
some who have returned to the leadership of Al Qaeda after we released 
them from Guantanamo and have gone back in.
  I ask, why are we lifting the prohibition of transfers to Yemen when 
there still is not a certification that can be made that they will not 
reengage and that Yemen even can detain these individuals or account 
for them in a place which is the head of Al Qaeda in the Arabian 
Peninsula?
  Where we are now is very important in terms of the protection of our 
country. As Senator Chambliss mentioned, the administration has been so 
caught up in not wanting to transfer anyone into Guantanamo that we are 
left with a situation where we are potentially losing valuable 
intelligence to protect our country.
  I wish to speak about that. If we captured tomorrow the current head 
of Al Qaeda, Zawahiri, what would we do with him? Are we going to bring 
him to the United States or should we bring him to a secure detention 
facility at Guantanamo?
  The legal questions that are raised by this in terms of if we bring 
him to the United States, are we going to tell him you have the right 
to remain silent, even though he is the current head of Al Qaeda? 
Shouldn't the first priority be to collect information to protect our 
country, to know what they are planning, to know what they are doing, 
to know what could happen next?
  We now have the example that was given of Warsame, who was a 
terrorist captured overseas. Instead of being brought to Guantanamo, he 
was put on a ship for approximately 60 days and then brought to the 
United States, where he was told you have the right to remain silent.
  Worse, recently, there was the capture of a man named al-Libi, and 
al-Libi actually had been involved in the beginning--in fact, the 
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation recently said before 
the Homeland Security Committee that he was a founder of Al Qaeda with 
Osama bin Laden--and recaptured in Libya. Rather than bring him to 
Guantanamo Bay, he was put on a ship for only 1 week, 1 week.
  Then he was transferred to New York City and read his Miranda rights. 
This is someone who was alleged to have committed the bombing against 
the embassies in Africa in 1998 and someone who has decades of 
involvement in Al Qaeda and who was only interrogated on a ship for 1 
week, rather than being brought to Guantanamo and fully interrogated to 
make sure we maximize the gathering of intelligence to protect our 
country.
  Now the administration wants to close Guantanamo. The alternative 
offered by Chairman Levin is that they should come up with a plan of 
where we would put these detainees in the United States of America.
  The question is why have we had to wait this long, first, to even 
have some information of what the plan would be and what to do. Second, 
why would we want the most dangerous terrorists in the world, some of 
them, to come to the United States of America, when we have a secure 
detention facility at Guantanamo? Why would we risk the legal questions 
that will be raised if we bring them to the United States? Do we have 
to read them Miranda? If we capture Zawahiri and we have no Guantanamo 
to take him to, do we have to read him Miranda because he is in the 
United States of America and we can't gather intelligence to protect 
our country?
  How much does it cost to make sure people are secure in the area 
where these terrorists are being brought? We don't even know where they 
will be brought because the alternative amendment, all it says is that 
they have to come up with a plan of where to put these terrorists 
rather than at Guantanamo. We don't know--the amendment does not 
provide for us as Congress to approve this plan. It only says the 
Secretary of Defense has to come up with a plan, and then he may take 
action to transfer the detainees, allowing them to be transferred to 
the United States of America.
  Stay tuned if the Guantanamo detainees are coming to your 
neighborhood because we don't know. This is why it is important that 
the prohibitions stay in place in the absence of any plan. Why should 
we bring them to the United States of America, given the dangerous 
nature of who they are? Also, why wouldn't we want to have a secure 
facility to ensure that we have a place to interrogate terrorists, to 
make sure we can maximize the information and understand what they know 
to prevent attacks against our country. Otherwise, we will continue to 
have a situation where terrorists such as al-Libi are only interrogated 
for 1 week and then they are told you have the right to remain silent. 
No terrorist should hear that right.
  I wish to say that what this provision does is it puts back in place 
the requirements that the administration has to meet a strong set of 
criteria before they can transfer to third-party countries.
  What was taken out? What was taken out, which is important, is the 
way they have weakened the requirements for transferring people, the 
requirements the administration must meet before transferring from 
Guantanamo to third-party countries. They have taken out language that 
requires the Secretary of Defense currently to certify that a country 
is not a state sponsor of terrorism or foreign terrorist organization.
  Now there is no longer a requirement that we even have to certify 
that. If our amendment is not passed and the alternative is passed, if 
there is a country or an entity that is a state sponsor of terrorism or 
a foreign terrorist organization, then they can transfer there.
  They have also taken out the provision that would consider whether we 
have previously transferred a detainee to the country and yet the 
detainee has gone back into the fight, has reengaged. In other words, 
if we made a mistake in the past and transferred someone out of 
Guantanamo to a country such as Yemen, they weren't able to secure that 
individual and that individual gets back into the fight, that was a 
consideration they had to take into account before they could transfer 
to that country.
  That is now being removed from the national security criteria, making 
it much weaker and easier to transfer to countries that are not only 
potential sponsors of terrorism but are also

[[Page S8166]]

countries where we have already had a history of transferring detainees 
who have gotten back in the fight against us and our soldiers. We have 
seen some of these detainees show up in places such as Afghanistan 
against our soldiers. We have seen these detainees attempt to attack us 
and our allies. We cannot risk weakening the provisions to say we are 
going to transfer them and take our risks that they can do that again.
  We should keep the current law in place. The administration has been 
able to meet the current law. They have transferred six detainees under 
the current provisions. They do not have an excuse to say that we can't 
transfer anyone because they have already been able to transfer people.
  I ask unanimous consent to ask my colleague, the Senator from 
Georgia, a question about these provisions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I ask Senator Chambliss, if we eliminate Guantanamo--in 
other words, under this proposal they would be permitted to transfer 
people to the United States of America or that new captures be brought 
to the United States of America instead of to a facility such as 
Guantanamo, what are the risks we face in terms of losing valuable 
intelligence that we need to protect our country?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. The very best tool we have been able to utilize from 
an intelligence-gathering standpoint is the information we gather from 
individuals who were involved in the crime or involved in the planning 
of the crime. That is the case whether it is an ordinary burglary, bank 
robbery or in the case that we are talking about today, the planning 
and the scheming of the carrying out of what happened on September 11, 
as well as terrorist activity prior to that, such as the USS Cole 
bombing and others, as well as terrorist activity against the United 
States subsequent to September 11, as well as the detainees who are at 
Guantanamo today who were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan.
  We have gone through each one of the detainees who were involved in 
specific incidents or who are battlefield-captured detainees and we 
have been able to gather intelligence from them that we simply would 
not have been able to get from anyone else. Many times what we have 
when we interrogate the detainees, we will know the answer to the 
question we are going to ask them. Sometimes it is information that was 
gleaned from detainee X, who was with detainee Y whom we are now 
interrogating. By virtue of the fact that we know information that we 
have already gleaned from detainee X, we can ask terrorist Y about it 
or detainee Y. And you are going to get not only verification of what 
the first interrogated detainee tells you, but all of a sudden you are 
going to have an expanded story because this guy says, well, he knows 
this, and that is the case, so I may as well go ahead and tell him the 
rest of this.

  That is kind of the way the interrogation process goes. What has 
happened at Guantanamo is that it has been there for a number of years 
now. September 11 is now 12 years behind us, but we are still gathering 
information from detainees at Guantanamo who have been there from the 
very first day it opened. We are gathering information on acts of 
violence that have occurred, but more significantly on the makeup of Al 
Qaeda, on who the members are, where they are located, where their 
headquarters were versus where they think the headquarters might be. 
There is such a valuable source of information to be gleaned from 
individuals one on one in the interrogation process that we simply 
can't get otherwise.
  Let me refer a question to the Senator from New Hampshire. She was a 
prosecutor. She was the attorney general of New Hampshire and she 
prosecuted any number of criminal cases over the years as attorney 
general, including some very violent cases. She is familiar with the 
criminal process, obviously. She is familiar with individuals who have 
been convicted of crimes, and who, in some instances, were let out of 
jail when their time was up or whatever and those individuals reengaged 
in criminal activity, much like what we are seeing at Guantanamo today. 
The Senator and I have both talked about the recidivism rate being very 
high.
  What is the Senator's opinion, as a long-time prosecutor, relative to 
these 164 individuals who remain at Guantanamo Bay today with regard to 
what she thinks is the possibility or the probability of their 
reengaging in the fight because of their long-term detention at 
Guantanamo?
  Ms. AYOTTE. I would say we have to go from the evidence we have 
before us, where we have a 29-percent reengagement rate. And let's face 
it. The easier decisions were made first, in terms of who should be 
released. Now we have some very hardcore individuals who are there. We 
already have a 29-percent reengagement rate of them getting back in the 
fight against us as terrorists, and so we face a grave risk of some of 
the most hardened individuals if we transfer them or we lessen the 
standard for transfer, which is what this is doing. It is taking away 
the issues I talked about--the consideration of countries we have 
already transferred to but people have gotten back in it--and making it 
easier to transfer and weaker in terms of the national security 
requirements that have to be met, and I am worried they will get back 
in and then harm us and our interests because we already have a history 
of that.
  I want to ask the Senator from Georgia an additional question. Some 
have cited the cost issue as the reason we should close Guantanamo. But 
to the Senator's knowledge, has anyone done the cost estimate of all 
the considerations that would have to be taken into account in the 
United States and also the security interests of the people of this 
country of transferring these terrorists to the United States?
  Finally, I would also say there are risks we face in losing 
intelligence if they have to be Mirandized, and things such as that. 
That is a huge cost in terms of protecting our country, is it not?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Well, it certainly is. I think the Senator and I need 
to be very clear with our colleagues here as well as the American 
public. When it comes to the cost of detaining terrorists who carried 
out the horrific attacks of September 11, I think the American people 
are well prepared to use their taxpayer dollars to house guys such as 
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who has admitted to planning the September 11 
attacks. If we house him in a prison here inside the United States and 
he gets Mirandized, I am sure the first thing he is going to do is to 
get a lawyer. The Senator and I are both lawyers, and we would be 
foolish not to tell our client to hush up, don't talk anymore. And that 
is exactly what he would do.
  So the cost of detaining individuals who ripped this country apart on 
September 11, 2001, is not a consideration, in my mind, from the 
standpoint of whether we should house those folks for the rest of their 
lives.
  Ms. AYOTTE. If we were to lose, for example, valuable intelligence, 
if we were to get Zawahiri tomorrow, or if we had captured Osama bin 
Laden instead of killing him, and were able to interrogate him, that is 
a value that cannot be placed on that in terms of preventing future 
attacks and understanding how Al Qaeda is planning things in order to 
prevent future harm to Americans; isn't that right?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Absolutely. No question about it. And if you do bring 
them to the United States, I guarantee that is the last bit of 
interrogation of any of those individuals that we will ever see.
  The Senator mentioned bin Laden. I remember at a hearing in the 
Senate Armed Services Committee where the issue of bin Laden came up 
during a presentation by the current administration's Secretary of 
Defense. I asked the question with regard to Guantanamo Bay, and said: 
If you captured bin Laden tomorrow, what would you do with him? And to 
his credit, the Secretary of Defense looked me straight in the eye and 
said: Gee, Senator, I guess we would have to send him to Guantanamo. 
And he was right. There is nowhere in America where bin Laden would 
have been welcomed in the county jail or some Federal institution. I 
don't think there is any question about that. The 164 who are there 
today, in my mind, fit in that same category. Some of these individuals 
have never said one word to an interrogator since they have been there. 
Some

[[Page S8167]]

of them--most of them, in fact--have been very open, and we still are 
gathering intelligence from them. But if we transfer them to the United 
States, that is the last we will hear from them.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I have been listening to the discussion. I agree 
wholeheartedly with everything that has been said. The amendment we are 
going to be voting on is part of three different amendments. I had one 
of them, as do my two colleagues. One thing that hasn't been said is 
the part I put in where I constructed a provision to prohibit 
transferring of detainees for emergency medical treatment, which is 
just another way of getting them there.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. The other thing is, when you transfer someone here for 
incarceration purposes, is it not true these are not criminals, these 
are terrorists, and what terrorists do for a living is train other 
people to be terrorists? To commingle them in our prison system is 
something that would be of great danger to this country. That is 
something my colleagues would agree is one of the major reasons we want 
to keep them from the United States.

  Ms. AYOTTE. I would agree with Ranking Member Inhofe, and I want to 
thank him for his leadership. Absolutely, these are not common 
criminals. These are not people who have robbed a bank. These are 
people who have attacked our country and who seek to get other people 
to attack our country. That is the reason why we wouldn't want to 
mingle them with criminals or bring them to the United States so they 
can be told they have the right to remain silent. We have to protect 
our country by knowing what they know.
  Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry: The Chair has said the time on our 
side has expired. Of course, I know----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. INHOFE. I know the chairman wants to use some time here too.
  I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of his remarks, if all 
time has not been consumed, I be given a few minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I understand the situation is as follows: 
that the time between now and 4 o'clock is under majority control, and 
then between 4 o'clock and 5 o'clock we have not resolved that issue as 
to who would control time; am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. So there may be more time available between 4 o'clock and 
5 o'clock.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Would the Senator repeat that?
  Mr. LEVIN. Under the existing UC, the time between now and 4 o'clock 
is under the control of the majority, because the minority has used 
their time. At 4 o'clock, we have to enter into another UC--or we can 
do it now--deciding what the situation will be for the hour between 4 
o'clock and the time of the vote.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the provisions in this bill 
relating to the Guantanamo detention facility, or Gitmo, and oppose the 
amendment to strike those provisions and to reinstate existing 
restrictions on the transfer of Gitmo detainees.
  Gitmo is expensive, inefficient, damaging to U.S. international 
standing, harmful to our allies' ability to cooperate with us, and 
serves as a recruiting tool for extremists. It is not needed to secure 
people who should be detained and should be tried. There are other 
places for detention and for trial in front of a military tribunal. We 
don't need Gitmo to stay open at a huge expense in order to do that.
  The bill before us makes long overdue fixes to our ability to 
transfer detainees out of Gitmo, provide our military with needed 
flexibility to determine how long we need to detain individuals now 
held at the Guantanamo facility, and where we should hold them.
  For a number of years now, Congress has enacted legislation 
eliminating that flexibility and requiring we continue to hold all 
Gitmo detainees at Guantanamo whether or not it is in our national 
security interests to do so. The current law establishes an absolute 
ban on bringing any Gitmo detainee to the United States for any 
purpose, including detention, trial, incarceration, or even medical 
treatment. And it replaces the best judgment of our military and 
intelligence experts on the risk posed by an additional Gitmo detainee 
with a cumbersome checklist of requirements that must be certified 
before any detainee may be transferred overseas.
  The current law makes it more difficult to try detainees for their 
crimes and nearly impossible to return them to their home countries. 
For example, even if we have a strong case that a detainee has 
committed crimes for which he could be indicted, convicted in Federal 
Court, the current law makes it impossible to try him. This is true 
even in cases where similar charges are not available before a military 
commission, making it impossible to try the detainee at Guantanamo. And 
it is true even in cases where the security risks in bringing the 
detainee to the United States would be nonexistent.
  In 2010, the Guantanamo Detainee Review Task Force recommended 44 
Gitmo detainees for possible prosecution. As a result in significant 
part of the legislated restrictions on transferring detainees to the 
United States for trial, however, we have had only 4 of the 44 plea 
bargains and no other successful prosecutions of those detainees.
  Similarly, even if we have determined that a detainee poses no 
ongoing security threat to the United States, we cannot send them back 
to their home country unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to six 
conditions addressing issues such as the country's control over its own 
territory and its detention facilities and so forth. And even if the 
individual is likely to die without advanced medical treatment, we 
cannot remove him from Gitmo for the purpose of receiving such 
treatment.
  In 2010, the Guantanamo Detainee Review Task Force conducted a 
rigorous interagency review and determined that more than half of the 
Gitmo population, including 84 of the 164 detainees currently at Gitmo, 
could be safely transferred overseas without posing a significant 
security threat. However, only two Gitmo detainees have actually been 
transferred using the certification provision since it was enacted at 
the end of 2010.
  Under the current law, even if a detainee has been convicted or pled 
guilty and served his sentence, even if he has cooperated with us and 
provided us with useful intelligence, even if he has renounced all ties 
to Al Qaeda or the Taliban, even if he has been determined to no longer 
pose a threat to our national security, it is still extremely difficult 
to transfer or release a Gitmo detainee. That is why we still have 
detainees sitting in Guantanamo who have been cleared for transfer or 
release on multiple occasions by two different administrations over a 
period of almost a decade.
  The current law has reinforced, as a result, the impression held by 
many around the world that Guantanamo is a legal black hole where we 
hold detainees without recourse. This perception has been used by our 
enemies to recruit jihadists to attack us, and it has made our friends 
less willing to cooperate with us in our efforts to fight terrorism 
around the world. For this reason, many of our top national security 
leaders spanning the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly 
told us of the harm that Gitmo causes to our national security.
  First, with respect to transfers of Gitmo detainees overseas to their 
home countries or other countries, the bill would streamline the 
onerous certification procedures imposed by Congress and restore the 
ability of our military leaders to exercise their best judgment in 
determining whether detainees could be transferred abroad consistent 
with our national security. This provision would enable the Department 
of Defense to handle Gitmo detainees in the same way that it has 
handled other detainees in the course

[[Page S8168]]

of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan--by making case-by-case 
determinations whether it is in our national security interest to 
continue holding an individual.
  Second, with respect to transfers of Gitmo detainees into the United 
States, the bill would reverse the one-size-fits-all ban that Congress 
has imposed on such transfers and permit case-by-case determinations of 
whether it is in our national security interest to transfer Gitmo 
detainees into custody inside the United States for detention and 
trial. This provision would restore our Nation's ability to use a key 
tool in the fight against the terrorist threat. That tool is 
prosecution of Gitmo detainees in Federal courts.
  I have offered a side-by-side amendment with Senator McCain which 
requires the administration to develop a comprehensive plan and submit 
it to Congress before it could transfer any detainees to the United 
States under this provision. This plan would include a case-by-case 
determination of each individual held at Guantanamo where the 
individual is intended to be held, including the specific facility or 
facilities inside the United States that would be used and the 
estimated costs of any modification that may be needed at those 
facilities.
  The side-by-side amendment would also clarify that Gitmo detainees 
would not gain any additional legal rights as a result of their 
transfer to the United States for detention and trial. In particular, 
detainees who are transferred to the United States would not gain any 
additional rights; would not be permitted to be released inside the 
United States; would not lose their status as unprivileged enemy 
belligerents eligible for detention and trial under the law of war; and 
would not gain any additional right to challenge his or her detention 
beyond the right to habeas corpus--which they already have at 
Guantanamo, as the Supreme Court has decided.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be 
added as a cosponsor to our side-by-side amendment, the Levin-McCain 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Guantanamo continues to be a damaging reminder of a failed 
U.S. strategy that sought to put captured terrorists beyond the reach 
of the law and the U.S. courts. A dozen years ago the Bush 
administration started sending detainees to Gitmo in large part out of 
a desire to avoid the jurisdiction of the United States courts and 
ensure that detainees would have no legal avenue to appeal their 
convictions. Now, whether or not one supported that approach, that 
argument ended in 2008, when the Supreme Court ruled in the Boumediene 
case that Gitmo detainees would be treated as being inside the United 
States for the purpose of habeas corpus appeals.
  Instead of recognizing the problems with maintaining the Gitmo 
facility--the problems of extreme costs, and that it adds no additional 
security to what exists if these people are brought to the United 
States for military trial, as being held as prisoners under the laws of 
war, or for Federal court trial, even though all of that is still 
possible inside the United States--we have enacted legislation which 
makes it virtually impossible to move detainees anywhere else, ensuring 
that the facility is going to remain open whether we need it or not.
  The result is that we are stuck with an expensive facility. And make 
no mistake, the costs of the Guantanamo detention facility are 
exorbitant. The Department of Defense has put the costs associated with 
Gitmo at over $400 million a year. That is more than $2.5 million per 
detainee. If we had any additional security as a result, it would be 
worth it. But we don't need Gitmo for additional security. These 
detainees can be held in the United States. They can be held for trial, 
they can be held according to the rule of law, and they can be held 
under the military as military detainees.
  Now, $2.5 million per detainee is, by some estimates, 35 times the 
annual cost of housing a prisoner at a supermax security prison inside 
the United States. That does not include the more than $200 million in 
additional military construction requests that the Department believes 
it needs to spend to keep Guantanamo running in the coming years. I 
repeat: If this added to our security, it would be worth it. But it 
doesn't. We can bring these same people to the United States to be held 
as prisoners of war the way we did Italians and others during World War 
II. I had hundreds in my home State. If we added to our security by 
keeping Guantanamo open instead of just having a place which is used as 
a training ground and used as an argument for Jihad--but we can keep 
these people in the United States just as safely as Guantanamo in 
maximum security prisons or under the military jurisdiction with the 
same amount of security for the people of the United States at far less 
cost.
  We are all facing sequestration. It is undermining the readiness of 
our Armed Forces, requires risky reductions in force structure, and 
makes it likely we are going to have to cancel or severely curtail 
vital modernization programs. We cannot afford to spend $500 million a 
year on a program that doesn't make us more safe.
  The basis for the legislative obstacles to moving detainees out of 
Guantanamo appears to be the fear that returning Gitmo detainees to 
their home countries or transferring them to the United States would 
pose an unacceptable threat to our national security. But history has 
shown that we bring numerous terrorists to the United States for trial 
or incarceration. It has had no adverse effect on our national 
security. These prosecutions have resulted in hundreds of convictions 
on terrorism-related charges without apparent adverse effect to our 
national security. As the Attorney General wrote to Judiciary Committee 
Chairman Leahy last week, terrorist prosecutions in Federal courts have 
been ``an essential element of our counterterrorism efforts'' and ``a 
powerful tool of proven effectiveness.''
  In the last 3 years, we have brought three foreign terrorists into 
the United States for trial. We brought Abu Ghaith, Osama bin Laden's 
son-in-law, who has been convicted in Federal court and remains in 
Federal custody without incident. The second is Ahmed Warsame, who pled 
guilty in Federal court and remains in Federal custody without 
incident. The third is Ahmed Ghailani, who was convicted in Federal 
court, received a life sentence, and remains in Federal custody without 
incident. Again, there have been hundreds of convictions in this 
country of persons connected to terrorism in Federal courts.
  Our military has routinely detained individuals on the battlefield in 
Afghanistan and then exercised their discretion to transfer them to 
local jurisdiction or to release them. If we can trust our military to 
make these determinations on a day-to-day basis for detainees in 
Afghanistan, we should be able to trust our military to make the same 
determination for detainees at Gitmo.
  The rigorous review process which is codified by our bill's 
provisions requires the Secretary of Defense to determine, prior to 
transferring a Gitmo detainee, that the transfer is in our national 
security interest and that actions have been taken to mitigate any risk 
that the detainee could again engage in any activity that threatens 
United States persons or interests.
  The provisions in this bill will get us past our fear that we cannot 
securely handle Gitmo detainees in this country. It would allow the 
Secretary of Defense to authorize Gitmo transfers to the United States 
for detention and trial if doing so is in the United States' security 
interests. This bill will restore the President's ability to choose the 
most effective tool--whether that is military commissions or Federal 
courts--to bring these Gitmo detainees to justice.
  In conclusion, I urge our colleagues to support the Guantanamo 
provisions in the bill, vote for the Levin-McCain-Feinstein side-by-
side amendment, and oppose the effort to reinstate the 
counterproductive and costly restrictions in current law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that at 4:00 there 
might be a unanimous consent which will lead us to a vote at 5:00. Is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has no knowledge about a vote at 
5:00.
  The Senator from Michigan.

[[Page S8169]]

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the time between now and 4:00 to 
the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it seems we are going to have an 
opportunity a little later on to discuss this tonight. In the capacity 
of the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, I have to say 
that I can't imagine having a chairman with whom I cooperate and agree 
with on almost every issue like Chairman Levin. I really appreciate the 
work we have done together. We both recognize this is the most 
important piece of legislation each year, and we both recognize that, 
for 51 consecutive years, we have had this legislation. Nothing has 
come up to obstruct it. We also realize Republicans would prefer to 
have more opportunities to have amendments, and Chairman Levin has been 
very helpful in helping us to get that.
  The area on which I don't agree is in the area of Gitmo and how it 
should be used. Every time I go to Gitmo, I shake my head and I say: 
Why in the world would we not use this resource? We don't have another 
resource like it. We heard the Senator from Georgia make the statement 
that he asked the chairman: If we don't have Gitmo to send these 
people, where are we going to send them? I believe it was Secretary of 
Defense Panetta who said: We don't know. There is not another place. We 
have used it successfully since 1904.
  I often have said, and said yesterday, that we don't have many good 
deals in government. This is one that is. Since 1904, our rent on that 
territory has been $4,000 a year. I don't think anyone can come up with 
a better deal, and besides Castro doesn't collect it about half the 
time.
  It is argued that we can use it for interrogation. The information we 
received which led to Osama bin Laden's demise was received from 
interrogation which took place at Gitmo.
  When we talk about the treatment of people, the one thing that I 
discover every time I go down there is one of the chief problems they 
have in Gitmo is obesity because they are eating better than they have 
ever eaten at any other time in their lives. A primary care provider is 
there for every 450 detainees. They have never had that kind of 
treatment at any other time in their lives. The detainees receive age-
appropriate colon cancer screening, TB screening, annual dental 
procedures, physical therapy, and all these things.
  The idea that we would not be able to bring them to the United States 
for some more serious personal care I can't buy because we have the 
U.S. Naval Hospital at Guantanamo Bay. I have been there. They have 
approximately 250 personnel there who support the base's population of 
over 6,000.
  When I look at this and I think of the options they have and this 
obsession the President seems to have to bring these terrorists into 
the United States, I have to share this one story. I know there is 
going to be a request here in just a moment. I can remember back 4\1/2\ 
years ago when this President first came in office--I am going from 
memory now--he had 17 places in the United States where he could put 
these terrorists. One happened to be in my State of Oklahoma, Fort 
Sill. He went down to look at the facility. The major who was in charge 
of it told me she had several tours of duty at Guantanamo. She said: Go 
back and tell those people in Washington we do not need to be spreading 
these terrorists throughout the continental United States when we have 
that great facility. She said she had been there twice and it is state-
of-the-art.
  I have a great fear, and that is that once we get a different 
administration here that realizes the value of Guantanamo Bay, it will 
be too late to go back and get it again. That is the reason we have 
been holding on to it with white knuckles.
  The amendment we are going to be voting on in another hour or so, 
whenever it is set in, is going to be an amendment that will allow us 
to continue to use what I consider to be one of the most valuable 
assets we have in the system.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am going to make a unanimous consent 
proposal which I understand has been cleared.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending motion to recommit be 
withdrawn; that the pending Levin amendment, No. 2123, be set aside for 
Senator Ayotte or designee to offer amendment No. 2255 relative to 
Guantanamo; that the amendment be subject to a relevant side-by-side 
amendment, which is No. 2175, from Senators Levin, McCain, and 
Feinstein; that no second-degree amendments be in order to either of 
these Guantanamo amendments; that each of these amendments be subject 
to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; that the time until 5 p.m. be 
equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that at 5 
p.m. the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Ayotte amendment No. 
2255; that upon disposition of the Ayotte amendment, the Senate proceed 
to vote in relation to the Levin-McCain-Feinstein amendment No. 2175; 
and that there be 2 minutes equally divided in between the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I was going to say the time between now and 5 o'clock is 
equally divided, as I understand it, between the Senator from Oklahoma 
and myself.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                           Amendment No. 2255

  Mr. INHOFE. On behalf of Senator Ayotte, myself, and others, I call 
up amendment No. 2255 and ask the clerk to report by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for Ms. Ayotte, for 
     herself, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Inhofe, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Enzi, 
     and Mr. Rubio, proposes an amendment numbered 2255.

  The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text 
of amendments.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 2175

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2175.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself and Mr. 
     McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 2175.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To propose an alternative to section 1033, relating to a 
limitation on the transfer or release of individuals detained at United 
              States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba)

       Strike section 1033 and insert the following:

     SEC. 1033. LIMITATION ON THE TRANSFER OR RELEASE OF 
                   INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT UNITED STATES NAVAL 
                   STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), none 
     of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act for 
     fiscal year 2014 may be used to transfer, release, or assist 
     in the transfer or release to or within the United States, 
     its territories, or possessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or 
     any other detainee who--
       (1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States; and
       (2) is or was held on or after January 20, 2009, at United 
     States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department 
     of Defense.
       (b) Transfer for Detention and Trial.--The Secretary of 
     Defense may transfer a detainee described in subsection (a) 
     to the United States for detention pursuant to the 
     Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 
     50 U.S.C. 1541 note), trial, and incarceration if the 
     Secretary--
       (1) determines that the transfer is in the national 
     security interest of the United States;
       (2) determines that appropriate actions have been taken, or 
     will be taken, to address any risk to public safety that 
     could arise in connection with detention and trial in the 
     United States; and
       (3) notifies the appropriate committees of Congress not 
     later than 30 days before the date of the proposed transfer.
       (c) Notification Elements.--A notification on a transfer 
     under subsection (b)(3) shall include the following:
       (1) A statement of the basis for the determination that the 
     transfer is in the national security interest of the United 
     States.
       (2) A description of the action the Secretary determines 
     have been taken, or will be taken, to address any risk to the 
     public safety that could arise in connection with the 
     detention and trial in the United States.
       (d) Status While in the United States.--A detainee who is 
     transferred to the United States under this section--
       (1) shall not be permitted to apply for asylum under 
     section 208 of the Immigration

[[Page S8170]]

     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1158) or be eligible to apply 
     for admission into the United States;
       (2) shall be considered to be paroled into the United 
     States temporarily pursuant to section 212(d)(5)(A) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A)); and
       (3) shall not, as a result of such transfer, have a change 
     in designation as an unprivileged enemy belligerent eligible 
     for detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of 
     Military Force, as determined in accordance with applicable 
     law and regulations.
       (e) Limitation on Transfer or Release of Detainees 
     Transferred to the United States.--An individual who is 
     transferred to the United States under this section may not 
     be released within the United States and may only be 
     transferred or released in accordance with the procedures 
     under section 1031.
       (f) Limitations on Judicial Review.--
       (1) Limitations.--Except as provided for in paragraph (2), 
     no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear 
     or consider any action against the United States or its 
     agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, 
     treatment, or conditions of confinement of a detainee 
     described in subsection (a) who is held by the Armed Forces 
     of the United States.
       (2) Exception.--A detainee who is transferred to the United 
     States under this section shall not be deprived of the right 
     to challenge his designation as an unprivileged enemy 
     belligerent by filing a writ of habeas corpus as provided by 
     the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (548 U.S. 557 (2006)) 
     and Boumediene v. Bush (553 U.S. 723 (2008)).
       (3) No cause of action in decision not to transfer.--A 
     decision not to transfer a detainee to the United States 
     under this section shall not give rise to a judicial cause of 
     action.
       (g) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) 
     shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date 
     on which the Secretary of Defense submits to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a detailed plan to close the detention 
     facility at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 
     Cuba.
       (2) Elements.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall 
     contain the following:
       (A) A case-by-case determination made for each individual 
     detained at Guantanamo of whether such individual is intended 
     to be transferred to a foreign country, transferred to the 
     United States for the purpose of civilian or military trial, 
     or transferred to the United States or another country for 
     continued detention under the law of armed conflict.
       (B) The specific facility or facilities that are intended 
     to be used, or modified to be used, to hold individuals 
     inside the United States for the purpose of trial, for 
     detention in the aftermath of conviction, or for continued 
     detention under the law of armed conflict.
       (C) The estimated costs associated with the detention 
     inside the United States of individuals detained at 
     Guantanamo.
       (D) A description of any additional actions that should be 
     taken consistent with subsections (d), (e), and (f) to hold 
     detainees inside the United States.
       (E) A detailed description and assessment, made in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of 
     National Intelligence, of the actions that would be taken 
     prior to the transfer to a foreign country of an individual 
     detained at Guantanamo that would substantially mitigate the 
     risk of such individual engaging or reengaging in any 
     terrorist or other hostile activity that threatens the United 
     States or United States person or interests.
       (F) What additional authorities, if any, may be necessary 
     to detain an individual detained at Guantanamo inside the 
     United States as an unprivileged enemy belligerent pursuant 
     to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 
     107-40), pending the end of hostilities or a future 
     determination by the Secretary of Defense that such 
     individual no longer poses a threat to the United States or 
     United States persons or interests.
       (3) Form.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall be 
     submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified 
     annex.
       (h) Interim Prohibition.--The prohibition in section 1022 
     of the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act 
     (Public Law 112-239; 126 Stat. 1911) shall apply to funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2014 
     for the Department of Defense from the date of the enactment 
     of this Act until the effective date specified in subsection 
     (g).
       (i) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Appropriations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of 
     the Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on 
     Appropriations, and the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
       (2) The term ``individual detained at Guantanamo'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 1031(e)(2).

  Mr. LEVIN. I understand we have a Senator on the way. I suggest the 
absence of a quorum unless someone else wishes to be recognized. I ask 
that the time on the quorum call be equally divided unless someone else 
seeks to be recognized at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, during this pause, if someone comes down 
to talk about the two amendments that will be voted on at 5 o'clock, I 
will be happy to defer to them. But I think it is important that we 
understand we are finally making some headway in getting into this 
Defense authorization bill. It seems as if every year for 51 years now 
we have been able to get it through. While other bills become 
controversial, get to a point where they cannot go any further, that 
does not happen with the Defense authorization bill. It is one that has 
to take place.
  As the Republican ranking member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, let me say, as I have said before, I thank my friend and 
colleague the chairman Carl Levin for his leadership in marking up this 
bill. It has always been difficult. In most cases we agree with each 
other. We happen to be looking at an amendment now where we disagree. 
But I always consider the NDAA bill as the most important piece of 
legislation in Congress every year. It contains authorizations that 
support our men and women serving in harm's way, all the way in 
Afghanistan and around the world. It supports the training of our 
servicemembers and maintenance and modernization of their equipment. It 
authorizes research and development; that is, R&D efforts that will 
ensure that we maintain technological superiority over our enemies and 
can defeat the threats of tomorrow. Most important, it provides for the 
pay and benefits for the brave men and women who have made their 
sacrifices and are putting their lives at risk for our benefit. 
However, it is important to note this year--and this has not happened 
before, in my memory--the bill provides all of these vitally important 
efforts only as the reduced spending levels would allow.
  In an era increasingly defined by bipartisan gridlock, the NDAA is 
one of the rare occasions where Members of both parties can come 
together. This enduring commitment was exemplified again this year by 
the overwhelming bipartisan support we had for the bill that came out 
of our committee--bipartisan support. We want, of course, to have that 
same bipartisan support here on the floor. Hopefully we will be able to 
get this done by the end of this week.
  Consideration of this year's NDAA comes at a time in our national 
security when we face more volatile and dangerous times than we ever 
have in the history of this country. Chaos and violence are on the rise 
in the Middle East and north Africa. Al Qaeda is growing and 
establishing new safe havens from which to plan and launch attacks 
against the United States. We have rogue nations, such as Iran and 
North Korea. It is not the way it was in the old days--I have often 
said the good old days--of the Cold War where we had an enemy and that 
enemy was predictable. We knew that enemy.
  Remember, we used to have this thing called mutual assured 
destruction. That meant something then, but it doesn't mean anything 
now because our potential enemies out there want to be destroyed. They 
have a different mentality than they used to.
  Iran and North Korea are developing their nuclear capability and 
delivery systems. Our intelligence has told us that Iran will have a 
weapon and a delivery system. All the way back in 2007 they said they 
would have it by 2015. That is a year and a half from right now. I tell 
the Chair that they are going to have that capability. The threats are 
much more serious to us now.
  When I say this is the first time we have faced the crisis we are 
facing now, it is not just because the enemy is out there. I am talking 
about an enemy who will have the capability of sending a weapon over 
and delivering it to the United States, but at the same time over the 
last 5 years of this administration the military has already endured a

[[Page S8171]]

$487 billion cut. That is $487 billion out of the defense budget. That 
is before sequestration.
  Now we have sequestration--an outcome once thought to be so 
egregious, I can remember that as recently as less than a year ago, we 
thought: We are not going to have this. After $487 billion being pulled 
out of the military, we cannot also have sequestration, which will be 
the $\1/2\ trillion that will come out in the next period of time. So 
we didn't think it would happen, but it did happen.
  We are now into what, our seventh or eighth month of sequestration. 
In total, our military men and women stand to endure over a $1 trillion 
slash from their budget. These cuts are forcing a dramatic decline in 
military readiness and capabilities.
  I talked to General Odierno yesterday. He is Chief of Staff of the 
Army. He recently said that his forces are at the--I am going to quote 
now--``lowest readiness levels I have seen within our Army since I've 
been serving for the last 37 years'' and that only two brigades are 
ready for combat. That is our U.S. Army. We have never had that 
confession made. It is a level of desperation where they are willing to 
come out and talk of it. We cannot sustain another $\1/2\ trillion in 
cuts.
  Admiral Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, said that ``because of 
fiscal limitations and the situation we're in, we don't have another 
strike group trained and ready to respond on short notice in case of 
emergencies. We're tapped out.'' That is the CNO of the Navy.
  Our top military leaders now warn of being unable to protect 
America's interests around the world. Keep in mind, Admiral Winnefeld 
is the No. 2 person in line. He is the Vice Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff. Admiral Winnefeld, who has been there nearly 40 years, 
stated earlier this year that ``there could be, for the first time in 
my career, instances where we may be asked to respond to a crisis and 
we will have to say we cannot.''

  General Dempsey, the No. 1 guy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, has warned that continued national security cuts will ``severely 
limit our ability to implement our defense strategy. It will put the 
nation at greater risk of coercion, and it will break faith with men 
and women in uniform.''
  This is why I am so troubled by the disastrous path we are on. In the 
face of mounting threats to America, we are crippling the very people 
who are vital to our security--the men and women in uniform.
  To be clear, our military was facing readiness shortfalls even before 
sequestration took effect. Nearly 12 years of sustained combat 
operations have really worn down our forces and their equipment. In 
order to meet the spending caps mandated by sequestration, the military 
services are being forced to starve the accounts necessary to repair 
and reset their forces.
  Rather than rebuilding the ability of our military to defend the 
country, we are digging ourselves deeper into a hole. The longer we 
allow military readiness and capabilities to decline, the more money 
and time it will take to rebuild.
  We already know this is the case based on what happened in fiscal 
year 2013. For example, General Welsh, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, 
said that because of the first round of sequestration cuts he was 
``forced to ground 33 squadrons''--he's talking about fighter 
squadrons--``including 13 combat-coded squadrons and an additional 
seven squadrons were reduced to basic `takeoff and land' training. It 
will now cost a minimum of 10 percent more flying hours to fully 
retrain the grounded squadrons . . . '' What he is saying is that when 
it was mandated that he take down 33 squadrons--which happened around 
April--then in July, 3 months later, they said, you can start working 
the squadrons again--he is saying that it costs more to retrain and 
bring these people back up in these proficiencies than it saved during 
that 3-month period of time.
  He specifically said that it will now cost a minimum of 10 percent 
more flying hours to fully retrain the grounded squadrons than it would 
have to simply keep them trained all along. We heard that from several 
other top people as well.
  I talked to General Amos yesterday. He is with the Marine Corps. He 
said he has approximately $800 million in critical military 
construction funding that they will be unable to execute under 
sequestration--assuming they go through with sequestration. By the way, 
I have not given up on stopping the military sequestration that is 
damaging our ability to defend ourselves.
  General Amos said that the military construction funding will be 
unable to execute under sequestration and will need to be deferred. 
Further, it will cost over $6.5 billion to buy back orders of the V-
22s, joint strike fighters, Hughes, and Cobras. Those are four 
platforms we would have to bring back at the additional cost of $6.5 
billion that we otherwise would not have spent.
  On Monday Admiral Greenert told me that under the current budget 
environment he will be forced to defer much-needed ship maintenance, 
costing a 15- to 20-percent increase in total costs.
  In other words, the things they are doing now to meet these line-by-
line mandates of reductions are not saving money but costing money. 
Under sequestration, we will lose one Virginia-class submarine, one 
littoral combat ship, one afloat forward staging base, development of 
an Ohio-class replacement submarine program. They will all be delayed, 
which again will result in an increased price.
  So not only is sequestration gutting our military capabilities, it 
ends up costing American taxpayers more than it will save. We are 
falling victim to the misguided belief that as the wars of today wind 
down, we can afford to gut investments in our Nation's defenses. It is 
irresponsible and makes America less safe.
  I remember going through the same thing back in the 1990s when the 
chant at that time was the cold war is over, so we no longer need that 
strong of a defense. We heard it from both sides, and now we are going 
through the same thing. History reminds us we cannot dictate when and 
where the next conflict is going to arise. Instead, if we allow the 
continued dismantling of our military, we will be less safe and less 
prepared to defend our country. If our military men and women are 
called upon, their ability to accomplish the mission will be 
undermined, and tragically, more will lose their lives unnecessarily.
  We had the top military people in our Armed Services Committee, and I 
asked them about this issue. They talked about the loss of readiness--
risk equals lives. When you take on more risks, you lose more American 
lives.
  General Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, testified that if he is 
tasked to respond to a contingency in the current budget environment:

       We would have fewer forces, arriving less trained, arriving 
     later to the fight. This would delay the build-up of combat 
     power, allow the enemy more time to build up their defenses, 
     and likely prolong combat operations altogether. This is a 
     formula for more U.S. casualties.

  Such an outcome would be immoral and a dereliction of duty. If we 
expect the men and women in our military to go in harm's way to protect 
America, we have an obligation to provide them with the training, 
technology, and capabilities that is required to decisively overwhelm 
any adversary at any time and return safely to home and their loved 
ones.
  I can remember when they used to use a different term than they use 
today. Today they call it nature of military operations. It used to be 
defending America on how many fronts. Since World War II, there were 
always two fronts, and now we are down to where it would be hard to do 
it on one front, and that is why this bill is so important and why 
protecting the readiness of our military men and women remains my top 
priority. However, something has to be done to mitigate any devastating 
impact of readiness, so we must find long-term solutions. Every day 
that goes by without action will only increase the damage.
  I do have an amendment that would phase sequester in a way that would 
allow our senior military leaders to enact reforms without 
disproportionately degrading our military so we can continue to train 
and prepare our military women and men.
  My good friend the Senator from Alabama and I are joining forces. We 
have an amendment that is going to allow some degree of latitude and 
flexibility.

[[Page S8172]]

So while we are living under the same budget constraints we are under 
today, they can make some decisions where it is not just an online 
reduction. I have just finished talking about how much more that will 
end up costing us.
  I see now we have someone else who has come to the floor to be heard. 
I want to repeat how much I appreciate the chairman of the committee 
Carl Levin for his cooperation with our side. He is trying to get this 
to become a reality and get this bill passed hopefully this week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the senior Senator 
from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the Levin-McCain 
amendment, and I have added my name as a cosponsor. I would also like 
to speak in support of provisions authored by Chairman Levin that are 
in this year's National Defense Authorization Act, which provides more 
flexibility that the President and Secretary of Defense need in order 
to move detainees from Guantanamo.
  I strongly support the Levin-McCain-Feinstein amendment. Here is what 
it would do: It would clarify that Guantanamo detainees transferred to 
the United States for law of war detention do not have any additional 
rights or benefits such as the right to claim asylum. So it limits it.
  It would clarify that Gitmo detainees transferred to the United 
States may not be released from law of war detention into the United 
States.
  Finally, it would require a detailed plan to be submitted to Congress 
on how to close Guantanamo, including the specific facilities intended 
to be used to hold detainees inside the United States.
  I have heard Senator McCain talk about this, request it, and I 
believe it is a very valid need.
  It has been 12 years since the attacks of 9/11 and the United States 
invasion of Afghanistan. In the ensuing years 779 people were brought 
to Guantanamo without charge, and for many of them, simply for being at 
the wrong place at the wrong time. Most of the 164 left have been held 
for more than 10 years. Those transferred to Guantanamo from CIA 
custody in black sites have been there now for 7 years. Unfortunately, 
we still have not figured out a way to close Guantanamo.
  President George W. Bush called for it to be closed. So did former 
Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Collin Powell, as well as 
former Secretaries of Defense Bob Gates and Leon Panetta, among others.
  In fact, here is what President Bush wrote on pages 179 and 180 of 
his memoir Decision Points:

       . . . there are things I wish had come out differently. I 
     am frustrated that the military tribunals moved so slowly. 
     Even after the Military Commissions Act was passed, another 
     lawsuit delayed the process again. By the time I left office, 
     we held only two trials. The difficulty of conducting trials 
     made it harder to meet a goal I had set in my second term: 
     closing the prison at Guantanamo in a responsible way. While 
     I believe opening Guantanamo after 9/11 was necessary, the 
     detention facility had become a propaganda tool for our 
     enemies and a distraction for our allies.

  While I would like to go much further and close the facility 
immediately, the provisions in this bill will ease the transfer 
restrictions so that detainees can be held in other countries or tried, 
convicted, and put in a proper maximum security facility in the United 
States.
  There are three categories of detainees left at Guantanamo:
  First, 46 detainees will continue to be held on preventive detention, 
meaning they are being held under international law until the end of 
hostilities--whenever that may be. It could be years; it could be 
decades.
  Second, 34 detainees have been slated for prosecution, and of those 
three detainees have already been convicted in a military commission 
and are still serving their time at Guantanamo. But most of these 34 
detainees have not even been charged, and there is no indication when 
they will be.
  The final category is the largest--84 of the 164 detainees currently 
at Guantanamo were cleared for transfer by a 2010--that's 3 years ago--
interagency process carried out by our national security and 
intelligence agencies. But current law needlessly complicates efforts 
to transfer those 84 men.

  President Bush transferred over 530 detainees from Guantanamo during 
his time in office and, unfortunately, many went on to commit terrorist 
acts because there were no individual assessments done on each 
detainee. But these individual assessments have been carried out by the 
Obama administration.
  Despite his commitment to close Guantanamo, President Obama has been 
able to transfer only 67 detainees during his first term, and only two 
recommended for transfer have been successfully sent home under the 
burdensome procedures now in place. More are on the way, but this is an 
unacceptable delay because the government cleared these detainees for 
transfer years ago.
  Sections 1031, 1032, and 1033 of this bill will give the President 
more flexibility to transfer these detainees out of Guantanamo. It is 
long overdue. I thank the chairman, who is sitting in front of me, and 
the ranking member for these provisions. But even under these 
provisions, the Secretary of Defense would still have to certify that 
the transfer is in our Nation's security interests and that appropriate 
steps have been taken to address the risk of recidivism. Congress would 
have to continue to be notified of such transfers.
  In March of this year, Lt. Gen. John F. Kelly, the head of the U.S. 
Southern Command which has military responsibility for Guantanamo, 
testified to Congress about the massive hunger strikes that were going 
on at the time and said the detainees were devastated at the lack of 
transfers and the government's failure to execute plans to close it as 
the President has promised.
  In June of this year, I traveled to Guantanamo with Senator McCain 
and the President's Chief of Staff to see this devastation for myself. 
On our trip, we saw the process that is used to retain the detainees as 
they are forced from their cells and brought in to be force fed. We did 
not see a detainee being force fed, but we saw the tube that is forced 
up their nose and down their throat into their stomach. It is coated 
with olive oil or Lanacane, if necessary, and it is done daily. We saw 
the restraints--at the legs, the arms, and the head where detainees are 
held--not too different from the image of a death row convict in an 
electric chair.
  I said at the time and I will say it again today, the military and 
civilian personnel at work on Guantanamo are carrying out their duties 
with dedication, skill, and honor. My opposition to continued detention 
at Guantanamo is not an indictment against them; it is with a failed 
and bankrupt policy, including here in Congress, and now is the time to 
change it.
  Another thing that struck me is the enormous costs we are sinking 
into this isolated facility each year. Detention operations at 
Guantanamo now total approximately $5 billion since the facility opened 
in January of 2002. According to the most recent estimates provided by 
the Department of Defense, the total cost for fiscal year 2013 is 
estimated to be $454.1 million, which equals approximately $2.8 million 
per detainee. That works out to be more than 35 times the cost to hold 
the prisoner in a supermax facility in Florence, CO. This supermax 
facility currently houses a number of Al Qaeda terrorists, including 
Zacarias Moussaoui, Shoe Bomber Richard Reid, and the would-be 
Christmas Day Bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
  In this era of sequestration and furloughs, how can we justify 
spending approximately $2.8 million per Guantanamo detainee?
  Now, even with near unanimous support across the current and past 
administration to close the structure, some appear to question whether 
there still is a national security need to shutter the facility. I 
believe it is clear that Guantanamo is still a symbol that motivates 
our enemies and draws more and more young Muslims to fight against the 
United States.
  This is not just my determination but also the finding of our 
intelligence community. Last week, Director of National Intelligence 
James Clapper wrote to the Senate Intelligence Committee noting his 
support for the closure of Guantanamo in which he offered the following 
examples of how Al

[[Page S8173]]

Qaeda and its affiliates continue to reference Guantanamo in 
furtherance of their global jihadist goals.
  Al Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri, in an audio statement in July of this 
year, cited the detention without trial of Gitmo prisoners as one 
indication of American hypocrisy and indiscriminate persecution of 
innocent Muslims. An article about the Boston Marathon bombings, in the 
most recent edition of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's ``Inspire'' 
magazine--this is kind of a diabolical magazine that Al Qaeda puts out 
and this is one published in June--highlighted the ongoing detention of 
prisoners at Gitmo as one of the purported justifications of terrorist 
attacks such as 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings.
  Here is what the article said:

       If we note down all that has been and is still being 
     carried out by America against Muslim nations, we will run 
     out of pages. . . . There is also the secret prisons and 
     black sites file, we could not miss out Guantanamo Bay 
     detention camp. The American Nation should have a good grasp 
     of all of these and other historic facts so that they can 
     comprehend the background and the context of the Boston 
     Marathon operation, Detroit, September 11 and other 
     operations which are barely a wave of anger; vengeance.

  Furthermore, Guantanamo is referenced 20 times in the previous 10 
issues of ``Inspire'' magazine.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from 
the DNI dated November 12, 2013.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             Director of National Intelligence

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Saxby Chambliss,
     Vice Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Chairman and Vice Chairman Chambliss: As the 
     Senate considers provisions of the FY14 National Defense 
     Authorization bill that would lift Guantanamo detainee 
     transfer restrictions. I would like to provide the 
     Intelligence Community's views of the national security 
     implications in maintaining the Guantanamo Bay detention 
     facility (GTMO).
       Al-Qa'ida, its affiliates, and its allies this year 
     continued to reference the detention and purported 
     mistreatment of the detainees at GTMO in furtherance of their 
     global jihadist narratives. The references to GTMO by al-
     Qa'ida and affiliated organizations include:
       Al-Qa'ida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in an audio statement in 
     July 2013 citing the detention without trial of GTMO 
     prisoners as one indication of American hypocrisy and 
     indiscriminate persecution of innocent Muslims and calling 
     for all al-Qa'ida prisoners at GTMO to be released.
       An article about the Boston marathon bombings in the most 
     recent edition of AQAP's Inspire magazine in June 
     highlighting the ongoing detention of prisoners at GTMO as 
     one of the purported justifications to engage in jihad.
       As these examples illustrate, closing the Guantanamo Bay 
     detention facility would deprive al-Qa'ida leaders of the 
     ability to use alleged ongoing mistreatment of detainees to 
     further their global jihadist narrative. In an effort to 
     disrupt the narrative used by terrorists, I support the 
     President's priority of closing the detention facility.
           Sincerely,
                                                 James R. Clapper.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I just visited the 9/11 memorial this 
past Saturday and was extraordinarily moved by that memorial. It is an 
amazing place. It really brings to one's heart the gravity of what that 
situation was. We then went down to the museum and I saw exactly where 
the plane went through the steel superstructure and the staircase where 
hundreds of our people fled with smoke following them down those 
stairs. We must prevent another 9/11.
  I note there is a letter from certain members of the September 11th 
Families for Peaceful Tomorrows that has been sent to us in favor of 
this bill and the detainee transfer provisions in the bill. I ask 
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from the 
September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           Peaceful Tomorrows,

                                  New York, NY, November 18, 2013.
       Dear Senator: We are writing to ask you to support the 
     Guantanamo detainee transfer provisions included in the 
     National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 
     2014, as reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee 
     (SASC). We are all family members of those killed in the
     9/11/2001 terrorist attacks. Since that tragic event, we have 
     worked together as members of September 11th Families for 
     Peaceful Tomorrows [http://www.peacefultomorrows.orgl for 
     long-lasting solutions to the violence that claimed our loved 
     ones' lives.
       In recent years, Guantanamo prison and the on-going 
     Military Commission hearings for the 9/11 suspects at 
     Guantanamo have been a particular focus of our concern and 
     action. We believe closing Guantanamo is good human rights 
     policy and good national security policy. The Guantanamo 
     provisions in the Senate NDAA provide the necessary 
     flexibility to execute that policy responsibly. We urge your 
     support of the Guantanamo provisions in the Senate NDAA and 
     urge you to vote ``no'' on any amendments that would further 
     restrict transfers.
       When Peaceful Tomorrows first organized, we committed to 
     working together to promote U.S. foreign policy that places a 
     priority on internationally-recognized principles of human 
     rights and to calling attention to threats to human rights 
     that might result from U.S. responses to 9/11. Guantanamo has 
     become a stain on our national reputation. Today, it is 
     simply no longer sustainable--ethically, strategically, or 
     financially.
       We are keenly aware of the continuing injustice of holding 
     the 164 prisoners now at Guantanamo prison without trial for 
     these many years. These prisoners have been denied the 
     justice which Americans take pride in as a source of national 
     strength. At the same time, our 9/11 family members continue 
     to be denied justice by the seemingly imperceptible progress 
     of trying those prisoners under the current military 
     commissions. We advocate the immediate release of those who 
     have been cleared for release, and the transfer of the 
     remaining prisoners to be tried in US federal courts, which 
     have successfully tried and convicted scores of terrorists in 
     the past decade.
       More than half of the Guantanamo detainees have long been 
     cleared for transfer by our own national security and 
     intelligence agencies. Current law has needlessly complicated 
     moving these cleared detainees. This law must be revised. The 
     SASC foreign transfer provisions will do that while ensuring 
     that any risks are far outweighed by the dangers of 
     continuing the status quo. Major General Paul Eaton (Ret.) 
     has cautioned that unless we institute change, Guantanamo 
     will serve as ``a recruiting tool of the first order'' for 
     those who wish us harm, while damaging cooperation with our 
     allies on counterterrorism that will result in lost 
     intelligence opportunities. Worse yet is the effect it has 
     had on Americans, corrupting their faith in American values 
     that has taken centuries to build.
       To continue to spend nearly $2.7 million per detainee, per 
     year makes no sense at a time when Congress is wrestling with 
     deep budget cuts. We can institute an intelligent, factor-
     based system that will allow the Secretary of Defense to 
     explain to Congress whether a transfer is in America's 
     national security interests, and the steps that will be taken 
     to mitigate any risk of a detainee engaging in terrorist 
     activities after release.
       In his May speech at the National Defense University, 
     President Obama recommitted his administration to closing 
     Guantanamo. Since that time, the administration has appointed 
     envoys at the Departments of Defense and State to oversee the 
     closure of Guantanamo. This is absolutely the right thing to 
     do now, but Congress must also do its part.
       The Guantanamo provisions in the Senate NDAA clarify and 
     modify the President's authority to transfer detainees to 
     foreign countries and provide important additional 
     flexibility to close Guantanamo responsibly. They replace a 
     cumbersome certification and waiver regime with sensible, 
     factor-based standards designed to minimize risks. They lift 
     the ban on transfers to the United States for criminal 
     prosecution, which is critical now that we see how federal 
     criminal courts offer a more experienced and less costly way 
     to try terrorism suspects than the flawed, costly, 
     inefficient, and perhaps unconstitutional, military 
     commissions system at Guantanamo Bay. The experiment of the 
     military commissions of the 21st century has proven 
     inadequate to its promises of justice, transparency, fairness 
     and speed.
       It is more than twelve years after the heinous attacks in 
     which our loved ones died. During that time some of our 
     fellow 9/11 family members have died waiting to see justice 
     done. Enough is enough! It is time for the U.S. to 
     demonstrate its commitment to the rule of law by moving 
     detainees cleared for release out of Guantanamo, by making 
     federal trials for those who are accused of terrorist crimes 
     possible, and by taking steps to close the Guantanamo 
     facilities that have earned the U.S. the enmity of the world. 
     We exhort you to pass the NDAA without transfer restrictions 
     on Guantanamo prisoners, and help to bring this horrible 
     chapter to a close in our lifetimes.
       Our relatives died on 9/11; they would never have wanted 
     the U.S. to compromise its principles in their names, nor do 
     we.
           Sincerely,
                                     The Members of September 11th
                                  Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, by the end of President Obama's term 
in office, some detainees will have been held at Guantanamo without 
charge or trial for 15 years--15 years. We need to change this outcome, 
and we can do so

[[Page S8174]]

with no threat to our Nation's security.
  For one detainee, Ibrahim Idris, his physical and mental problems at 
Guantanamo have gone on for so long that the government decided to 
finally drop its opposition to his legal argument that he is far too 
sick to stay locked up. There are others at Guantanamo who are 
desperate and in need of medical treatment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may finish this paragraph.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the time 
of the Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the chairman.
  That is why section 32 of this Defense bill will allow the Department 
of Defense to temporarily transfer Guantanamo detainees to the United 
States for emergency or critical medical treatment. No one is talking 
about releasing these detainees into the United States. The section is 
about providing medical care to people in our custody.
  The other Guantanamo provisions in this year's defense bill clarify 
and improve the existing authority to transfer detainees out of 
Guantanamo, to other nations, responsibly. Specifically, Section 1031 
replaces a cumbersome six-part certification requirement and partial 
waiver regime in current law with a more sensible, factor-based 
standard designed to mitigate any risks, but allow transfers to foreign 
countries and into the U.S. for criminal prosecution.
  Let me be clear about this last point: Al Qaeda terrorists should be 
transferred to the U.S. for prosecution in Federal criminal courts 
because for some of them, Federal criminal court is the only option 
left besides indefinite detention or release.
  I regret to say this, but the military commission system at 
Guantanamo has failed. Although the issue is being appealed, under 
current law, the military commission system cannot be used to prosecute 
the terrorists at Gitmo for the crimes of material support and 
conspiracy, which are two crimes commonly charged in federal criminal 
court. That restriction has complicated the efforts of the military 
prosecutors to convict terrorists.
  Don't we want the chance to bring these terrorists to justice instead 
of releasing them or holding them forever without charge? Wasn't the 
reason we passed these criminal penalties into law so that they could 
be used against terrorists such as those Al Qaeda members who conspired 
against the United States, or aided the terrorists involved in the 
attacks of September 11?
  Now that we have been able to observe the different iterations of the 
military commission system over the years, it is clear that it does not 
provide swift justice for either the detainees or the victims who want 
to see these accused terrorists brought to justice. Consider the 
following information about the military commission system.
  Military commission prosecutions have led to short sentences and zero 
death penalty convictions.
  Three of seven individuals convicted in military commissions are 
already out of prison living freely in their home countries of Yemen, 
Australia, and Sudan. A fourth detainee who was convicted could be 
released from Guantanamo later this year, a fifth is serving his 
sentence in Canada, and a sixth now has his case on appeal.
  Military Commissions at Guantanamo have cost the U.S. $600 million 
since 2007. That's $600 million to prosecute seven people.
  By comparison, Federal criminal courts offer a more experienced and 
less constitutionally risky venue. There have been 533 terrorism-
related convictions in Federal criminal courts since 9/11.
  The President should have the option to add some of the detainees 
currently at Guantanamo to that conviction list. Section 1033 of this 
year's defense authorization bill will allow the Secretary of Defense 
to transfer Gitmo detainees to the U.S. for detention and trial if the 
Secretary of Defense determines that, No. 1, doing so is in the U.S. 
national security interest, and No. 2, that public safety issues have 
been addressed.
  Allowing detainees to be brought to the U.S. and charged in Federal 
court will work to put an end to the delay of justice and the extreme 
cost of the experimental justice system at Guantanamo Bay. It is the 
quickest and best way to ensure detainees will answer for their 
terrorist crimes and serve out long prison sentences.
  For those relatively few detainees who can't be tried but instead 
have been slated for continued detention until the end of hostilities, 
bringing them to the United States presents a more cost-effective and 
less controversial option. Facilities in the United States are up to 
the task. I don't believe there is any more risk of a Guantanamo 
detainee escaping from a maximum security facility than there is from a 
prisoner getting out of Supermax. It has never been done.
  I know transferring Guantanamo detainees out of the facility where 
they have been for 10 or more years is not politically popular. These 
are not easy decisions, but we have to consider the alternatives.
  Do we want 84 detainees who have been cleared for transfer to other 
countries to languish in our prison any longer? Again, ``cleared for 
transfer,'' doesn't mean these detainees will automatically go free. 
``Cleared for transfer'' means they could still be detained by foreign 
governments after they are transferred.
  Do we want detainees who could be prosecuted quickly and serve long 
prison sentences to avoid being brought to justice any longer?
  Isn't it time to close Guantanamo once and for all? I believe 
Guantanamo is, has been, and always will be a dark spot on our history, 
so the sooner we get rid of it, the better.
  I support the Guantanamo language included in this bill by Chairman 
Levin and ask my colleagues to support the Levin-McCain Amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee.
  Mr. President, I rise, as the Senator from California did, in support 
of a tough, adaptable, and smart national security policy. What do I 
mean by that? In this case, that means we ought to support provisions 
that provide the Department of Defense and the President with the 
flexibility necessary to transfer certain detainees from the detention 
facility at Guantanamo to face justice in other venues. In that 
context, I am proud to join Chairman Levin and Senator McCain and 
Senator Feinstein in sponsoring this important bipartisan amendment. 
For a number of reasons, I strongly believe its passage would 
strengthen our national security and is in the best interests of our 
country.
  I am joined in that assessment by the Director of National 
Intelligence, the Secretary of Defense, and many other senior national 
security leaders, including at least 38 retired generals and admirals 
who helped to prosecute the war against Islamic extremists.
  This amendment does not close Guantanamo. It doesn't require the 
release of detainees into the United States or force the transfer of 
suspected terrorists to foreign countries. This amendment simply 
provides the administration with the flexibility to bring justice to 
Gitmo detainees in the most effective, efficient means possible.
  The fact is that civilian courts have convicted over 400 suspected 
terrorists since 2001. The conviction rate for terrorist suspects in 
article III courts; that is, civilian courts, is nearly 90 percent. 
During the same period, a grand total of seven detainees at Guantanamo 
have been convicted by military commissions, and of those seven, two 
convictions were overturned.
  There are circumstances in which military commissions are 
appropriate. I would agree with some of my colleagues that there are 
detainees held at Guantanamo who should face trial in a military 
commission. But the fact is that in many cases the civilian court 
system is faster, it is more efficient and more effective at bringing 
terrorists to justice than military commissions. So why would we 
handcuff ourselves and limit our options to bring accused terrorists to 
justice?

[[Page S8175]]

  Our enemy already knows we are tough. We have pursued them all over 
the globe. We have eliminated their leaders and we have killed or 
captured many of their followers. But we can be tough and we can be 
smart at the same time. Handcuffing our military and Justice Department 
in their efforts to bring our enemies to justice is simply shortsighted 
and counterproductive. Doing so only impedes justice, erodes the image 
of the United States, and serves as a recruiting tool for a new 
generation of terrorists.
  According to the Defense Department, we are spending about $450 
million a year to keep Gitmo open. And the DOD is going to need 
hundreds of millions more for upgrades and repairs if the facility 
stays open. That situation is unsustainable, especially at a time of 
sequestration and rising budget deficits. Without action by Congress, 
those costs will continue to climb as detainees get older and sicker, 
and our moral standing will suffer the longer we hold people without 
trial.
  Based on evidence, I have faith in our justice system to secure 
convictions in terrorist cases. We have a system of justice second to 
none and prisons that already hold some of the most dangerous criminals 
in the world. There is no question that these individuals who have been 
convicted and sentenced will be detained for the rest of their lives 
with no risk to our citizens.
  We have proven it time and time again. As a member of the Armed 
Services and Intelligence Committees, I receive frequent briefings and 
reports on our counterterrorism efforts around the world. I know this: 
I know this amendment will let us continue to prove it again and again 
in the future.
  In sum, the Levin-McCain-Feinstein-Udall amendment benefits our 
national security and should be passed by the Senate without delay.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 4 minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to yield an 
additional 5 minutes above the 4\1/2\ minutes to Senator Durbin. I 
understand if that means there is less time left than allotted to the 
other side, I would ask unanimous consent that additional time be used 
at 5 o'clock and the vote would then occur a few minutes after 5.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do not object, but specifically we have 
a request by the prime author of this amendment to be under 
consideration at 5 o'clock to have 5 minutes. So I assume the thrust of 
the Senator's UC request is to give her 5 minutes, even if it happens 
to fall starting at 5 o'clock.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is the Senator from New Hampshire available at 5 minutes 
to 5? If that is true, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
modify that previous UC request to provide 10 minutes to the Senator 
from Illinois and the last 5 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleague and 
friend from the State of Oklahoma for yielding time and the Senator 
from Michigan for manufacturing this close so both sides will be heard 
as we come to this important vote.
  For 11 years now--for 11 years--I have been coming to the Senate 
floor giving speeches about closing Guantanamo. This is my 66th speech 
calling for the closure of Guantanamo. This year I held a hearing in 
the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and 
Human Rights. I brought in military experts, and I asked them: Do we 
need Guantanamo? Here is what they said. In fact, here is what we heard 
from Retired MG Paul Eaton, who served for 30 years in the Army and was 
the commanding general of the Coalition Military Assistance Training 
Team in Iraq. He said:

       Guantanamo is a terrorist creating institution and is a 
     direct facilitator in filling out the ranks of Al Qaeda and 
     other terror organizations that would attack the U.S. or our 
     interests.

  General Eaton said:

       Guantanamo, in military terms, is a recruitment tool of the 
     first order.

  Then I went down to the Southern Command in Miami, FL, and I met with 
the generals there who have the responsibility of running Guantanamo. 
When I asked them about Guantanamo, there was a sadness that came over 
the conversation, and they talked about how difficult it was--with 
about 160 or 165 detainees remaining down there--how difficult and how 
expensive it was for them to maintain that facility. They accepted it. 
It was part of their responsibility being in our military. But they 
basically said to me: When is Congress going to accept its 
responsibility?
  The Levin-McCain amendment before us accepts our responsibility.
  Let's get down to the bottom line. Whether you think these terrorists 
should be at Guantanamo or not in Guantanamo, let's talk about 
something very basic and very simple. How much does it cost for us to 
keep in prison one person in Guantanamo for 1 year? It is $2.7 
million--$2.7 million per prisoner per year.
  How much does it cost the Federal taxpayers to take the most 
dangerous, blood-thirsty, deadly individual we convict in our criminal 
courts and put them in the Florence supermax facility in Colorado, 
where no prisoner has ever escaped? Mr. President, $70,000 a year.
  What are we trying to prove? Are we trying to prove in Guantanamo how 
much money we can spend--let me add waste--on a facility that is 
totally unnecessary?
  I asked the Director of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons a very basic 
question: If we sent the most dangerous terrorist at Guantanamo to 
Florence, CO, what is the likelihood that person would escape? He said: 
Zero. They do not escape from our supermax facilities.
  So we are not keeping America safe by wasting--wasting--$450 million 
a year in Guantanamo. We know that roughly half of those who are being 
held at Guantanamo should be released. They are not going to be tried 
for a crime at this point. They should be released. What the Levin-
McCain amendment does is to set up an orderly, thoughtful, sensible way 
for the transfer of these prisoners.
  Why do we keep this Guantanamo open? What is the point? It is as if 
some lobbyist has us enthralled that we have to keep Guantanamo open. 
It is not about national security anymore. It is not about the cost of 
incarceration anymore. It is about something else that I cannot even 
define.
  So what we need to do is to take those remaining in Guantanamo who 
can be charged, charge them, try them, incarcerate them. Those who are 
going to be a danger to the United States should never see the light of 
day. But why would we continue to waste $2.7 million per year per 
prisoner to keep Guantanamo open?
  Throughout its history, Guantanamo has had a checkered past. It is 
part of Cuba. We send the Cuban Government each year a rental check for 
the Guantanamo facility. They never cash it. They may tear them up. 
They do maintain the minefield between Guantanamo and the rest of the 
Island of Cuba to make sure there is no travel between the two, not 
that anyone would try. That is it. We maintain this facility because in 
the earliest days of our fight against terrorism after 9/11, there were 
legal counsels in the White House, such as John Yoo, who said that 
Guantanamo Bay was the ``legal equivalent of outer space.'' We could 
put people there. They will have no rights and no one will ever know. 
How wrong he was.
  Guantanamo has become such a sad symbol that it is time for it to be 
closed, and it is time for us to do it in a thoughtful, sensible, 
honorable way, as every great nation should. To maintain Guantanamo for 
some bragging right that I cannot even describe on the floor is simply 
unacceptable.
  I am going to be opposing the amendment that is offered by the 
Senator from New Hampshire and supporting the Levin-McCain bipartisan 
amendment, which I think deals with this issue in a thoughtful and 
reasonable way.
  Do you want to keep America safe? Take those prisoners, those 
convicted terrorists, and put them in a supermax facility. If you say 
to yourself, oh, we don't put known terrorists and convicted terrorists 
in our Federal prison system, how wrong you are. They are all over our 
Federal prison system. We have convicted terrorists who are 
incarcerated in Marion, IL. Drive down

[[Page S8176]]

to southern Illinois and no one even knows it because they will never 
see the light of day--never.
  So in terms of safety in America, we know how to keep America safe. 
We also know when we are wasting money. At this point in time, we are 
wasting money with this Guantanamo facility.
  Let's transfer those for detention and trial into the appropriate 
places and have them tried successfully. I think we have had perhaps 
six or seven tried by military commissions--only six or seven--since 9/
11, and two of those were reversed. Most of them go into our court 
system. Even when they read them Miranda rights, it does not stop the 
convictions. The convictions come through regularly because our people 
know how to convict those who would threaten the United States and make 
it dangerous.
  It is worth taking a moment to recall the history of Guantanamo Bay.
  After 9/11, the Bush administration decided to set aside the Geneva 
Conventions, which have served us well in past conflicts, and set up an 
offshore prison in Guantanamo in order to evade the requirements of our 
Constitution.
  General Colin Powell, who was then the Secretary of State, objected. 
He said disregarding our treaty obligations, ``will undermine the 
protections of the law of war for our own troops . . . It will 
undermine public support among critical allies, making military 
cooperation more difficult to sustain.''
  At the hearing that I held in the Constitution Subcommittee, we 
received testimony from Retired MG Michael Lehnert, who served in the 
Marine Corps for 37 years. General Lehnert led the first Joint Task 
Force Guantanamo, which established the detention facility in 2002. 
General Lehnert testified that he tried to comply with the Geneva 
Conventions, but he was rebuked by civilian political appointees in the 
Bush administration. General Lehnert testified:

       ``We squandered the good will of the world after we were 
     attacked by our actions in Guantanamo. . . . Our decision to 
     keep Guantanamo open has actually helped our enemies because 
     it validated every negative perception of the United States. 
     . . . To argue that we cannot transfer detainees to a secure 
     facility in the United States because it would be a threat to 
     public security is ludicrous.

  Instead of taking the advice of General Powell and General Lehnert, 
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved the use of abusive 
interrogation techniques at Guantanamo.
  Guantanamo became an international embarrassment, and the Supreme 
Court repeatedly struck down the Bush administration's detention 
policies.
  Let's be clear, conditions at Guantanamo Bay have improved 
dramatically since the detainee abuses of the previous administration.
  But we cannot continue the indefinite detention of dozens of 
detainees in an offshore island prison. Gen. Paul Eaton said it well 
when he testified to my subcommittee:

       Guantanamo cannot be buffed enough to shine again after the 
     sins of the past. . . . Guantanamo's reputation for torture 
     and lack of due process of law cannot be rectified.

  Every day, the soldiers and sailors serving at Guantanamo Bay are 
doing a magnificent job under difficult circumstances.
  But these fine young men and women are being asked to carry out an 
unsustainable policy of indefinite detention because we--their 
political leaders--have failed to close Guantanamo prison.
  The President's authority has been limited by Congress. We have 
enacted restrictions on detainee transfers that make it nearly 
impossible to close the facility.
  During his two terms in office, Congress never once restricted 
President Bush's authority to transfer Guantanamo detainees.
  Congress did not start micromanaging the Commander in Chief's 
authority to transfer detainees until 2009, after President Obama took 
office.
  The Obama administration believes that Congress should completely 
lift the restrictions on the President's authority to close Guantanamo 
detention facility. I agree.
  But I will support the Levin-McCain amendment, which is a 
constructive step in the right direction. The Levin-McCain amendment 
would give the President more flexibility to move forward with closing 
Guantanamo, while still imposing significant restrictions on the 
administration's authority to transfer detainees.
  Under the Levin-McCain amendment, the Secretary of Defense may 
transfer a Guantanamo detainee to the United States, but only for the 
purpose of detention, trial, and incarceration. The Secretary of 
Defense must ``determine that the transfer is in the national security 
interest of the United States.'' And he must ensure that appropriate 
steps have been taken to eliminate any risk to public safety while the 
detainee is in the United States. The McCain-Levin amendment also 
specifically prohibits any detainee who is transferred to the U.S. for 
detention or trial from applying for asylum or from being released into 
the United States.
  Before the administration would be permitted to transfer any 
detainees to the U.S., they would have to produce a detailed report on 
the plans for each and every detainee who is currently held at 
Guantanamo Bay.
  The Defense Authorization Act also would allow the Secretary of 
Defense to temporarily transfer a detainee to a military medical 
facility in the United States, if the detainee needs critical, 
emergency care in order to prevent death or an imminent significant 
injury.
  The Secretary of Defense would only be authorized to make such 
transfers if the required medical care cannot be provided at Guantanamo 
Bay ``without incurring excessive and unreasonable costs.''
  Moreover, the Defense Department would have complete responsibility 
for the custody and control of any detainee during their transfer and 
temporary hospitalization at a military medical facility.
  Detainees receiving temporary emergency medical care would not remain 
in the United States. The bill specifically requires that they be 
returned to Guantanamo as soon as they are medically cleared to travel.
  Under the Defense authorization bill, the administration could only 
transfer detainees to foreign countries in limited circumstances. 
Specifically, first, the Secretary of Defense must determine that it is 
in the national security interest of the United States to transfer a 
particular detainee to a given country. Second, the Secretary of 
Defense must determine that sufficient steps have been taken that will 
substantially mitigate the risk of recidivism.
  But that is not all. The bill requires the Secretary to consider six 
factors when determining whether a transfer is in the national security 
interest of the United States, including: No. 1, actions taken by the 
United States or the host country to reduce the risk of recidivism; No. 
2, the host country's control over any facility where the detainee may 
be held; No. 3, an assessment of the capacity and willingness of the 
host country to meet its assurances to help mitigate recidivism; and 
No. 4, the detainee's cooperation with U.S. intelligence and law 
enforcement forces.
  These provisions would ensure that--before any detainee is 
transferred to a foreign country--the administration would conduct a 
thorough review of all relevant factors, with a primary focus on 
preserving our national security.
  In contrast to the McCain-Levin amendment, the Ayotte amendment would 
continue and expand the existing detainee transfer restrictions, which 
would micromanage the Commander in Chief's national security decisions 
and make it impossible to close Guantanamo.
  It is time to move forward with shutting down Guantanamo prison. We 
can transfer most of the detainees to foreign countries. And we can 
bring the others to the United States for detention and trial.
  Look at the track record. Since 9/11, nearly 500 terrorists have been 
tried and convicted in Federal courts and are now being safely held in 
Federal prisons. And no one has ever escaped from a Federal supermax 
prison or a military prison.
  In contrast, only six individuals have been convicted by military 
commissions, and two of these convictions have been overturned by the 
courts. And today, nearly 12 years after the 9/11 attacks, the 
architects of the 9/11 attacks are still awaiting trial at Guantanamo.

[[Page S8177]]

  During his confirmation hearing, I discussed this with FBI Director 
Jim Comey, who was Deputy Attorney General in the Bush administration. 
Mr. Comey told me:

       We have about a 20-year track record in handling 
     particularly Al Qaeda cases in federal courts. . . the 
     federal courts and federal prosecutors are effective at 
     accomplishing two goals in every one of these situations: 
     getting information and incapacitating the terrorists.

  I have heard some of my Republican colleagues argue that we cannot 
close Guantanamo because of the risk that some detainees may engage in 
terrorist activities.
  The irony is that due to steps taken by President Obama, recidivism 
rates for the detainees transferred during the Obama administration are 
far lower than they were during the Bush administration.
  Only 4.2 percent of former detainees transferred since January 22, 
2009, when President Obama took office, are confirmed recidivists. In 
contrast, 18.2 percent of the detainees released during the Bush 
administration are confirmed recidivists.
  That is because the Obama administration put in place a strict 
process for detainee transfers. According to the Director of National 
Intelligence, of the 174 former detainees who are confirmed or 
suspected recidivists, only 7 have been transferred during the Obama 
administration.
  No one is suggesting that closing Guantanamo is risk free or that no 
detainees will ever engage in terrorist activities if they are 
transferred.
  But our national security and military leaders have concluded that 
the risk of keeping Guantanamo open far outweighs the risk of closing 
it because the facility continues to harm our alliances and serve as a 
recruitment tool for terrorists.
  And before any detainees are transferred, they are extensively 
screened, steps are taken to mitigate any risks, and then detainees are 
monitored after they are transferred. Detainees who pose a risk that 
cannot be mitigated will not be transferred.
  Detainees who pose a risk that cannot be mitigated will not be 
transferred. And if a former detainee does return to terrorism, he will 
likely meet the fate of Said al-Shihri, No. 2 official in Al Qaeda in 
the Arabian Peninsula, who was recently killed in a drone strike.
  I stand with Gen. Colin Powell, Gen. Paul Eaton, Gen. Michael Lehnert 
and countless other national security and military leaders.
  It is time to end this sad chapter of our history. Eleven years is 
far too long. We need to close Guantanamo.
  I thank Senator Levin and Senator McCain for bringing this issue 
before us. We can no longer ignore it. We cannot afford to ignore it. 
As General Eaton says, we cannot afford to keep this recruiting tool 
open for Al Qaeda. We cannot afford to continue to tell American 
taxpayers they need to pay $2.7 million a year for every prisoner in 
Guantanamo. Transfer them to a supermax prison for $70,000. America 
will be just as safe. It will have money in the bank to use to fight 
terrorism in more effective ways.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Levin-McCain amendment and oppose 
the Ayotte amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 2255. 
Let me just say what we cannot afford. What we cannot afford is to read 
terrorists Miranda rights and tell them they have the right to remain 
silent.
  Why can't we afford that? Because if we lose the opportunity to 
gather valuable information to protect our Nation, then we cannot 
prevent future attacks against the country.
  Here is the problem we face. Here, shown in this picture I have in 
the Chamber, is the current head of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri. If we 
capture him tomorrow, I ask my colleagues this: Do you want to send him 
to a secure detention facility where he can be fully interrogated under 
the laws of war and held there in detention under law of war authority 
or do you want to send him to a prison in the United States where we 
cannot know--the legal questions are many--where there is a real risk 
that he will not be able to be held in law of war detention and will be 
told you have the right to remain silent, and we will lose 
opportunities to gather intelligence to protect our country.
  My colleague from Illinois talked about the worst criminals whom we 
put in prison. I am a former murder prosecutor, and I put some of the 
worst murderers in prison. There is a difference. We are not dealing 
with criminals; we are dealing with terrorists. The priority has to be 
to gather information and protect our country. If we catch Zawahiri 
tomorrow, bring him to a prison near you, give him a lawyer, tell him 
he has the right to remain silent, those legal questions are not dealt 
with if we adopt the alternative amendment that allows the 
administration to transfer people such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the 
mastermind of 9/11, to the United States.
  What do we do with future captures, such as Zawahiri? How do we 
ensure we can gather information? By the way, that is priceless. If we 
can stop a terrorist attack by interrogating someone--the price we can 
save for America, we cannot put a number on that.
  If you believe, with a rising reengagement rate of 29 percent--which 
is higher than last year in terms of people we have had at Guantanamo, 
we have let go but have gotten back in the fight against us--that we 
should weaken the standards this administration has to meet to transfer 
people from Guantanamo to third-party countries, then that is 
essentially what is done in the Defense authorization.
  My amendment will restore existing law to ensure that there are 
strong national security waivers the administration must meet before 
they transfer prisoners to countries where they are getting back in the 
fight against us, where they are getting out and getting back in the 
fight, including against our troops.
  So this is a fundamental question. We cannot afford right now, with 
what is happening around the world, to close the one secure detention 
facility we have, and it is clear we can conduct law of war detentions 
there. We still remain in a fight against terrorists. We cannot treat 
them like common criminals. That is what is at stake.
  If you believe this man shown in this picture should come to a prison 
near you, that is not what I have heard from my constituents or the 
American people. That is why my amendment will prohibit the transfer of 
the mastermind of 9/11 to U.S. soil and keep him in Guantanamo, a top-
rate detention facility that keeps terrorists, as opposed to common 
criminals, secure.
  Finally, I would say, as we look at the prohibition on Yemen, my 
amendment, which is also cosponsored by the ranking member of the 
Intelligence Committee and many other Members in this Chamber, would 
prevent transfers to the country of Yemen. Without my amendment, the 
administration could transfer terrorists to Yemen. What does that mean? 
Yemen is where Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is centered. We have 
actually had terrorists who have been released from Guantanamo and gone 
back into Al Qaeda leadership and been found in Yemen and there have 
been prison breaks in Yemen. Yet if my amendment is not adopted to 
prohibit transfers to Yemen, the administration can transfer detainees 
from Guantanamo to countries such as Yemen, and the security 
requirements are weakened.
  The world is not a safer place from last year to this year, 
unfortunately. The reengagement rate of Guantanamo prisoners has 
increased from last year to this year.
  Why are we weakening the national security provisions? Let's keep 
existing law in place. Why do we want to send Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to 
the United States of America when we have a secure facility at 
Guantanamo? Why do we want to take any risk that if we are blessed 
enough to have our men and women in uniform--who do a fantastic job--
capture Zawahiri tomorrow, that he may have to be told ``you have the 
right to remain silent'' because there are legal ambiguities when he is 
brought to this country, as opposed to law-of-war detention and 
interrogation in Guantanamo? This is what is at stake.
  We cannot afford to think we are no longer fighting a war against 
terrorists. We cannot afford to treat people like him as common 
criminals. As much as I believe in our criminal justice system, it was 
not created to gather intelligence, which is what we need

[[Page S8178]]

to do to make sure America remains safe.
  I ask my colleagues to support amendment No. 2255, which is 
cosponsored also by Senator Chambliss, the ranking Republican on the 
Intelligence Committee; Senator Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the 
Armed Services Committee; as well as Senator Fischer, Senator Rubio, 
and Senator Barrasso.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
letters from Secretary Hagel, Secretary Kerry, Attorney General Holder, 
and the Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          Secretary of Defense

                                     Washington, DC, Nov 19, 2013.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write regarding the President's goal 
     of closing the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility and to note 
     the importance of lifting the restrictions on detainee 
     transfers that prevent us from achieving that goal. These 
     restrictions make it difficult to transfer detainees and to 
     close Guantanamo. They are also unnecessary. Before 
     transferring a detainee, this Administration will always 
     ensure the receiving country commits to taking necessary 
     measures to ensure that the detainee's threat is mitigated 
     and the detainee will not be mistreated.
       As you know, I recently appointed Mr. Paul Lewis as the 
     Department's Special Envoy for Guantanamo transfers. Special 
     Envoy Lewis will work closely with the State Department's 
     Special Envoy, Mr. Cliff Sloan, to meet with foreign 
     governments and negotiate these assurances. Eliminating or 
     easing the congressionally mandated transfer restrictions 
     would help facilitate our ongoing efforts to transfer 
     detainees once those assurances have been obtained.
       The President's proposal to transfer some individuals to 
     the United States for detention or trial, where appropriate, 
     would also help facilitate our efforts to close the facility 
     at Guantanamo, potentially saving U.S. taxpayers millions of 
     dollars each year.
       As always, the Department is prepared to provide additional 
     briefings on the closing of the Guantanamo Bay Detention 
     Facility. A similar letter has been sent to the other 
     congressional defense committees.
       Thank you.
           Sincerely,
     Chuck Hagel.
                                  ____



                                       The Secretary of State,

                                Washington, DC, November 13, 2013.
     Hon. Robert Menendez,
     Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The continued operation of the 
     Guantanamo Bay detention facility undermines U.S. national 
     security and foreign policy interests. I seek your support 
     for the provisions in the Senate Fiscal Year 2014 National, 
     Defense Authorization Act that would provide flexibility for 
     detainee transfers and strike unmanageable provisions that 
     currently hinder our efforts to close the facility.
       The continued operation of the Guantanamo facility damages 
     U.S. diplomatic relations and our standing in the world. It 
     undermines America's indispensable leadership on human rights 
     and other critical foreign policy and national security 
     matters. In particular, the Guantanamo detention facility 
     consistently impedes joint counterterrorism efforts with 
     friends and allies. Provisions in the Senate bill would 
     provide an effective, yet judicious, transfer authority which 
     would provide critical support and flexibility in ongoing 
     negotiations with foreign governments on repatriation and 
     resettlement issues.
       With increasing fiscal challenges, we must bear in mind 
     that, aside from its incalculable diplomatic costs, detention 
     operations at Guantanamo cost U.S. taxpayers more than $2.7 
     million per detainee each year--far more than our super 
     maximum security prisons that safely and securely hold the 
     most dangerous inmates in the world, including convicted 
     terrorists. As both detainees and facilities age, these costs 
     will sharply increase.
       I hope I can count on your support for the Guantanamo 
     provisions in the Senate Defense Authorization bill to 
     provide us the flexibility we need to close the Guantanamo 
     Bay detention facility. Until this flexibility is restored, 
     our efforts to close the facility are hampered and our 
     national security and foreign policy interests continue to be 
     impeded.
           Sincerely,
     John F. Kerry.
                                  ____

                                    Office of the Attorney General
                                 Washington, DC, November 14 2013.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: As the 
     Senate prepares to consider the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for FY2014, I write to reiterate the 
     longstanding objections of the Department of Justice to any 
     provisions that would continue to restrict the transfer of 
     detainees from Guantanamo, limit the ability of the Executive 
     Branch to determine when and where to prosecute terrorist 
     suspects, and otherwise prevent the President from taking 
     steps to bring about the orderly closure of the facility. 
     Such restrictions encroach on the ability of the Executive 
     Branch to make foreign policy and national security decisions 
     and would, in certain circumstances, violate separation of 
     powers principles.
       The unwarranted restrictions on the Executive branch's 
     authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country should 
     be eliminated. Detainees were designated for transfer based 
     on an interagency consensus after a thorough review of all 
     available information. Restricting the ability of the 
     Executive Branch to implement appropriate transfers weakens 
     our national security by wasting resources, damaging our 
     relationships with key allies, and strengthening our enemies.
       I also continue to object strongly to the restrictions on 
     transferring Guantanamo detainees to the United States for 
     any purpose. The prosecution of terrorists in Federal court 
     has long been an essential element of our counterterrorism 
     efforts and has been a powerful tool of proven effectiveness. 
     Since 9/11, hundreds of convictions have been obtained on 
     terrorism or terrorism-related charges in our Federal courts, 
     including the convictions of over 165 defendants since 2009. 
     The effectiveness of this system was underscored again on 
     October 24, 2013 when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
     Second Circuit affirmed the conviction and life sentence of 
     Ahmed Ghailani, who was transferred from Guantanamo and then 
     convicted in federal district court of conspiracy in 
     connection with his role in the 1998 East Africa embassy 
     bombings. There is no justification for prohibiting the 
     Federal prosecution of Guantanamo detainees in appropriate 
     cases. As you are aware, the viability of conspiracy and 
     material support prosecutions in military commissions is 
     unresolved in light of adverse D.C. Circuit decisions that 
     currently are under review by the full court. Particularly in 
     view of these rulings, Congress should restore the option to 
     prosecute detainees in Federal court in circumstances where 
     the Executive Branch determines that a Federal prosecution is 
     the surest way to protect our national security. Our federal 
     prisons are fully capable of housing Guantanamo detainees 
     safely, securely, and humanely, just as they have done for 
     the hundreds of defendants serving sentences for terrorism-
     related offenses since September 11, 2001.
       If we are to safeguard the American people, we must be in a 
     position to employ every lawful instrument of national 
     power--including both courts and military commissions--to 
     ensure that terrorists are brought to justice and can no 
     longer threaten American lives. Moreover, if we are to 
     protect our national security and advance our foreign policy 
     objectives, the President must have the ability to transfer 
     detainees when doing so serves our national interests. I urge 
     you to reject any legislative proposals that would compromise 
     our ability to carry out that solemn responsibility.
           Sincerely yours,
                                               Eric H. Holder, Jr.
     Attorney General.
                                  ____

                                 Director of National Intelligence
                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Saxby Chambliss,
     Vice Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Chairman and Vice Chairman Chambliss: As the 
     Senate considers provisions of the FY14 National Defense 
     Authorization bill that would lift Guantanamo detainee 
     transfer restrictions, I would like to provide the 
     Intelligence Community's views of the national security 
     implications in maintaining the Guantanamo Bay detention 
     facility (GTMO).
       Al-Qa'ida, its affiliates, and its allies this year 
     continued to reference the detention and purported 
     mistreatment of the detainees at GTMO in furtherance of their 
     global jihadist narratives. The references to GTMO by al-
     Qa'ida and affiliated organizations include:
       Al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in an audio statement in 
     July 2013 citing the detention without trial of GTMO 
     prisoners as one indication of American hypocrisy and 
     indiscriminate persecution of innocent Muslims and calling 
     for all al-Qa'ida prisoners at GTMO to be released.
       An article about the Boston marathon bombings in the most 
     recent edition of AQAP's Inspire magazine in June 
     highlighting the ongoing detention of prisoners at GTMO as 
     one of the purported justifications to engage in jihad.
       As these examples illustrate, closing the Guantanamo Bay 
     detention facility would deprive al-Qa'ida leaders of the 
     ability to use alleged ongoing mistreatment of detainees to 
     further their global jihadist narrative. In an effort to 
     disrupt the narrative used by terrorists, I support the 
     President's priority of closing the detention facility.
           Sincerely,
                                                 James R. Clapper.


[[Page S8179]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Under the previous order, the 
question occurs on Ayotte amendment No. 2255.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Isakson).
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 237 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--55

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Blunt
     Isakson
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.


                           Amendment No. 2175

  Under the previous order, there will be 2 minutes equally divided 
prior to a vote on the Levin-McCain amendment No. 2175.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, this amendment is a Levin-McCain-
Feinstein-Udall amendment. It clarifies that Gitmo detainees would not 
gain any additional legal rights as a result of their transfer to the 
United States for detention. Any Gitmo detainee who is transferred to 
the United States gains no additional legal rights. They also are not 
permitted to be released inside the United States. They do not lose 
their status as unprivileged enemy belligerents eligible for detention 
and trial under the law of war. If they are transferred to the United 
States, they gain no additional right to challenge their detention 
beyond the habeas corpus that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.
  I would hope this could be broadly supported.
  Senator McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I have a letter from 38 retired flag and 
general officers of the U.S. military, and I quote from their letter:

       As retired flag and general officers, we believe it is 
     imperative for Congress to address Guantanamo now. We have 
     always believed that our detention policies should adhere to 
     the rule of law, and that we as a Nation are more secure when 
     we do. Guantanamo is a betrayal of American values. The 
     prison is a symbol of torture and justice delayed. More than 
     a decade after it opened, Guantanamo remains a recruiting 
     poster for terrorists which makes us all less safe.

  I would also point out for my colleagues that Guantanamo has cost 
more than $400 million in the last two fiscal years, and the Department 
of Defense estimates that is $2.7 million per detainee per year.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from 
which I just quoted.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                November 13, 2013.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: As retired flag and general officers, 
     we believe it is imperative for Congress to address 
     Guantanamo now. We have always believed that our detention 
     policies should adhere to the rule of law, and that we as a 
     nation are more secure when we do. Guantanamo is a betrayal 
     of American values. The prison is a symbol of torture and 
     justice delayed. More than a decade after it opened, 
     Guantanamo remains a recruiting poster for terrorists which 
     makes us all less safe. As the United States ends the war in 
     Afghanistan in 2014, the government must find a lawful 
     disposition for all detainees captured as part of that war. 
     Spending $2.7 million per detainee annually at Guantanamo, 
     when a comparable facility in the United States costs 
     taxpayers only $34,000-$78,000, is fiscally irresponsible, 
     especially as our military must make significant budget cuts 
     under sequestration.
       The Senate National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as 
     reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee would 
     provide a meaningful step towards responsibly closing 
     Guantanamo. It authorizes the transfer of detainees cleared 
     for transfer by the U.S. intelligence and defense agencies 
     for purposes of resettlement or repatriation, and it permits 
     transfers to the U.S. for purposes of prosecution, 
     incarceration and medical treatment. We support these 
     provisions, and oppose any efforts to impose more stringent 
     restrictions on the transfer of detainees out of Guantanamo.
           Sincerely,
         General Joseph P. Hoar, USMC (Ret.); General Charles C. 
           Krulak, USMC (Ret.); General Ronald H. Griffith, USA 
           (Ret.); General David M. Maddox, USA (Ret.); General 
           William G. T. Tuttle, Jr., USA (Ret.); Vice Admiral 
           Richard Carmona, USPHSCC (Ret.); Lieutenant General 
           John Castellaw, USMC (Ret.); Lieutenant General Robert 
           G. Gard, Jr., USA (Ret.); Lieutenant General Arlen D. 
           Jameson, USAF (Ret.); Lieutenant General Claudia J. 
           Kennedy, USA (Ret.); Lieutenant General Charles 
           Otstott, USA (Ret.); Lieutenant General Norman R. Seip, 
           USAF (Ret.); Lieutenant General Harry E. Soyster, USA 
           (Ret.); Lieutenant General Keith J. Stalder, USMC 
           (Ret.); Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA (Ret.); Major 
           General Mari K. Eder, USA (Ret.); Major General Eugene 
           Fox, USA (Ret.).
         Rear Admiral Donald Guter, JAGC, USN (Ret.); Rear Admiral 
           John D. Hutson, JAGC, USN (Ret.); Major General Michael 
           R. Lehnert, USMC (Ret.); Major General William L. Nash, 
           USA (Ret.); Major General Walter L. Stewart, Jr., USA 
           (Ret.); Major General Antonio M. Taguba, USA (Ret.); 
           Brigadier General John Adams, USA (Ret.); Brigadier 
           General David M. Brahms, USMC (Ret.); Brigadier General 
           Stephen A. Cheney, USMC (Ret.); Brigadier General James 
           P. Cullen, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General Evelyn P. 
           Foote, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General Gerald E. 
           Galloway, USA (Ret); Brigadier General Dennis P. 
           Geoghan, USA (Ret.); Rear Admiral Norman R. Hayes, USN 
           (Ret.); Brigadier General Leif H. Hendrickson, USMC 
           (Ret.); Brigadier General David R. Irvine, USA (Ret.); 
           Brigadier General John H. Johns, USA (Ret.); Brigadier 
           General Richard O'Meara, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General 
           Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General 
           Anthony Verrengia, USAF (Ret.); Brigadier General 
           Stephen N. Xenakis, USA (Ret.).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote against 
amendment No. 2175. If you want to bring the 164 Gitmo detainees to the 
United States, that is what this amendment will allow the 
administration to do. The plan they are going to submit requires no 
congressional oversight, no approval, and though the chairman said they 
will not get any additional legal rights, he does not answer the 
question what about constitutional rights if they are brought to our 
soil. Will they have to be told they have the right to remain silent?
  If we catch Zawahiri, the current head of Al Qaeda, tomorrow, will he 
have to be read Miranda rights? Because that is what is happening when 
we bring them to U.S. soil now. That is the real question.
  That is not required to be answered by their plan the administration 
wants sent, and we have no oversight over that plan. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 15 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. There are no additional rights for people brought to 
military detention in the United States than they have in Guantanamo. 
Nothing changes. There are no more Miranda rights here than in 
Guantanamo. If

[[Page S8180]]

they are in military detention, they are in military detention wherever 
it is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Under the previous order, the question occurs on the Levin-McCain 
amendment No. 2175.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Isakson).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators wishing to vote 
or to change their vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 238 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--46

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Leahy
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warren
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Blunt
     Isakson
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I am going to announce a consent 
agreement, and I will read through it in just a minute. It seems to me 
this debate we had today was extremely important. As I said last night, 
one of the issues in this bill is Guantanamo. I felt it was 
appropriate--even though I agree with the language in the bill--that 
the Republicans have an opportunity to see if they could change it. 
That is what this was all about this afternoon.
  On the sexual assault issue, there is language in the bill that 
Senator Gillibrand and others want to change. Senator Levin and 
especially Senator McCaskill have come up with a side-by-side, just 
like we had today, and that deserves a full debate. That is an issue 
which has been in all the papers over the last several months.
  The Senate deserves and the American public deserves this debate. I 
hope we can get this done.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
Levin amendment No. 2123 be set aside for Senator Gillibrand or 
designee to offer amendment No. 2099 relative to sexual assault; that 
the amendment be subject to a relevant side-by-side amendment from 
Senators McCaskill and Ayotte, amendment No. 2170; that no second-
degree amendments be in order to either of the sexual assault 
amendments; that each of these amendments be subject to a 60-
affirmative-vote threshold; that when the Senate resumes consideration 
of the bill on Wednesday, November 20, the time until 5 p.m. be equally 
divided between the proponents and opponents of the Gillibrand 
amendments; that at 5 p.m. the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to 
the Gillibrand amendment No. 2099; that upon disposition of the 
Gillibrand amendment, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the 
McCaskill-Ayotte amendment No. 2170; that there be 2 minutes equally 
divided in between the votes; and that no motions to recommit be in 
order during the consideration of the sexual assault amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, will the 
Senator amend his request and add the following language: following the 
disposition of the McCaskill-Ayotte amendment, all pending amendments 
be withdrawn and the Republican manager or his designee be recognized 
to offer the next amendment in order, followed by an amendment offered 
by the majority side, and that the two sides continue offering 
amendments in alternating fashion until all amendments are disposed of.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the leader so modify his request?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, with the deepest respect to my friend the 
senior Senator from Oklahoma, we are not in a position to have a bunch 
of amendments on this bill. It took us weeks to get the drug 
compounding bill done--weeks, plural. What we should do is get this 
very contentious amendment out of the way and move on to other 
amendments. There is no reason why we can't agree on going from one 
amendment to another amendment. Everyone has to understand that this is 
not going to be an open amendment process. It is not going to 
happen. We have tried that. Remember? People said, we haven't done 
anything on energy for 5 years. That pretty well says it all. But we 
said, OK, what we are going to do is work on something that is 
bipartisan in nature led by Senator Shaheen. Senator Portman was 
heavily involved. We never got off first base. We never even got headed 
toward first base. So we can't do that.

  There is going to have to be a change of atmosphere around here where 
we agree to do legislation. We talk about remembering the good old days 
when we had unlimited amendments. I remember those too. I also remember 
the good old days where the majority would have a few amendments, the 
minority would have a number of amendments, and we would move forward 
and pass legislation. But no one is willing to do that anymore. We are, 
but they are not.
  So I know how well-intentioned my friend is, but that was then and 
this is now. I object. I don't accept his modification to my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. INHOFE. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Thank you very much.


               Motion to Recommit With Amendment No. 2305

  Mr. REID. I have a motion to recommit S. 1197 with instructions at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to recommit the 
     bill to the Committee on Armed Services with instructions to 
     report back forthwith with the following amendment No. 2305.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, add the following:
       This Act shall become effective 3 days after enactment.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2306

  Mr. REID. I have an amendment to the instructions at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2306 to the instructions on the motion to recommit.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``3 days'' and insert ``2 days.''

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 2307 to Amendment No. 2306

  Mr. REID. I am so sorry. I have a second-degree amendment at the desk 
that I totally forgot about.

[[Page S8181]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2307 to amendment No. 2306.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``2 days'' and insert ``1 day.''

  Mr. REID. Madam President, what I hope we can do tomorrow, as we did 
today--I know people feel strongly about this sexual assault issue--is 
people will come and talk about that. It is so important. We were able 
to do that today on this amendment we had, and by the time 5 o'clock 
came, there had been a full discussion of the amendment. No one was 
crying for more time. So I hope in the morning people who feel strongly 
about this issue will come and talk about it. We did have some people 
who came and talked about this issue and that was important. So there 
are very strong feelings about this amendment. It is a difficult issue. 
It is sexual assault in the military. It wasn't long ago we wouldn't 
even be discussing such a thing on the Senate floor. We have to now, 
because it is an issue the military has, and we are trying to work 
through this. People have different views on how to proceed, but 
everyone agrees it needs to change. It is a question of how we change 
it, and that is what this debate is all about.
  So I hope Senators will come in the morning and start talking about 
this issue; tee it up for a vote sometime tomorrow afternoon.

                          ____________________