[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18049-18089]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012--Resumed

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the pending business is S. 1867, the 
Defense Authorization Act; is that correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1867) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2012 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Levin/McCain amendment No. 1092, to bolster the detection 
     and avoidance of counterfeit electronic parts.
       McConnell (for Kirk) amendment No. 1084, to require the 
     President to impose sanctions on foreign financial 
     institutions that conduct transactions with the Central Bank 
     of Iran.
       Leahy amendment No. 1072, to enhance the national defense 
     through empowerment of the National Guard, enhancement of the 
     functions of the National Guard Bureau, and improvement of 
     Federal-State military coordination in domestic emergency 
     response.
       Paul/Gillibrand amendment No. 1064, to repeal the 
     Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq 
     Resolution of 2002.
       Merkley amendment No. 1174, to express the sense of 
     Congress regarding the expedited transition of responsibility 
     for military and security operations in Afghanistan to the 
     Government of Afghanistan.
       Feinstein amendment No. 1125, to clarify the applicability 
     of requirements for military custody with respect to 
     detainees.
       Feinstein amendment No. 1126, to limit the authority of the 
     Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under 
     section 1031.
       Udall (CO) amendment No. 1107, to revise the provisions 
     relating to detainee matters.
       Landrieu/Snowe amendment No. 1115, to reauthorize and 
     improve the SBIR and STTR programs, and for other purposes.
       Franken amendment No. 1197, to require contractors to make 
     timely payments to subcontractors that are small business 
     concerns.
       Cardin/Mikulski amendment No. 1073, to prohibit expansion 
     or operation of the District of Columbia National Guard Youth 
     Challenge Program in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
       Begich amendment No. 1114, to amend title 10, United States 
     Code, to authorize space-available travel on military 
     aircraft for members of the reserve components, a member or 
     former member of a reserve component who is eligible for 
     retired pay but for age, widows and widowers of retired 
     members, and dependents.
       Begich amendment No. 1149, to authorize a land conveyance 
     and exchange at Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson, Alaska.
       Shaheen amendment No. 1120, to exclude cases in which 
     pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest from the 
     prohibition on funding of abortions by the Department of 
     Defense.
       Collins amendment No. 1105, to make permanent the 
     requirement for certifications relating to the transfer of 
     detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 
     Cuba, to foreign countries and other foreign entities.
       Collins amendment No. 1155, to authorize educational 
     assistance under the Armed Forces Health Professions 
     Scholarship program for pursuit of advanced degrees in 
     physical therapy and occupational therapy.
       Collins amendment No. 1158, to clarify the permanence of 
     the prohibition on transfers of recidivist detainees at 
     United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to foreign 
     countries and entities.
       Collins/Shaheen amendment No. 1180, relating to man-
     portable air-defense systems originating from Libya.
       Inhofe amendment No. 1094, to include the Department of 
     Commerce in contract authority using competitive procedures 
     but excluding particular sources for establishing certain 
     research and development capabilities.
       Inhofe amendment No. 1095, to express the sense of the 
     Senate on the importance of addressing deficiencies in mental 
     health counseling.
       Inhofe amendment No. 1096, to express the sense of the 
     Senate on treatment options for members of the Armed Forces 
     and veterans for Traumatic Brain Injury and Post Traumatic 
     Stress Disorder.
       Inhofe amendment No. 1097, to eliminate gaps and 
     redundancies between the over 200 programs within the 
     Department of Defense that address psychological health and 
     traumatic brain injury.
       Inhofe amendment No. 1098, to require a report on the 
     impact of foreign boycotts on the defense industrial base.
       Inhofe amendment No. 1099, to express the sense of Congress 
     that the Secretary of Defense should implement the 
     recommendations of the Comptroller General of the United 
     States regarding prevention, abatement, and data collection 
     to address hearing injuries and hearing loss among members of 
     the Armed Forces.
       Inhofe amendment No. 1100, to extend to products and 
     services from Latvia existing temporary authority to procure 
     certain products and services from countries along a major 
     route of supply to Afghanistan.
       Inhofe amendment No. 1101, to strike section 156, relating 
     to a transfer of Air Force C-12 aircraft to the Army.
       Inhofe amendment No. 1102, to require a report on the 
     feasibility of using unmanned aerial systems to perform 
     airborne inspection of navigational aids in foreign airspace.
       Inhofe amendment No. 1093, to require the detention at 
     United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, of high-
     value enemy combatants who will be detained long-term.
       Casey amendment No. 1215, to require a certification on 
     efforts by the Government of Pakistan to implement a strategy 
     to counter improvised explosive devices.
       Casey amendment No. 1139, to require contractors to notify 
     small business concerns that have been included in offers 
     relating to contracts let by Federal agencies.
       Casey amendment No. 1140, to require a report by the 
     Comptroller General on Department of Defense military spouse 
     employment programs.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Senators are encouraged to come to the 
floor to offer their amendments this morning. We are going to be here 
doing business. Senators who have remarks, speeches,

[[Page 18050]]

proponents of the amendments, opponents of amendments are given an 
opportunity here today which may be one of the relatively few 
opportunities that are going to be available.
  We will be here the Monday after we return as well before the vote at 
5:30 on Monday, November 28, on a judicial nomination, but we will also 
be here before that time to hear from proponents and opponents of 
amendments and to have people offer amendments. We are not going to 
have the whole week, we have been told by the leader, when we come back 
for this bill, so we are going to have to make additional progress 
today. We made some progress last night. We cleared some amendments 
last night. We are going to try to clear some additional amendments 
this morning and adopt some amendments that can be cleared. We have 155 
filed amendments, and we have 31 pending amendments. Again, we are 
going to try to clear some of those today and adopt some of those 
today, and we are going to try to do the same on Monday when we return.
  Again, I urge that Senators who want to speak on pending or filed 
amendments, proponents of those amendments, opponents of those 
amendments, let us know immediately, if you would, whether you wish to 
speak in support of or in opposition to pending or filed amendments. 
Obviously, if people want to oppose amendments, then we are not going 
to clear them if we know about that, but we have to know about that. 
These are on file. The clerk has the amendments. We know which 
amendments are pending. The list is available.
  The staff is going to be here for the first couple days, at least, 
next week prior to Thanksgiving. Our staffs will be here to work with 
staffs of Senators to try to revise amendments that may be open to 
revision. So that work is going to go on, and we have to use these time 
periods--today and next Monday and Tuesday--for work on amendments and 
the Monday we get back for work on amendments because we need to get 
this bill passed.
  This is a critically important bill, and with 155 filed amendments, 
31 of which are already pending, we have a lot of work to do. We are 
going to try to do the very best we can, but we have to get a bill 
passed and we have to debate some of the very significant amendments 
which have already been filed and are pending.
  So I want to thank my friend from Arizona and see whether he might 
want to comment on my comments or otherwise.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Levin and his staff for 
their hard work on this very important piece of legislation. I am glad 
to see the chairman announced that the staff will be in working next 
week. For a change, the taxpayers will get a return on their 
investment. I am very glad to know that. But in all seriousness, they 
did a lot of work late last night and will be working hard all this 
week.
  I think that maybe our colleagues should plan on some late nights 
when we get back because we do need to get this done. There is a lot of 
important business before the Senate.
  I would also like to point out that we spent the better part of 
yesterday on the detainee issue, and I appreciate that the detainee 
issue is one that is of transcendent importance. It certainly goes 
beyond just national security. It is a very controversial issue with 
the American people and Members on both sides of the aisle. On one side 
of the aisle, they would like to see much more restrictive policies, 
and on the other side of the aisle there is a very serious concern--and 
a legitimate concern, although I don't share it--about erosion of the 
constitutional rights and liberties of American citizens.
  Hopefully, we can get a vote on that amendment so we can move forward 
to other very important amendments that Members obviously, by the large 
number of amendments, are very interested in in this process. I also 
hope we are able to get a unanimous consent agreement to limit, to cut 
off the number of pending amendments so that we can make progress on 
those that have been filed and those that are pending.
  I thank the chairman again and our respective staffs and our 
colleagues. I thought it was a very beneficial debate we had yesterday 
that a lot of Members participated in, and I think it served not only 
to educate our colleagues and the American people who observed it, but 
I also think it was a healthy discussion that was held on both sides of 
the aisle and on both sides of this issue, and it very well informed 
Senators on this issue.
  Again, I understand, for example, that the Senator from Illinois, Mr. 
Durbin, came to the floor and said we need a very in-depth discussion 
on this issue. I think we had that. I also think this is a very 
important issue and one that deserved the attention of the Senate, but 
now I think it is time to move on.
  I also congratulate all Members who took part in sort of a colloquy 
and discussion we had amongst Members on both sides of this issue 
yesterday. I have found that those colloquies add a great deal to the 
debate as we get the input and ideas and sometimes spirited discussion 
on these issues.
  So I thank the chairman, and we look forward to getting this 
important piece of legislation done.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first of all, I thank my friend and 
colleague from Arizona, the ranking member, for his comments and for 
all of his work on the committee. All of our colleagues on the 
committee have put in a lot of time.
  I want to emphasize something he said about the opportunity here for 
debate--that we have a number of pending amendments, including the 
amendments on detainees. We are here to hear debate on those or any 
other amendments today and on Monday. We were here yesterday and had a 
long debate. As the Senator from Arizona said, we had a lengthy debate, 
and we were prepared to vote. The supporters were not. That is fair 
enough. If they want additional time to debate it, we should welcome 
that. But there is time, there is time today and there is time on 
Monday when we get back to debate that amendment and those amendments 
not only on the detainees but on many other issues that are important 
that are in this bill.
  I agree with my friend from Arizona that we should ask the majority 
leader to make Monday night available for votes after the scheduled 
vote at 5:30. We need to have votes on amendments. I would hope that 
amendments that can't be agreed to will be voted on on Monday night 
after the vote on the judge, which is scheduled for 5:30.
  I also agree with the Senator from Arizona about trying to get a 
limit on the number of amendments. We will try again today to see if we 
can get a unanimous consent agreement. I haven't had a chance to talk 
this morning with the Senator from Arizona, but we will try--and he 
just has given me an indication that this is fine with him--to see if 
we can't set a time later on today, maybe at noon or 1:00, for the 
filing of amendments and to limit amendments to those that are filed by 
that time.
  We are going to try to get that done with a safety valve, which I 
suggested last night and I think is acceptable to the Republican 
manager, my friend from Arizona, which is that, in addition to whatever 
amendments are filed by whatever time we put in the unanimous consent 
proposal, there be an additional two amendments on each side that would 
be available to the managers that would need to be relevant--just 
relevant amendments--to an amendment that is filed or relevant to the 
bill. I think you would need a safety valve, and people would 
understand that. Those two amendments would be allocable--two 
amendments each by the Republican manager and myself, if that is 
agreeable. It would take unanimous consent, but I think everyone 
realizes we have to have a universe here that we can work with during 
the next week.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I don't want to talk too much longer. I 
see our

[[Page 18051]]

dear friend from New Mexico, who has been serious enough to come in 
this morning and debate and discuss his concerns about the bill and 
amendments.
  But I would ask the chairman, we have, as the Senator mentioned, a 
large number of pending amendments--not just filed but pending--and one 
of them, of course, is for the detainee issue, there is another Paul 
amendment, and there are several others that perhaps we could vote on 
on Monday, as the chairman mentioned.
  If any of our colleagues feel they haven't the time to amend it, they 
are welcome to come now and they are welcome to come on Monday. I 
understand that may cause them some small inconvenience in their 
schedule, but if they filed a pending amendment, then there is an 
amendment pending and they ought to be able to adjust their schedules 
to come and debate it. If they aren't able to do that, we should still 
be able to dispose of those amendments, I say with great respect and 
courtesy to all of my colleagues.
  So I hope that Chairman Levin and I and others would say: Look, we 
are going to notify everybody that we are going to have votes on the 
following amendments on Monday afternoon after we vote on the judge. If 
you are interested in debating it, we will be here to debate it and 
discuss it with you.
  We have to get this legislation passed for the good of the men and 
women who are serving this Nation with far greater inconvenience than, 
frankly, our colleagues might experience by having to come back on 
Monday or by coming over here today.
  I yield.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will be done in one moment so that our 
friend from New Mexico can schedule his presentation.
  I just wanted to add one additional thing to what the Senator from 
Arizona said, in addition to agreeing with him. We will be here today 
and we will be here a week from Monday so that there will be plenty of 
opportunity to debate these pending amendments or other amendments, and 
people need to know we are going to be seeking votes on these pending 
amendments if we can't clear them or work them out. There will be an 
opportunity for debate before the vote.
  One other comment; that is, I will have a detailed statement 
addressing the detainee issue a little later on this morning. It will 
address some of the statements that are incorrect and misleading which 
were in the administration's statement on this subject. Also, some of 
the statements of our colleagues need to be addressed and, I believe, 
corrected. Because this is a complex issue it is important to know what 
is in the bill and what is not in the bill. If it is properly 
characterized and if it is properly stated, it is still complex, but to 
misstate it or overstate it or to mischaracterize what is in our bill 
just confuses an issue which needs to be debated on its merits and not 
confused. It is complicated enough without obfuscation and confusion 
about what is in the bill on detention or other matters and what is not 
in the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.


 Amendments Nos. 1200, 1066, 1067 as Modified, 1068, 1119, 1090, 1089, 
                         1056, and 1116 En Bloc

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of my friend, 
Senator Udall. If it is OK with the chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the following amendments be considered pending on behalf of their 
sponsors? Would that be agreeable?
  For Senator Cornyn, amendment No. 1200, related to Taiwan F-16s; for 
Senator Ayotte, amendment No. 1066, related to financial audits; for 
Senator Ayotte, amendment No. 1067, as revised, related to the 
notification of Congress for the initial custody of members of al-
Qaida; for Senator Ayotte, amendment No. 1068, related to the 
authorization of lawful interrogation methods; for Senator Brown of 
Massachusetts, amendment No. 1119, related to child custody rights; for 
Senator Brown of Massachusetts, amendment No. 1090, related to housing 
allowance rates; for Senator Brown of Massachusetts, amendment No. 
1089, related to disclosures by schools participating in tuition 
assistance; for Senator Wicker, amendment No. 1056, related to military 
chaplains; and for Senator Wicker, amendment No. 1116, related to truck 
licenses for transitioning servicemembers.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Let me notify Senators on our side that we are more than 
willing to do that same courtesy for them if they would let our staff 
know at the cloakroom this morning. We can do the same thing for 
Senators on our side as the Senator from Arizona properly did for 
Senators on his side.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I say, I hope Members on both sides, if they have 
amendments, get them to us this morning so we can bring this part of 
the process to an end.
  Mr. LEVIN. And if I may, doing what the Senator from Arizona just did 
will also facilitate, hopefully, the acceptance of a unanimous consent 
request that there then be a cutoff as I described at perhaps noon or 1 
o'clock today so we can know what the universe is and begin to whittle 
it down.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report by number the 
amendments called up by the Senator from Arizona.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], proposes amendments 
     numbered 1200, 1066, 1067 as modified, 1068, 1119, 1090, 
     1089, 1056, and 1116 en bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1200

(Purpose: To provide Taiwan with critically needed United States-built 
 multirole fighter aircraft to strengthen its self-defense capability 
           against the increasing military threat from China)

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

     SEC. 1088. SALE OF F-16 AIRCRAFT TO TAIWAN.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Department of Defense, in its 2011 report to 
     Congress on ``Military and Security Developments Involving 
     the People's Republic of China,'' found that ``China 
     continued modernizing its military in 2010, with a focus on 
     Taiwan contingencies, even as cross-Strait relations 
     improved. The PLA seeks the capability to deter Taiwan 
     independence and influence Taiwan to settle the dispute on 
     Beijing's terms. In pursuit of this objective, Beijing is 
     developing capabilities intended to deter, delay, or deny 
     possible U.S. support for the island in the event of 
     conflict. The balance of cross-Strait military forces and 
     capabilities continues to shift in the mainland's favor.'' In 
     this report, the Department of Defense also concludes that, 
     over the next decade, China's air force will remain primarily 
     focused on ``building the capabilities required to pose a 
     credible military threat to Taiwan and U.S. forces in East 
     Asia, deter Taiwan independence, or influence Taiwan to 
     settle the dispute on Beijing's terms''.
       (2) The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) conducted a 
     preliminary assessment of the status and capabilities of 
     Taiwan's air force in an unclassified report, dated January 
     21, 2010. The DIA found that, ``[a]lthough Taiwan has nearly 
     400 combat aircraft in service, far fewer of these are 
     operationally capable.'' The report concluded, ``Many of 
     Taiwan's fighter aircraft are close to or beyond service 
     life, and many require extensive maintenance support. The 
     retirement of Mirage and F-5 aircraft will reduce the total 
     size of the Taiwan Air Force.''
       (3) Since 2006, authorities from Taiwan have made repeated 
     requests to purchase 66 F-16C/D multirole fighter aircraft 
     from the United States, in an effort to modernize the air 
     force of Taiwan and maintain its self-defense capability.
       (4) According to a report by the Perryman Group, a private 
     economic research and analysis firm, the requested sale of F-
     16C/Ds to Taiwan ``would generate some $8,700,000,000 in 
     output (gross product) and more than 87,664 person-years of 
     employment in the US,'' including 23,407 direct jobs, while 
     ``economic benefits would likely be realized in 44 states and 
     the District of Columbia''.
       (5) The sale of F-16C/Ds to Taiwan would both sustain 
     existing high-skilled jobs in key United States manufacturing 
     sectors and create new ones.
       (6) On August 1, 2011, a bipartisan group of 181 members of 
     the House of Representatives sent a letter to the President, 
     expressing support for the sale of F-16C/Ds to Taiwan. On May 
     26, 2011, a bipartisan group of 45 members of the Senate sent 
     a similar letter to the President, expressing support for the 
     sale. Two other members of the Senate wrote

[[Page 18052]]

     separately to the President or the Secretary of State in 2011 
     and expressed support for this sale.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) a critical element to maintaining peace and stability 
     in Asia in the face of China's two-decade-long program of 
     military modernization and expansion of military capabilities 
     is ensuring a militarily strong and confident Taiwan;
       (2) a Taiwan that is confident in its ability to deter 
     Chinese aggression will increase its ability to proceed in 
     developing peaceful relations with China in areas of mutual 
     interest;
       (3) the cross-Strait military balance between China and our 
     longstanding strategic partner, Taiwan, has clearly shifted 
     in China's favor;
       (4) China's military expansion poses a clear and present 
     danger to Taiwan, and this threat has very serious 
     implications for the ability of the United States to fulfill 
     its security obligations to allies in the region and protect 
     our vital United States national interests in East Asia;
       (5) Taiwan's air force continues to deteriorate, and it 
     needs additional advanced multirole fighter aircraft in order 
     to modernize its fleet and maintain a sufficient self-defense 
     capability;
       (6) the United States has a statutory obligation under the 
     Taiwan Relations Act (22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.) to provide 
     Taiwan the defense articles necessary to enable Taiwan to 
     maintain sufficient self-defense capabilities, in furtherance 
     of maintaining peace and stability in the western Pacific 
     region;
       (7) in order to comply with the Taiwan Relations Act, the 
     United States must provide Taiwan with additional advanced 
     multirole fighter aircraft, as well as significant upgrades 
     to Taiwan's existing fleet of multirole fighter aircraft; and
       (8) the proposed sale of F-16C/D multirole fighter aircraft 
     to Taiwan would have significant economic benefits to the 
     United States economy.
       (c) Sale of Aircraft.--The President shall carry out the 
     sale of no fewer than 66 F-16C/D multirole fighter aircraft 
     to Taiwan.


                           amendment no. 1066

(Purpose: To modify the Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan 
   to provide that a complete and validated full statement of budget 
        resources is ready by not later than September 30, 2014)

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

     SEC. 1005. AUDIT READINESS OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF 
                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

       Section 1003(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84; 
     123 Stat. 2440; 10 U.S.C. 2222 note) is amended by inserting 
     ``, and that a complete and validated full statement of 
     budget resources is ready by not later than September 30, 
     2014'' after ``validated as ready for audit by not later than 
     September 30, 2017''.


                    amendment no. 1067, as modified

   (Purpose: To require notification of Congress with respect to the 
  initial custody and further disposition of members of al-Qaeda and 
                          affiliated entities)

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

     SEC. 1038. REQUIRED NOTIFICATION OF CONGRESS WITH RESPECT TO 
                   THE INITIAL CUSTODY AND FURTHER DISPOSITION OF 
                   MEMBERS OF AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES.

       (a) Required Notification With Respect to Initial 
     Custody.--
       (1) In general.--When a covered person, as defined in 
     subsection (c), is taken into the custody of the United 
     States Government, the Secretary of Defense and the Director 
     of National Intelligence shall notify the specified 
     congressional committees, as defined in subsection (d), 
     within 10 days.
       (2) Reporting requirement.--The notification submitted 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be in classified form and 
     shall include, at a minimum, the suspect's name, nationality, 
     date of capture by or transfer to the United States 
     Government, location of such capture or transfer, places of 
     custody since capture or transfer, suspected terrorist 
     affiliation and activities, and agency responsible for 
     interrogation.
       (b) Required Notification With Respect to Further 
     Disposition.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 10 days before a change of 
     disposition under section 1031(c) is effected, the Secretary 
     of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence shall 
     notify and inform the specified congressional committees of 
     such intended disposition.
       (2) Reporting requirement.--The notification required under 
     paragraph (1) shall be in classified form and shall include 
     the relevant facts, justification, and rationale that serves 
     as the basis for the disposition option chosen.
       (c) Covered Persons.--For the purposes of this section, a 
     covered person is a person who--
       (1) is a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated 
     force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the 
     direction of al-Qaeda; and
       (2) has participated in the course of planning or carrying 
     out an attack or attempted attack against the United States 
     or its coalition partners.
       (d) Specified Congressional Committees.--In this section, 
     the term ``specified congressional committees'' means--
       (1) the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
       (2) the Committee on Armed Services of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (3) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
       (4) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 60 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply 
     with respect to persons described in subsection (c) who are 
     taken into the custody or brought under the control of the 
     United States on or after that date.


                           amendment no. 1068

  (Purpose: To authorize lawful interrogation methods in addition to 
those authorized by the Army Field Manual for the collection of foreign 
            intelligence information through interrogations)

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

     SEC. 1038. AUTHORITY FOR LAWFUL INTERROGATION METHODS IN 
                   ADDITION TO THE INTERROGATION METHODS 
                   AUTHORIZED BY THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL.

       (a) Authority.--Notwithstanding section 1402 of the 
     Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), the 
     personnel of the United States Government specified in 
     subsection (c) are hereby authorized to engage in 
     interrogation for the purpose of collecting foreign 
     intelligence information using methods set forth in the 
     classified annex required by subsection (b) provided that 
     such interrogation methods comply with all applicable laws, 
     including the laws specified in subsection (d).
       (b) Classified Annex.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and on such basis 
     thereafter as may be necessary for the effective collection 
     of foreign intelligence information, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall, in consultation with the Director of National 
     Intelligence and the Attorney General, ensure the adoption of 
     a classified annex to Army Field Manual 2-22.3 that sets 
     forth interrogation techniques and approaches, in addition to 
     those specified in Army Field Manual 2-22.3, that may be used 
     for the effective collection of foreign intelligence 
     information.
       (c) Covered Personnel.--The personnel of the United States 
     Government specified in this subsection are the officers and 
     employees of the elements of the intelligence community that 
     are assigned to or support the entity responsible for the 
     interrogation of high value detainees (currently known as the 
     ``High Value Detainee Interrogation Group''), or a successor 
     entity.
       (d) Specified Laws.--The law specified in this subsection 
     is as follows:
       (1) The United Nations Convention Against Torture, signed 
     at New York, February 4, 1985.
       (2) Chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, relating 
     to military commissions (as amended by the Military 
     Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
       (3) The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (title XIV of Public 
     Law 109-163).
       (4) Section 2441 of title 18, United States Code.
       (e) Supersedure of Executive Order.--The provisions of 
     Executive Order No. 13491, dated January 22, 2009, shall have 
     no further force or effect, to the extent such provisions are 
     inconsistent with the provisions of this section.
       (f) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Element of the intelligence community.--The term 
     ``element of the intelligence community'' means an element of 
     the intelligence community listed or designated under section 
     3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     401a(4)).
       (2) Foreign intelligence information.--The term ``foreign 
     intelligence information'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 101(e) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
     of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(e)).


                           amendment no. 1119

 (Purpose: To protect the child custody rights of members of the Armed 
         Forces deployed in support of a contingency operation)

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

     SEC. ___. PROTECTION OF CHILD CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS FOR 
                   PARENTS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 
                   DEPLOYED IN SUPPORT OF A CONTINGENCY OPERATION.

       (a) Child Custody Protection.--Title II of the 
     Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 521 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 208. CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION.

       ``(a) Restriction on Change of Custody.--If a motion for 
     change of custody of a child of a servicemember is filed 
     while the servicemember is deployed in support of a 
     contingency operation, no court may enter an

[[Page 18053]]

     order modifying or amending any previous judgment or order, 
     or issue a new order, that changes the custody arrangement 
     for that child that existed as of the date of the deployment 
     of the servicemember, except that a court may enter a 
     temporary custody order if the court finds that it is in the 
     best interest of the child.
       ``(b) Completion of Deployment.--In any preceding covered 
     under subsection (a), a court shall require that, upon the 
     return of the servicemember from deployment in support of a 
     contingency operation, the custody order that was in effect 
     immediately preceding the date of the deployment of the 
     servicemember be reinstated, unless the court finds that such 
     a reinstatement is not in the best interest of the child, 
     except that any such finding shall be subject to subsection 
     (c).
       ``(c) Exclusion of Military Service From Determination of 
     Child's Best Interest.--If a motion for the change of custody 
     of the child of a servicemember is filed, no court may 
     consider the absence of the servicemember by reason of 
     deployment, or possibility of deployment, in determining the 
     best interest of the child.
       ``(d) No Federal Right of Action.--Nothing in this section 
     shall create a Federal right of action.
       ``(e) Preemption.--In any case where State or Federal law 
     applicable to a child custody proceeding under State or 
     Federal law provides a higher standard of protection to the 
     rights of the parent who is a servicemember than the rights 
     provided under this section, the State or Federal court shall 
     apply the State or Federal standard.
       ``(f) Contingency Operation Defined.--In this section, the 
     term `contingency operation' has the meaning given that term 
     in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code, except 
     that the term may include such other deployments as the 
     Secretary concerned may prescribe.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the items 
     relating to title II the following new item:

``208. Child custody protection.''.


                           amendment no. 1090

(Purpose: To provide that the basic allowance for housing in effect for 
     a member of the National Guard is not reduced when the member 
   transitions between active duty and full-time National Guard duty 
                   without a break in active service)

       At the end of title VI, add the following:

                     Subtitle D--Pay and Allowances

     SEC. 641. NO REDUCTION IN BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING FOR 
                   NATIONAL GUARD MEMBERS WHO TRANSITION BETWEEN 
                   ACTIVE DUTY AND FULL-TIME NATIONAL GUARD DUTY 
                   WITHOUT A BREAK IN ACTIVE SERVICE.

       Section 403(g) of title 37, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) The rate of basic allowance for housing to be paid a 
     member of the Army National Guard of the United States or the 
     Air National Guard of the United States shall not be reduced 
     upon the transition of the member from active duty to full-
     time National Guard duty, or from full-time National Guard 
     duty to active duty, when the transition occurs without a 
     break in active service.''.


                           amendment no. 1089

     (Purpose: To require certain disclosures from post-secondary 
  institutions that participate in tuition assistance programs of the 
                         Department of Defense)

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

     SEC. 547. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR POST-SECONDARY 
                   INSTITUTIONS PARTICIPATING IN DEPARTMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE TUITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Education, shall prescribe 
     regulations requiring post-secondary education institutions 
     that participate in Department of Defense tuition assistance 
     programs, as a condition of such participation, to disclose 
     with respect to each student receiving such tuition 
     assistance the following information:
       (1) Whether the successful completion of the advertised 
     education or training program by a student meets 
     prerequisites for the purpose of applying for and completing 
     an examination or license required as a precondition for 
     employment in the occupation for which the program is 
     represented to prepare the student.
       (2) The completion date of degree, certification, or 
     license sought by the student participating in the tuition 
     assistance program.
       (b) Applicability.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``Department of Defense tuition assistance program'' applies 
     to financial tuition assistance provided by the Department of 
     Defense to active duty servicemembers and eligible spouses.


                           amendment no. 1056

    (Purpose: To provide for the freedom of conscience of military 
        chaplains with respect to the performance of marriages)

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

     SEC. 527. FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE OF MILITARY CHAPLAINS WITH 
                   RESPECT TO THE PERFORMANCE OF MARRIAGES.

       A military chaplain who, as a matter of conscience or moral 
     principle, does not wish to perform a marriage may not be 
     required to do so.


                           amendment no. 1116

(Purpose: To improve the transition of members of the Armed Forces with 
  experience in the operation of certain motor vehicles into careers 
       operating commercial motor vehicles in the private sector)

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

     SEC. ___. IMPROVING THE TRANSITION OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
                   FORCES WITH EXPERIENCE IN THE OPERATION OF 
                   CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLES INTO CAREERS OPERATING 
                   COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES IN THE PRIVATE 
                   SECTOR.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense and the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall jointly conduct a study to 
     identify the legislative and regulatory actions that can be 
     taken for purposes as follows:
       (A) To facilitate the obtaining of commercial driver's 
     licenses (within the meaning of section 31302 of title 49, 
     United States Code) by former members of the Armed Forces who 
     operated qualifying motor vehicles as members of the Armed 
     Forces.
       (B) To improve the transition of members of the Armed 
     Forces who operate qualifying motor vehicles as members of 
     the Armed Forces into careers operating commercial motor 
     vehicles (as defined in section 31301 of such title) in the 
     private sector after separation from service in the Armed 
     Forces.
       (2) Elements.--The study required by paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following:
       (A) Identification of any training, qualifications, or 
     experiences of members of the Armed Forces described in 
     paragraph (1)(B) that satisfy the minimum standards 
     prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation for the 
     operation of commercial motor vehicles under section 31305 of 
     title 49, United States Code.
       (B) Identification of the actions the Secretary of Defense 
     can take to document the training, qualifications, and 
     experiences of such members for the purposes described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (C) Identification of the actions the Secretary of Defense 
     can take to modify the training and education programs of the 
     Department of Defense for the purposes described in paragraph 
     (1).
       (D) An assessment of the feasibility and advisability of 
     each of the legislative and regulatory actions identified 
     under the study.
       (E) Development of recommendations for legislative and 
     regulatory actions to further the purposes described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (b) Implementation.--Upon completion of the study required 
     by subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary 
     of Transportation shall carry out the actions identified 
     under the study which the Secretaries--
       (1) can carry out without legislative action; and
       (2) jointly consider both feasible and advisable.
       (c) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Upon completion of the study required by 
     subsection (a)(1), the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary 
     of Transportation shall jointly submit to Congress a report 
     on the findings of the Secretaries with respect to the study.
       (2) Elements.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following:
       (A) A description of the legislative and regulatory actions 
     identified under the study.
       (B) A description of the actions described in subparagraph 
     (A) that can be carried out by the Secretary of Defense and 
     the Secretary of Transportation without any legislative 
     action.
       (C) A description of the feasibility and advisability of 
     each of the legislative and regulatory actions identified by 
     the study.
       (D) The recommendations developed under subsection 
     (a)(2)(E).
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Motor vehicle.--The term ``motor vehicle'' means a 
     vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer propelled 
     or drawn by mechanical power and used on land, but does not 
     include a vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer 
     operated only on a rail line or custom harvesting farm 
     machinery.
       (2) Qualifying motor vehicle.--The term ``qualifying motor 
     vehicle'' means a motor vehicle or combination of motor 
     vehicles used to transport passengers or property that--
       (A) has a gross combination vehicle weight rating of 26,001 
     pounds or more, inclusive of a towed unit with a gross 
     vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds;
       (B) has a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,001 pounds or 
     more;
       (C) is designed to transport 16 or more passengers, 
     including the driver; or

[[Page 18054]]

       (D) is of any size and is used in the transportation of 
     materials found to be hazardous under chapter 51 of title 49, 
     United States Code, and which require the motor vehicle to be 
     placarded under subpart F of part 172 of title 49, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, or any corresponding similar regulation 
     or ruling.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, let me first say, before I 
talk about my amendments, I had the opportunity yesterday to listen to 
Senator Levin, Senator McCain, Senator Durbin, and many other Senators 
with regard to the debate on this bill. I thought it was excellent 
debate. I thought it was lively, it was robust, it was to the point, 
and it was the Senate at its best. I don't know how we get to the point 
where we have the kind of debate they were having on this Defense 
authorization bill, but I hope we can do more of it, and I look forward 
to returning after Thanksgiving and having the opportunity to do that.
  I compliment the two top Members of that committee and the other 
Senators who were here on that debate.


              Amendments Nos. 1153, 1154, and 1202 En Bloc

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendments in order to call up amendments Nos. 1153, 1154, and 1202 by 
number en bloc, and that once the amendments are reported the Senate 
return to the regular order.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Udall], for himself and 
     others, proposes amendments numbered 1153, 1154, and 1202 en 
     bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1153

(Purpose: To include ultralight vehicles in the definition of aircraft 
for purposes of the aviation smuggling provisions of the Tariff Act of 
                                 1930)

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

     SEC. 1088. INCLUSION OF ULTRALIGHT VEHICLES IN DEFINITION OF 
                   AIRCRAFT FOR CERTAIN AVIATION SMUGGLING 
                   PROVISIONS.

       (a) Amendments to the Aviation Smuggling Provisions of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930.--
       (1) In general.--Section 590 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
     U.S.C. 1590) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
       ``(g) Definition of Aircraft.--As used in this section, the 
     term `aircraft' includes an ultralight vehicle, as defined by 
     the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.''.
       (2) Criminal penalties.--Subsection (d) of section 590 of 
     the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1590(d)) is amended in the 
     matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting ``, or attempts 
     or conspires to commit,'' after ``commits''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     apply with respect to violations of any provision of section 
     590 of the Tariff Act of 1930 on or after the 30th day after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Interagency Collaboration.--The Assistant Secretary of 
     Defense for Research and Engineering shall, in consultation 
     with the Under Secretary for Science and Technology of the 
     Department of Homeland Security, identify equipment and 
     technology used by the Department of Defense that could also 
     be used by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to detect and 
     track the illicit use of ultralight aircraft near the 
     international border between the United States and Mexico.


                           amendment no. 1154

 (Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish an 
 open burn pit registry to ensure that members of the Armed Forces who 
may have been exposed to toxic chemicals and fumes caused by open burn 
    pits while deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq receive information 
                        regarding such exposure)

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

     SEC. ___. ESTABLISHMENT OF OPEN BURN PIT REGISTRY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall--
       (1) establish and maintain an open burn pit registry for 
     eligible individuals who may have been exposed to toxic 
     chemicals and fumes caused by open burn pits;
       (2) include any information in such registry that the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs determines necessary to 
     ascertain and monitor the health effects of the exposure of 
     members of the Armed Forces to toxic chemicals and fumes 
     caused by open burn pits;
       (3) develop a public information campaign to inform 
     eligible individuals about the open burn pit registry, 
     including how to register and the benefits of registering; 
     and
       (4) periodically notify eligible individuals of significant 
     developments in the study and treatment of conditions 
     associated with exposure to toxic chemicals and fumes caused 
     by open burn pits.
       (b) Report to Congress.--
       (1) Report by independent scientific organization.--The 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall enter into an agreement 
     with an independent scientific organization to develop a 
     report containing the following:
       (A) An assessment of the effectiveness of actions taken by 
     the Secretary to collect and maintain information on the 
     health effects of exposure to toxic chemicals and fumes 
     caused by open burn pits.
       (B) Recommendations to improve the collection and 
     maintenance of such information.
       (C) Using established and previously published 
     epidemiological studies, recommendations regarding the most 
     effective and prudent means of addressing the medical needs 
     of eligible individuals with respect to conditions that are 
     likely to result from exposure to open burn pits.
       (2) Submittal to congress.--Not later than 540 days after 
     the date on which the registry required by subsection (a) is 
     established, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit 
     to Congress the report developed under paragraph (1).
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Eligible individual.--The term ``eligible individual'' 
     means any individual who, on or after September 11, 2001--
       (A) was deployed in support of a contingency operation 
     while serving in the Armed Forces; and
       (B) during such deployment, was based or stationed at a 
     location where an open burn pit was used.
       (2) Open burn pit.--The term ``open burn pit'' means an 
     area of land located in Afghanistan or Iraq that--
       (A) is designated by the Secretary of Defense to be used 
     for disposing solid waste by burning in the outdoor air; and
       (B) does not contain a commercially manufactured 
     incinerator or other equipment specifically designed and 
     manufactured for the burning of solid waste.


                           amendment no. 1202

   (Purpose: To clarify the application of the provisions of the Buy 
    American Act to the procurement of photovoltaic devices by the 
                         Department of Defense)

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

     SEC. 827. APPLICABILITY OF BUY AMERICAN ACT TO PROCUREMENT OF 
                   PHOTOVOLTAIC DEVICES BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

       (a) In General.--Section 2534 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(k) Procurement of Photovoltaic Devices.--
       ``(1) Contract requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     ensure that each contract described in paragraph (2) awarded 
     by the Department of Defense includes a provision requiring 
     any photovoltaic devices installed pursuant to the contract, 
     or pursuant to a subcontract under the contract, to comply 
     with the provisions of chapter 83 of title 41 (commonly known 
     as the `Buy American Act'), without regard to whether the 
     contract results in ownership of the photovoltaic devices by 
     the Department.
       ``(2) Contracts described.--The contracts described in this 
     paragraph include energy savings performance contracts, 
     utility service contracts, power purchase agreements, land 
     leases, and private housing contracts pursuant to which any 
     photovoltaic devices are installed on property or in a 
     facility--
       ``(A) owned by the Department of Defense;
       ``(B) leased to the Department of Defense; or
       ``(C) with respect to which the Secretary of the military 
     department concerned has exercised any authority provided 
     under subchapter IV of chapter 169 of this title (relating to 
     alternative authority for the acquisition and improvement of 
     military housing).
       ``(3) Consistency with international obligations.--
     Paragraph (1) shall be applied in a manner consistent with 
     the obligations of the United States under international 
     agreements.
       ``(4) Definition of photovoltaic devices.--In this 
     subsection, the term `photovoltaic devices' means devices 
     that convert light directly into electricity.
       ``(5) Effective date.--This subsection applies to 
     photovoltaic devices procured or installed on or after the 
     date that is 30 days after the date of the enactment of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 
     pursuant to contracts entered into before, on, or after such 
     date of enactment.''.
       (b) Conforming Repeal.--Section 846 of the Ike Skelton 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (10 
     U.S.C. 2534 note) is repealed.


[[Page 18055]]

                           amendment no. 1153

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment, 
along with my cosponsors Senators Heller, Bingaman, Feinstein, and 
Gillibrand, to provide a simple fix to a loophole in the Tariff Act of 
1930.
  Our amendment will allow our Federal agents and prosecutors to crack 
down on smugglers who use ultralight aircraft, also known as ULAs, to 
bring drugs across the U.S.-Mexico border.
  In the last Congress, then-Congressman Heller introduced a very 
similar bill in the House with Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords. That 
bill passed overwhelmingly by a 412-3 vote. I hope we can have a 
similar bipartisan result here in the Senate.
  ULAs are single-pilot aircraft capable of flying low, landing and 
taking off quickly, and are typically used for sport or for recreation. 
However, because of increased detection and interdiction of more 
traditional smuggling conveyances, ULAs have increasingly been employed 
along the Southwest border by Mexican drug trafficking organizations to 
smuggle drugs into the United States.
  The use of ULAs by drug smugglers presents a unique challenge for law 
enforcement and prosecutors. Every year hundreds of ULAs are flown 
across the Southwest border and each one can carry hundreds of pounds 
of narcotics.
  Under existing law, ULAs are not categorized as aircraft by the 
Federal Aviation Administration, so they do not fall under the aviation 
smuggling provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930. This means that a drug 
smuggler piloting a small airplane is subject to much stronger criminal 
penalties than a smuggler who pilots a ULA.
  Our amendment will close this unintended loophole and establish the 
same penalties if convicted--a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison 
and a $250,000 fine--for smuggling drugs on ULAs as currently exist for 
smuggling on airplanes or in automobiles.
  This is a common sense solution that will give our law enforcement 
agencies and prosecutors additional tools they need to combat drug 
smuggling.
  The amendment would also add an attempt and conspiracy provision to 
the aviation smuggling law to allow prosecutors to charge people other 
than the pilot who are involved in aviation smuggling. This would give 
them a new tool to prosecute the ground crews who aid the pilots as 
well as those who pick up the drug loads that are dropped from ULAs in 
the U.S.
  Finally, the amendment directs the Department of Defense and 
Department of Homeland Security to collaborate in identifying equipment 
and technology used by DOD that could be used by U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection to detect ULAs.


                           Amendment No. 1154

  Mr. President, this next amendment would establish an Open Burn Pit 
Registry. This amendment, filed by myself and lead cosponsor Senator 
Corker, is important to both our active duty troops and veterans.
  In both Afghanistan and Iraq open air burn pits were widely used at 
forward operating bases. Disposing of trash and other debris was 
admittedly a major challenge. Commanders had to find a way to dispose 
of it while concentrating on the important mission at hand.
  The solution that was chosen, however, had serious medical and 
environmental risks. In Afghanistan and Iraq, pits of waste were set on 
fire, sometimes using jet fuel for ignition. Oftentimes, these burn 
pits would turn the sky black.
  Some burn pits were small, but others covered multiple acres of land. 
At Joint Base Balad, Iraq, over ten acres of land were used for burning 
toxic debris.
  This was a base, that at the height of its operations, hosted 
approximately 25,000 military, civilian and coalition personnel. These 
personnel would be exposed to a toxic soup of chemicals released into 
the atmosphere. According to air quality measurements taken near the 
base, the air at Balad had multiple particulates harmful to humans.
  These particulates ranged from plastics and Styrofoam, metals, 
chemicals from paints and solvents, petroleum and lubricants, jet fuel 
and unexploded ordnance, medical and other dangerous waste . . . all of 
this was in the air and being inhaled into the lungs of service 
members.
  More specifically, air samples at Joint Base Balad turned up some 
nasty stuff: Particulate matter--chemicals that form from the 
incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other organic 
substances--Volatile Organic Compounds such as acetone and benzene. 
Benzene is known to cause leukemia and dioxins associated with Agent 
Orange.
  Our veterans have slowly begun to raise the alarm as they learn why, 
after returning home, they are short of breath, or experiencing 
headaches or other symptoms and in some cases developing cancer.
  Many other independent organizations have also urged action on this 
issue, including the American Lung Association which has stated that:

       Emissions from burning waste contain fine particulate 
     matter, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic 
     compounds and various irritant gases such as nitrogen oxides 
     that can scar the lungs.

  The registry created by this amendment will help our medical and 
scientific experts better analyze who was exposed and who is suffering.
  In New Mexico, service members and veterans have begun to come 
forward about their medical conditions. Some, like MSG Jessey Baca, a 
member of the New Mexico Air National Guard who was stationed in Balad, 
Iraq, are facing serious ailments such as cancer and chronic 
bronchiolitis. It is stories like Master Sergeant Baca's which have 
motivated me to take action on this issue and I urge my colleagues to 
hear the stories of heroes like him in all 50 States.
  During my meetings with veterans and active duty members of the 
military, I have truly learned how important it is that we act now.
  Among active duty members there is uncertainty regarding the link 
between burn pits and the illnesses that they are suffering from. This 
uncertainty is discouraging service members from coming forward to have 
their illness diagnosed because they are fearful about the implications 
on their career.
  A registry will help create the data set needed to bring certainty to 
the issue because it will improve our understanding of the link between 
the burn pits and illness. The information will also help DoD better 
understand the link and aid their efforts to improve treatment of our 
troops.
  The Open Burn Pits Registry Act has bipartisan and bicameral support. 
In the House, Representative Akin, a Republican, is sponsoring this 
important piece of legislation with a strong bipartisan group.
  I thank all the supporters and champions for our veterans suffering 
from these hidden wounds and I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 1202

  Mr. President, solar power increases energy security for American 
military installations and our troops in the field.
  With solar power, our military is less dependent on the surrounding 
electricity grid or fuel supplies for generators.
  As a result, the Department of Defense is a leader on utilizing solar 
power--not for environmental reasons, but national security reasons.
  However, if we are going to use taxpayer funds to support military 
solar power--which also qualifies for solar energy tax incentives--we 
must provide a level playing field for U.S. solar manufacturers.
  Last year's Defense Authorization bill took an important step, by 
clarifying that DOD's Buy American Act requirements apply to solar.
  Previously, when solar was installed on DOD property, Buy American 
would not apply because DOD only owned the power, not the panels.
  While last year's bill attempted to fix this situation, it left 2 
loopholes:
  No. 1, first, Buy American requirements still do not apply to many 
DOD facilities, including much of DOD housing, since these facilities 
are leased and not technically ``owned'' by DOD. If we do not close 
this loophole, several hundred megawatts of DOD taxpayer

[[Page 18056]]

funded solar projects could go to Chinese firms.
  No. 2, last year's bill only applied Buy American when solar devices 
are ``reserved for the exclusive use'' of DOD for the ``full economic 
life.'' Solar power projects often sell back to the grid, so the 
combined effect of both of these loopholes is that Buy American does 
not apply to DOD-purchased solar on DOD property.
  The amendment I am offering today, on behalf of myself and Senator 
Schumer, closes these loopholes and applies Buy American requirements 
to all solar panels that are part of contracts with DOD.
  If American taxpayer funds are used to improve our military bases' 
energy security, American solar firms should have an ability to 
compete.
  We know that other nations like China are spending vast resources to 
become leaders in the solar power market. They do not play by our trade 
rules, and they are taking advantage of our taxpayer funds.
  This amendment halts that practice, while maintaining all existing 
provisions of the Buy American Act: nations who are in the WTO are not 
discriminated against and existing exemptions such as availability and 
cost still apply.
  Our amendment is supported by a strong coalition of U.S. solar 
manufacturers, many of which are based overseas, and U.S. workers and 
labor unions.
  I thank Sen. Schumer and his staff for their work on this and I urge 
the Senate's support.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his remarks. I 
agree with him; it was a lively debate. I also agree with him it is to 
be desired that kind of debate occurs more often in the Senate. The 
Senator from New Mexico has been very active in the effort to have 
these kinds of debates by rules changes, which would make these kinds 
of debates a lot more likely, and by other mechanisms.
  To make an inquiry, did the Senator from New Mexico restore the 
regular order to the Levin-McCain amendment? I missed that.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I did. Let me say to Chairman Levin, not 
only lively, robust, but very informative. I learned a lot in the 
process of listening to him and to Senator McCain and Senator Durbin 
and the other Senators who came down about the issue. I think that is 
the way the Senate works best: to have the amendments and various 
provisions of the Defense authorization bill be a part of a lively and 
informative debate.
  I thank the Senator for that, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I assume, then, having watched the debate 
and been informed, that the Senator from New Mexico now takes the 
position that Senator Levin and I do on this issue, and his next 
mission is to convince his colleague from Colorado of the correctness 
of our position?
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. At this point I am still listening and 
trying to ascertain as much as I can about the actual provisions of the 
Defense authorization bill. But the Senator is correct. There could be 
trouble in Udall Valley. There might be a split. We do not see that 
yet, but there is a possibility of it.
  Mr. McCAIN. One thing I have learned about the Senator from New 
Mexico is that he does give all issues a fair and objective hearing. He 
listens and he pays attention and he is informed in his decisions. I 
thank him for taking part in this one.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I also know that when the two of my 
colleagues--when the chairman and Senator McCain, the ranking member--
come together on a prevision and are able to persuade their committee 
to go with it, that says something to the Senate itself, to have that 
before the Senate. I want to study it very carefully. I know Senator 
Graham was down here, who has been very active on this issue and has a 
tremendous amount of experience. I look forward to the continuing 
debate, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico again 
for the comments, but also tell him how very much impressed I have been 
right from the first day I heard him with his openmindedness on 
subjects. It is very important that we keep open minds, and he has 
shown just how to do that. We appreciate that on an issue this complex, 
particularly on the Defense bill.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, our staff is working on various amendments 
that we could get approved by both sides. We think there are a number 
of those on which we can get agreement to make progress today. While we 
are going through that process, I would like to point out the front 
page of this morning's Wall Street Journal, I am sorry to note, may be 
a harbinger of events that will happen in the future, that will take 
place in the future, which will be unfortunate for the United States of 
America and indeed tragic for Iraq.
  The front page of the Wall Street Journal today says ``Standoff Over 
U.S. Airbase in Iraq.''

       A tense standoff between local police and the Iraqi Army 
     played out on Thursday at the gate of the U.S. airbase in the 
     northern city of Kirkuk, where a dispute over land and oil 
     threatens national stability and unity as U.S. forces 
     withdraw.
       The territorial conflict, between the central government in 
     Baghdad and the semiautonomous Kurdistan region, is just one 
     flash point that some American and Iraqi officials say could 
     boil over after the full pullout of U.S. troops at the end of 
     December.
       Fears of a clash between Iraqi troops and Kurdish forces 
     were heightened on Thursday when the Kurdish-dominated police 
     in Kirkuk blocked senior Iraqi Army commanders from entering 
     the airbase, where they said they were planning to take over 
     the facility from the U.S. military.
       The Army officials brought reporters from Iraqi State-owned 
     television to document the handover, in what appeared to be 
     an effort to show the nation that Baghdad was in charge. The 
     central government, headed by Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, 
     is increasingly eager to project its power ahead of the U.S. 
     pullout.

  This is about a volatile region, particularly in the area around 
Kirkuk, which is also symptomatic of the entire northern Iraq border 
between Kurdistan, the semiautonomous region of Iraq, and the rest of 
Iraq. The area is inhabited by different ethnic groups that range from 
Turkmen to Arab to other nationalities who all inhabit the area. One of 
the reasons some of us wanted to have a residual force remain in Iraq--
one of actually three major reasons--was because of the tensions in 
this area which have already bubbled up on several occasions. In fact, 
there was a point some months ago where two forces were--the Pershmaga, 
the Kurdish military, and the Iraqi military--close to a shooting 
situation. The U.S. forces intervened. Obviously, they are not going to 
be there. Obviously, already before they have even left there has been 
a tense standoff at one of the major airbases in Iraq.
  I greatly fear--I pray not, but I greatly fear that we will see more 
and more of these kinds of tensions between the Kurdish area and the 
rest of Iraq. A lot of it has to do with oil. A lot of it has to do 
with who is going to control the oil revenues in the area. Other parts 
go back to the era of Saddam Hussein, where he moved out Kurdish 
individuals and others and moved in people who were loyal to him. There 
are still enormous land disputes in the area as well. Suffice to say, 
it is a place of great tension. I continue to be deeply worried about 
this kind of tension which could lead to armed conflict, but also over 
time, in the view of some, could lead to an actual breakup of Iraq into 
Kurdish areas, Sunni areas, and even two different Shia areas of Iraq.
  I am sorry to see this. I am sorry this is happening and that there 
are more people who are predicting greater tensions in the area, but I 
have to say, I am surprised. I am not surprised. The sad thing about 
all this--I had a rather, shall I say, spirited exchange with the

[[Page 18057]]

Secretary of Defense the other day in the hearing that was held in the 
Armed Services Committee. This isn't a policy matter, this is a not an 
issue of whether we should have French fries served in school lunches. 
This is an issue we have shed the blood of well over 4,400 young 
Americans. I greatly fear that the opportunity that was purchased with 
their expenditure of American blood and treasure may go all for naught 
because of our failure to maintain a residual force in Iraq which, I 
repeat, was always envisioned when the agreement for U.S. withdrawal 
was made by the previous administration--by the way, an agreement I 
disagreed with at that time.
  So I hope that when Prime Minister Maliki comes to Washington next 
month some of these issues can be ironed out, that we can have greater 
cooperation. But I don't think there is any doubt that right now up in 
the area of Kirkuk, they are paying much attention to the statements 
that may be made by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. I wish to commend Senator Levin 
and Senator McCain for their leadership in bringing this piece of 
legislation to the floor. All my colleagues in the Armed Services 
Committee have done a remarkable job and have done it with great 
discipline and dedication and concern for the men and women of our 
Armed Forces and the defense of the Nation.
  This is the 50th consecutive Defense authorization bill that the 
Senate has considered, and I hope we will soon be able to send it to 
the President for his signature. We owe this to our service men and 
women who are devoting themselves, and indeed their families also, to 
the protection of the United States.
  We made difficult decisions in putting together this bill, especially 
in these challenging economic times. We were able to find $26 billion 
in savings from the original budget request the President submitted 
earlier this year. But I am confident this bill provides a budget that 
allows the Department of Defense to combat current threats, plan for 
future threats and provide for the welfare and protection of those men 
and women and their families who serve this Nation.
  I am pleased that at the start of the debate on this important 
measure, that we were able to take up and pass Senator Ayotte's 
amendment on strategic airlift, which I was pleased to cosponsor. I 
was, indeed, very impressed with Senator Ayotte's thorough 
understanding of this issue, her ability to seize on a point and make 
sure it is fully understood. We were able to also bring together 
leaders of our services, the Department of Defense, TRANSCOM, and the 
Air Force, so that this decision was based on a very thorough analysis. 
We owe a great deal of thanks to Senator Ayotte for her extraordinary 
performance in this regard.
  I am also working on several other amendments that would provide 
additional assistance, not just to the overall structure of the Defense 
Department but also to our military personnel. These deal with 
protecting the individual service men and women from exploitation by 
businesses and by other financial entities. We have taken some steps 
going forward with the creation of the new Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau's Office of Service Members Affairs, headed by Holly 
Petraeus, but we have to do more. I hope we can in this bill.
  I am also proposing amendments that would address some of the 
inconsistencies in the policies of National Guard dual-status 
technicians. A further area of concern is better coordination between 
the mental health care provided by the Department of Defense and the 
community providers, particularly for members of the National Guard and 
Reserve and their families. They often don't have the opportunity to be 
close to a major military installation and so coordination with local 
community providers is so critical to helping these members and their 
families. I hope, again, we can work together to get these provisions 
included in the legislation.
  Let me highlight a few of the measures in the overall legislation 
that are very important. It authorizes a 1.6-percent across-the-board 
pay raise and reauthorizes over 30 types of bonuses and special pays 
for our men and women in uniform. This is critical in meeting the needs 
of our military personnel.
  The legislation also authorizes the full funding of the DOD's Mine 
Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle, the MRAP program, which provides 
for the sustainment of MRAPs and M-ATVs to protect our troops on the 
ground. Again, having recently returned about 3 weeks ago from 
Afghanistan, these are critical weapon systems. My colleagues on the 
committee who also frequently travel into these war zones will attest 
to that fact. I am pleased we included this provision in the 
legislation.
  The proposed legislation also authorizes $11.2 billion for the Afghan 
Security Forces Fund to train and equip the Afghan Army and police. 
This is a $1.6 billion reduction from the President's request. The 
CENTCOM commander, General Mattis, and Lieutenant General Caldwell, who 
was the commander on the ground, determined that this reduction could 
be made because of the efficiencies being achieved by the NATO training 
mission in Afghanistan.
  We have to be much more efficient going forward in terms of 
resources, and we also have to prepare for the long term support, not 
alone but with our international partners, of the creation and 
sustainment of the Afghan National Security Forces. It represents 
probably the most significant component, long term, of stabilizing 
Afghanistan. We cannot do it alone. There has to be political will and 
capacity. As we develop this military force, we also have to think 
ahead about how we are, not alone but together with our allies, going 
to ensure it is properly resourced in order to be a contributing factor 
in the stability of Afghanistan.
  This year, once again, I also had the privilege of serving as the 
chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee alongside Senator Wicker, whom I 
wish to thank for his thoughtful and significant contribution to the 
legislation. The Seapower Subcommittee is focused on the needs of the 
Navy, Marine Corps, and the strategic mobility forces. The subcommittee 
put particular emphasis on supporting Marine and naval forces engaged 
in combat operations, improving efficiencies, and applying the savings 
to higher priority programs.
  The subcommittee specifically included requested funding for two 
Virginia-class submarines, the DDG-1000 Program, the Aircraft Carrier 
Replacement Program, the DDG-51 Aegis Destroyer Program, the Littoral 
Combat Ship (LCS) Program, the LHA Amphibious Assault Ship, the Joint 
High Speed Vessel, the Mobile Landing Platform, and the P-8 maritime 
patrol aircraft. All these weapons systems are important aspects of 
Navy and Marine projection power throughout the world.
  I am particularly pleased, obviously, about the continued support for 
the Virginia-class submarine program and the DDG-1000, which are 
integral parts not only of our national security but of the economy of 
New England.
  The subcommittee also included language that would require the 
Department of Navy to restructure plans to replace the canceled 
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle system for the Marine Corps and to 
complete an analysis of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle alternatives 
before launching into a Marine Personnel Carrier acquisition program. 
Essentially, the Marine Corps is restudying their ability to move 
marines from ship to shore and then from shore inland to exploit the 
beachhead, and that careful study is necessary before they make a 
commitment for future programs for equipment.
  We also included language that would permit the Navy to use multiyear 
procurement authority to buy common

[[Page 18058]]

cockpits and avionic systems for the Navy's H-60 helicopters in the 
most efficient manner.
  Let me conclude by once again thanking Senator Wicker, particularly 
for his help with respect to the Seapower Subcommittee, and thanking 
all my colleagues. I think we have a good piece of legislation before 
us. I hope in the process of amending it, we can improve the bill, and 
I look forward to sending such a bill to the President for his 
signature.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank the Senator from Rhode 
Island, my dear friend, for all the work he does on our committee and 
the other work he does for the Senate. He is an invaluable member of 
our Armed Services Committee, and I just want to not let this moment 
pass without acknowledging that.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                  Amendments Nos. 1171, 1172, and 1173

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Corker, I ask 
unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment and 
call up the following amendments en bloc: amendment No. 1171, terrorist 
activities in Pakistan; amendment No. 1172, coalition support in 
Pakistan; and amendment No. 1173, Sense of the Senate regarding NATO.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Corker, 
     proposes amendments en bloc numbered 1171, 1172, and 1173.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1171

   (Purpose: To prohibit funding for any unit of a security force of 
    Pakistan if there is credible evidence that the unit maintains 
connections with an organization known to conduct terrorist activities 
           against the United States or United States allies)

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

     SEC. 1230. PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE FOR PAKISTAN SECURITY 
                   FORCES WITH CONNECTIONS TO TERRORIST 
                   ORGANIZATIONS.

       None of the amounts authorized to be appropriated by this 
     or any other Act may be made available to any unit of the 
     security forces of Pakistan if the Secretary of Defense 
     determines that the United States Government has credible 
     evidence that the unit maintains connections with an 
     organization known to conduct terrorist activities against 
     the United States or United States allies.


                           amendment no. 1172

 (Purpose: To require a report outlining a plan to end reimbursements 
   from the Coalition Support Fund to the Government of Pakistan for 
     operations conducted in support of Operation Enduring Freedom)

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

     SEC. 1230. REPORT ON ENDING COALITION SUPPORT FUND 
                   REIMBURSEMENTS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN 
                   FOR OPERATIONS CONDUCTED IN SUPPORT OF 
                   OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State and the Special 
     Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, shall submit a 
     report to the congressional defense committees and the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives 
     a report outlining a plan to end reimbursements from the 
     Coalition Support Fund to the Government of Pakistan for 
     operations conducted in support of Operation Enduring 
     Freedom.
       (b) Elements.--The report required under subsection (a) 
     shall include the following elements:
       (1) A characterization of the types of reimbursements 
     requested by the Government of Pakistan.
       (2) An assessment of the total amount reimbursed to the 
     Government of Pakistan, by fiscal year, since the beginning 
     of Operation Enduring Freedom.
       (3) The percentage and types of reimbursement requests made 
     by the Government of Pakistan for which the United States 
     Government has denied payment.
       (4) An assessment of whether the operations conducted by 
     the Government of Pakistan in support of Operation Enduring 
     Freedom and reimbursed from the Coalition Support Fund have 
     materially impacted the ability of terrorist organizations to 
     threaten the stability of Afghanistan and Pakistan and to 
     impede the operations of the United States in Afghanistan.
       (5) Recommendations for, and a timeline to implement, a 
     plan to end reimbursements from the Coalition Support Fund to 
     the Government of Pakistan.
       (c) Form.--The report required under subsection (a) shall 
     be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a 
     classified annex.


                           amendment no. 1173

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the North Atlantic 
                          Treaty Organization)

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

     SEC. 1243. SENSE OF SENATE ON THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY 
                   ORGANIZATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
     historically set a target commitment for member states to 
     spend two percent of their gross domestic product on their 
     defense expenditures.
       (2) In 2010, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     identified only 5 member states meeting this target for 
     defense expenditures, including the United States, Albania, 
     France, Greece, and the United Kingdom, leaving 23 member 
     states short of meeting the target.
       (3) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made the following 
     statement on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on 
     October 14, 2010, in a conversation with reporters: ``[m]y 
     worry is that the more our allies cut their capabilities, the 
     more people will look to the United States to cover whatever 
     gaps are created. . . And at a time when we're facing 
     stringencies of our own, that's a concern for me''.
       (4) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in an interview 
     with the BBC on October 15, 2010, stated that ``NATO has been 
     the most successful alliance for defensive purposes in the 
     history of the world, I guess, but it has to be maintained. 
     Now each country has to be able to make its appropriate 
     contributions''.
       (5) On March 30, 2011, Admiral James G. Stavridis stated in 
     a hearing before the Committee on Armed Services of the House 
     of Representatives that ``[w]e need to be emphatic with our 
     European allies that they should spend at least the minimum 
     NATO 2 percent''.
       (6) In a speech delivered in Brussels on June 10, 2011, 
     Secretary of Defense Gates further stated that ``[i]n the 
     past, I've worried openly about NATO turning into a two-
     tiered alliance: Between members who specialize in `soft' 
     humanitarian, development, peacekeeping, and talking tasks, 
     and those conducting the `hard' combat missions. Between 
     those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens 
     of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of 
     NATO membership - be they security guarantees or headquarters 
     billets - but don't want to share the risks and the costs. 
     This is no longer a hypothetical worry. We are there today. 
     And it is unacceptable''.
       (7) In that same speech on June 10, 2011, Secretary of 
     Defense Gates added that ``I am the latest in a string of 
     U.S. defense secretaries who have urged allies privately and 
     publicly, often with exasperation, to meet agreed-upon NATO 
     benchmarks for defense spending. However, fiscal, political 
     and demographic realities make this unlikely to happen 
     anytime soon, as even military stalwarts like the U.K have 
     been forced to ratchet back with major cuts to force 
     structure. Today, just five of 28 allies - the U.S., U.K., 
     France, Greece, along with Albania - exceed the agreed 2% of 
     GDP spending on defense''.
       (8) Secretary of Defense Gates also stated that ``[t]he 
     blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and 
     patience in the U.S. Congress - and in the American body 
     politic writ large - to expend increasingly precious funds on 
     behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the 
     necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be 
     serious and capable partners in their own defense. Nations 
     apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume 
     the growing security burden left by reductions in European 
     defense budgets''.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--
       (1) to commend the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for 
     historically providing an extension to the United States 
     security capabilities; and
       (2) to call upon the President--
       (A) to engage each of the member states of the North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization in a dialogue about the long-
     term health of the North Atlantic Alliance and strongly 
     encourage each of the member states to make a serious effort 
     to protect defense budgets from further reductions, better 
     allocate and coordinate the resources presently available,

[[Page 18059]]

     and recommit to spending at least two percent of gross 
     domestic product on defense; and
       (B) to examine and report to Congress on recommendations 
     that will lead to a stronger North Atlantic Alliance in terms 
     of military capability and readiness across the 28 member 
     states, with particular focus on the smaller member states.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.


                  Amendments Nos. 1117, 1187, and 1211

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be temporarily set aside to call up, on behalf of Senator 
Bingaman, amendment No. 1117; and on behalf of Senator Gillibrand, 
amendments Nos. 1187 and 1211.
  Before the clerk reports, I also ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Gillibrand be added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1092, the Levin-
McCain counterfeit parts amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Senators 
     Bingaman and Gillibrand, proposes amendments en bloc numbered 
     1117, 1187, and 1211.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1117

  (Purpose: To provide for national security benefits for White Sands 
                     Missile Range and Fort Bliss)

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

     SEC. __. WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE AND FORT BLISS.

       (a) Withdrawal.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to valid existing rights and 
     paragraph (3), the Federal land described in paragraph (2) is 
     withdrawn from--
       (A) entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public 
     land laws;
       (B) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
       (C) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials, 
     and geothermal leasing laws.
       (2) Description of federal land.--The Federal land referred 
     to in paragraph (1) consists of--
       (A) the approximately 5,100 acres of land depicted as 
     ``Withdrawal Area'' on the map entitled ``White Sands 
     Military Reservation Withdrawal'' and dated May 3, 2011;
       (B) the approximately 37,600 acres of land depicted as 
     ``Parcel 1'', ``Parcel 2'', and ``Parcel 3'' on the map 
     entitled ``Dona Ana County Land Transfer and Withdrawal'' and 
     dated April 20, 2011; and
       (C) any land or interest in land that is acquired by the 
     United States within the boundaries of the parcels described 
     in subparagraph (B).
       (3) Limitation.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the land 
     depicted as ``Parcel 3'' on the map described in paragraph 
     (2)(B) is not withdrawn for purposes of the issuance of oil 
     and gas pipeline rights-of-way.
       (b) Reservation.--The Federal land described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(A) is reserved for use by the Secretary of the Army 
     for military purposes in accordance with Public Land Order 
     833, dated May 21, 1952 (17 Fed. Reg. 4822).
       (c) Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction.--Effective on 
     the date of enactment of this Act, administrative 
     jurisdiction over the approximately 2,050 acres of land 
     generally depicted as ``Parcel 1'' on the map described in 
     subsection (a)(2)(B)--
       (1) is transferred from the Secretary of the Army to the 
     Secretary of the Interior (acting through the Director of the 
     Bureau of Land Management); and
       (2) shall be managed in accordance with--
       (A) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
       (B) any other applicable laws.
       (d) Legal Description.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     publish in the Federal Register a legal description of the 
     Federal land withdrawn by subsection (a).
       (2) Force of law.--The legal description published under 
     paragraph (1) shall have the same force and effect as if 
     included in this Act, except that the Secretary of the 
     Interior may correct errors in the legal description.
       (3) Reimbursement of costs.--The Secretary of the Army 
     shall reimburse the Secretary of the Interior for any costs 
     incurred by the Secretary of the Interior in implementing 
     this subsection with regard to the Federal land described in 
     subsection (a)(2)(A).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1187

(Purpose: To expedite the hiring authority for the defense information 
                      technology/cyber workforce)

       At the end of title XI, add the following:

     SEC. 1108. EXPEDITED HIRING AUTHORITY FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION 
                   TECHNOLOGY/CYBER WORKFORCE.

       (a) Expedited Hiring Authority.--Chapter 81 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1599e. Information technology/cyber workforce: 
       expedited hiring authority

       ``(a) Authority.--For purposes of sections 3304, 5333, and 
     5753 of title 5, the Secretary of Defense--
       ``(1) may designate any category of Information Technology/
     Cyber workforce positions in the Department of Defense as 
     positions for which there exists a shortage of candidates or 
     for which there is a critical hiring need; and
       ``(2) may use the authorities provided in those sections to 
     recruit and appoint qualified persons directly to positions 
     so designated, and should appoint veterans to those positions 
     to the maximum extent possible.
       ``(b) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     an annual report to the congressional defense committees 
     detailing the number of people hired under the authority of 
     this section, the number of people so hired who transfer to a 
     field outside the category of Information Technology/Cyber 
     workforce, and the number of veterans who apply for, and are 
     hired, for positions under this authority.
       ``(c) Sunset.--The Secretary may not appoint a person to a 
     position of employment under this section after September 30, 
     2017.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``1599e. Information technology/cyber workforce: expedited hiring 
              authority.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1211

 (Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance 
   to State National Guards to provide counseling and reintegration 
services for members of reserve components of the Armed Forces ordered 
to active duty in support of a contingency operation, members returning 
    from such active duty, veterans of the Armed Forces, and their 
                               families)

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

     SEC. 577. SUPPORT FOR NATIONAL GUARD COUNSELING AND 
                   REINTEGRATION SERVICES.

       (a) Assistance Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may 
     provide assistance to a State National Guard to support 
     programs to provide pre-deployment and post-deployment 
     outreach, reintegration, and readjustment services to the 
     following persons:
       (1) Members of reserve components of the Armed Forces who 
     reside in the State or are members of the State National 
     Guard regardless of place of residence and who are ordered to 
     active duty in support of a contingency operation.
       (2) Members described in paragraph (1) upon their return 
     from such active duty.
       (3) Veterans (as defined in section 101(2) of title 38, 
     United States Code).
       (4) Dependents of persons described in paragraph (1), (2), 
     or (3).
       (b) Elements of Programs.--Programs supported under 
     subsection (a) shall use direct person-to-person outreach and 
     other relevant activities to ensure that eligible persons 
     receive all the services and support available to them during 
     pre-deployment, deployment, and reintegration periods.
       (c) Merit-Based or Competitive Decisions.--A decision to 
     commit, obligate, or expend funds with or to a specific State 
     National Guard under subsection (a) shall--
       (1) be based on merit-based selection procedures in 
     accordance with the requirements of sections 2304(k) and 2374 
     of title 10, United States Code, or on competitive 
     procedures; and
       (2) comply with other applicable provisions of law.
       (d) State Defined.--In this section, the term ``State'' 
     means each of the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
       (e) Funding.--
       (1) Funds available.--The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated by section 301 and available for operation and 
     maintenance for the Army National Guard as specified in the 
     funding table in section 4301 is hereby increased by 
     $70,000,000, with the amount of the increase to be available 
     for assistance authorized by this section.
       (2) Offsets.--(A) The amount authorized to be appropriated 
     by section 301 and available for operation and maintenance 
     for the Army as specified in the funding table in section 
     4301 is hereby reduced by $33,400,000, with the amount of the 
     reduction to be allocated to amounts otherwise available for 
     the Army for recruiting and advertising.
       (B) The amount authorized to be appropriated by section 301 
     and available for operation and maintenance for the Navy as 
     specified in the funding table in section 4301 is hereby 
     reduced by $16,200,000, with the amount of the reduction to 
     be allocated to amounts otherwise available for the Navy for 
     recruiting and advertising.
       (C) The amount authorized to be appropriated by section 301 
     and available for operation and maintenance for the Marine 
     Corps

[[Page 18060]]

     as specified in the funding table in section 4301 is hereby 
     reduced by $11,700,000, with the amount of the reduction to 
     be allocated to amounts otherwise available for the Marine 
     Corps for recruiting and advertising.
       (D) The amount authorized to be appropriated by section 301 
     and available for operation and maintenance for the Air Force 
     as specified in the funding table in section 4301 is hereby 
     reduced by $8,700,000, with the amount of the reduction to be 
     allocated to amounts otherwise available for the Air Force 
     for recruiting and advertising.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order on the Levin-
McCain amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is now the pending 
question.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


           Amendments Nos. 1239, 1256, 1257, and 1258 En Bloc

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside. I call up en bloc 1239, 1256, 1257, and 1258.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Merkley] proposes amendments 
     numbered 1239, 1256, 1257, and 1258 en bloc.

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask that reading of the amendments be 
dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1239

    (Purpose: To expand the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry 
 scholarship to include spouses of members of the Armed Forces who die 
                          in the line of duty)

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

     SEC. 1088. EXPANSION OF MARINE GUNNERY SERGEANT JOHN DAVID 
                   FRY SCHOLARSHIP.

       (a) Expansion of Entitlement.--Subsection (b)(9) of section 
     3311 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     ``or spouse'' after ``child''.
       (b) Limitation and Election on Certain Benefits.--
     Subsection (f) of such section is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(2) Limitation.--The entitlement of an individual to 
     assistance under subsection (a) pursuant to paragraph (9) of 
     subsection (b) because the individual was a spouse of a 
     person described in such paragraph shall expire on the 
     earlier of--
       ``(A) the date that is 15 years after the date on which the 
     person died; and
       ``(B) the date on which the individual remarries.
       ``(3) Election on receipt of certain benefits.--A surviving 
     spouse entitled to assistance under subsection (a) pursuant 
     to paragraph (9) of subsection (b) who is also entitled to 
     educational assistance under chapter 35 of this title may not 
     receive assistance under both this section and such chapter, 
     but shall make an irrevocable election (in such form and 
     manner as the Secretary may prescribe) under which section or 
     chapter to receive educational assistance.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date that is 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1256

      (Purpose: To require a plan for the expedited transition of 
 responsibility for military and security operations in Afghanistan to 
                     the Government of Afghanistan)

       On page 484, strike lines 8 through 24 and insert the 
     following:
       (8) During the course of Operation Enduring Freedom, 
     members of the Armed forces, intelligence personnel, and the 
     diplomatic corps have skillfully achieved the core goal of 
     the United States strategy in Afghanistan, and Secretary of 
     Defense Leon E. Panetta has noted that al Qaeda's presence in 
     Afghanistan has been greatly diminished.
       (9) On May 1, 2011, in support of the goal to disrupt, 
     dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda, President Obama authorized a 
     United States operation that killed Osama bin Laden, leader 
     of al Qaeda. While the impact of his death on al Qaeda 
     remains to be seen, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called 
     the death of bin Laden a ``game changer'' in a speech on May 
     6, 2011.
       (10) Over the past ten years, the mission of the United 
     States has evolved to include a prolonged nation-building 
     effort in Afghanistan, including the creation of a strong 
     central government, a national police force and army, and 
     effective civic institutions.
       (11) Such nation-building efforts in Afghanistan are 
     undermined by corruption, high illiteracy, and a historic 
     aversion to a strong central government in that country.
       (12) The continued concentration of United States and NATO 
     military forces in one region, when terrorist forces are 
     located in many parts of the world, is not an efficient use 
     of resources.
       (13) The battle against terrorism is best served by using 
     United States troops and resources in a counterterrorism 
     strategy against terrorist forces wherever they may locate 
     and train.
       (14) The United States Government will continue to support 
     the development of Afghanistan with a strong diplomatic and 
     counterterrorism presence in the region.
       (b) Benchmarks Required.--The President shall establish, 
     and may update from time to time, a comprehensive set of 
     benchmarks to evaluate progress being made toward the 
     objective of transitioning and transferring lead security 
     responsibilities in Afghanistan to the Government of 
     Afghanistan by December 31, 2014.
       (c) Transition Plan.--The President shall devise a plan 
     based on inputs from military commanders, the diplomatic 
     missions in the region, and appropriate members of the 
     Cabinet, along with the consultation of Congress, for 
     expediting the drawdown of United States combat troops in 
     Afghanistan and accelerating the transfer of security 
     authority to Afghan authorities.
       (d) Submittal to Congress.--The President shall include the 
     most current set of benchmarks established pursuant to 
     subsection (b) and the plan pursuant to subsection (c) with 
     each report on progress.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1257

      (Purpose: To require a plan for the expedited transition of 
 responsibility for military and security operations in Afghanistan to 
                     the Government of Afghanistan)

       On page 484, strike line 22 through line 24 and insert the 
     following:
       (c) Transition Plan.--The President shall devise a plan 
     based on inputs from military commanders, the diplomatic 
     missions in the region, and appropriate members of the 
     Cabinet, along with the consultation of Congress, for 
     expediting the drawdown of United States combat troops in 
     Afghanistan and accelerating the transfer of security 
     authority to Afghan authorities.
       (d) Submittal to Congress.--The President shall include the 
     most current set of benchmarks established pursuant to 
     subsection (b) and the plan pursuant to subsection (c) with 
     each report on progress.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1258

  (Purpose: To require the timely identification of qualified census 
  tracts for purposes of the HUBZone program, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DESIGNATION OF QUALIFIED CENSUS TRACTS.

       (a) Designation.--
       (1) Identification of hubzone qualified census tracts.--Not 
     later than 2 months after the date on which the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development receives from the Census Bureau 
     the data obtained from each decennial census relating to 
     census tracts necessary for such identification, the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall identify and 
     publish the list of census tracts that meet the requirements 
     of section 42(d)(5)(B)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.
       (2) Specification of effective dates of designation.--
       (A) Hubzone effective date.--The Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development, after consultation with the Administrator 
     of the Small Business Administration, shall designate a date 
     that is not later than 3 months after the publication of the 
     list of qualified census tracts under paragraph (1) upon 
     which the list published under paragraph (1) becomes 
     effective for areas that qualify as HUBZones under section 
     3(p)(1)(A) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     632(p)(1)(A)).
       (B) Section 42 effective date.--The Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development shall designate a date, which may 
     differ from the HUBZone effective date under subparagraph 
     (A), upon which the list of qualified census tracts published 
     under paragraph (1) shall become effective for purposes of 
     section 42(d)(5)(B)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection may 
     be construed to affect the method used by the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development to designate census tracts as 
     qualified census tracts in a year in which the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development receives no data from the 
     Census Bureau relating to census tract boundaries.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Small 
     Business Administration shall submit to the Committee on

[[Page 18061]]

     Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives a 
     report that--
       (1) describes the benefits and drawbacks of using qualified 
     census tract data to designate HUBZones under section 3(p) of 
     the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p));
       (2) describes any problems encountered by the Administrator 
     in using qualified census tract data to designate HUBZones; 
     and
       (3) includes recommendations, if any, for ways to improve 
     the process of designating HUBZones.

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I call for the regular order.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in a short while I hope we will have, and 
expect that we will have, some amendments that have been cleared on 
both sides that we are going to be able to offer and hopefully adopt.
  What I thought I would do now is make a fairly lengthy statement 
about statements which have been made relative to the detainee 
provisions in S. 1867. First, I want to comment on the statements that 
were made in the Statement of Administration Policy--this is a so-
called SAP. So when I refer to SAP during these comments, and I use 
that term, it is the acronym which means Statement of Administration 
Policy.
  I am going to first quote exactly from the SAP, and then I am going 
to comment and show why these statements I am referring to are 
inaccurate. From the SAP:

       Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention 
     authority that exists under the authorization for Use of 
     Military Force.

  The authorization for use of military force is referred to as the 
AUMF. The quote continues:

       The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the 
     detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect 
     the American people from the threat posed by al-Qaida and its 
     associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full 
     range of threats this country faces from those organizations 
     and individuals.

  Well, Mr. President, given how important the administration says 
these authorities are, it should be helpful to have them codified so 
they can stand on the strongest possible footing.
  The next quote:

       Because the authorities codified in this section [1031] 
     already exist, the administration does not believe 
     codification is necessary and poses some risk.

  The quote continues:

       After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention 
     authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new 
     series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts 
     to protect the country.

  The quote continues:

       While the current language minimizes many of those risks, 
     future legislative action must ensure that the codification 
     in statute of express military detention authority does not 
     carry unintended consequences that could compromise our 
     ability to protect the American people.

  Well, Mr. President, section 1031 was written by administration 
officials for the purpose of codifying existing authority. The 
description of persons covered is identical to the position taken by 
the administration and upheld in the courts. The provision specifically 
provides that nothing in the provision either limits or expands the 
authority of the President or the scope of the AUMF.
  It is also worth noting that the SAP does not support the argument 
made by some Senators that section 1031 creates a new or unprecedented 
authority. On the contrary, the Statement of Administration Policy, the 
SAP, acknowledges the provision codifies existing law.
  Now, this is hardly surprising since the committee accepted all of 
the administration's proposed changes to section 1031.
  I am continuing to quote from the Statement of Administration Policy:

       The administration strongly objects to the military custody 
     provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate 
     military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. 
     This unnecessary, untested and legally controversial 
     restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation 
     from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our 
     intelligence and law enforcement professionals.

  Well, Mr. President, it is interesting that the SAP states the 
amendment would ``appear to'' mandate military custody. In fact, it 
does not mandate military custody and does not tie the administration's 
hands because it includes a national security waiver which allows 
suspects to be held in civilian custody.
  Next quote:

       Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to 
     individuals inside the United States, as some Members of 
     Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise 
     serious and unsettled legal questions and would be 
     inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our 
     military does not patrol our streets.

  Well, the administration itself asked that we delete limitations in 
section 1031 on the applicability of detention authority inside the 
United States that would have excluded U.S. citizens and lawful 
residents based on conduct taking place inside the United States to the 
extent authorized by the Constitution. The exact words were ``except to 
the extent authorized by the Constitution.''
  If it is appropriate to authorize military detention inside the 
United States under section 1031, it is not at all clear what ``serious 
and unsettled legal questions'' in this narrow category of cases could 
be raised by requiring such detention subject to a national security 
waiver. Further, nothing in section 1032 would require or even permit 
our military to ``patrol our streets.''
  Section 1032 applies, by its very term, only to a person ``who has 
been captured in the course of hostilities'' authorized by the AUMF. 
The provision has no applicability to a person who has not already been 
so captured and does not speak to the question of when or where such a 
capture might be authorized.
  The provision does not give the military authority to make arrests or 
conduct any law enforcement functions inside the United States.
  Next quote:

       We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking 
     down the walls between intelligence, military, and law 
     enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild 
     those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing 
     terrorist attacks more difficult.

  In answer to that, it is not clear what walls the administration 
thinks the provision builds. Nothing in this provision limits the 
participation of law enforcement or intelligence professionals in the 
interrogation of detainees in military custody or vice versa or the 
sharing of information.
  Next quote:

       Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of 
     our national security professionals to choose, based on the 
     evidence and the facts and the circumstances of each case, 
     which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best 
     serves our national security interests.

  The provision does not limit the flexibility of the executive branch 
to choose the appropriate tool for taking on terrorists. On the 
contrary, the provision expressly directs the President to establish 
procedures for making determinations of coverage, authorizes the 
executive branch waiver of military detention requirements where they 
do apply, and expressly authorizes the transfer of any detainee to 
civilian custody for trial.
  The next quote from the SAP:

       The waiver provision fails to address these concerns, 
     particularly in time-sensitive operations in which law 
     enforcement personnel have traditionally played the leading 
     role.

  It is not clear why the administration thinks the use of a waiver 
would be problematic in time-sensitive operations. The need for a 
waiver is not triggered until the executive branch determines an 
individual is covered. The President has control over who makes these 
determinations, how they are made, and when they are made, so the 
executive branch should not be faced by a determination of coverage for 
which it is not ready. And even if,

[[Page 18062]]

for some reason, executive branch officials were not ready to deal with 
their own determination, the provision specifically provides that a 
determination of coverage may not be used to interrupt ongoing 
surveillance, intelligence gathering, or interrogation sessions.
  The next quote from the SAP:

       These problems are all the more acute because the section 
     defines the category of individuals who would be subject to 
     mandatory military custody by substituting new and untested 
     legislative criteria for the criteria that the Executive and 
     Judicial Branches are currently using for detention under 
     AUMF in both habeas litigation and military operations. Such 
     confusion threatens our ability to act swiftly and decisively 
     to capture, detain, and interrogate terrorism suspects, and 
     could disrupt the collection of vital intelligence about 
     threats to the American people.

  The SAP is wrong. Detention under section 1032 is expressly limited 
to persons for whom detention is authorized under criteria currently 
used by the executive branch and the courts. The new and untested 
legislative criteria about which the SAP expresses concern is language 
narrowing the application of the provision to a small category of those 
for whom detention is already authorized.
  Also, because the provision addresses only the question of whether an 
individual should be transferred to military custody after capture, it 
is not clear how it could possibly threaten the ability of executive 
branch officials to act swiftly and decisively to capture anybody.
  Because the provision expressly states it may not be applied to 
interfere with an ongoing surveillance, intelligence gathering, and 
interrogations, it is not clear how it could possibly threaten the 
ability of executive branch officials to interrogate terrorism suspects 
or disrupt the collection of vital intelligence about threats to the 
American people.
  The next quote from the SAP:

       Rather than fix the fundamental defects of section 1032 or 
     remove it entirely, as the administration and the chairs of 
     several congressional committees with jurisdiction over these 
     matters have advocated, the revised text merely directs the 
     President to develop procedures to ensure the myriad problems 
     that would result from such a requirement do not come to 
     fruition.

  The administration reviewed the language directing the President to 
develop procedures and they made several suggestions for improvements 
to that language. The committee adopted all of the administration's 
suggestions. The remaining change suggested by the administration, 
which the committee did not adopt, was a proposal to limit the 
application of the provision to persons captured abroad. This 
difference does not constitute a myriad of problems which are complex 
or hard to understand.
  This is the last comment they make on that section:

       Requiring the President to devise such procedures concedes 
     the substantial risks created by mandating military custody, 
     without providing an adequate solution. As a result, it is 
     likely that implementing such procedures would inject 
     significant confusion into counterterrorism operations.

  The language referred to was included to address concerns expressed 
by the administration. That does not in any way constitute an 
acknowledgment that the concerns were valid. Whether these concerns 
were valid or not, they have now been resolved by specific language in 
the revised provision.
  Continuing:

       The certification and waiver, required by section 1033 
     before a detainee may be transferred from Guantanamo Bay to a 
     foreign country, continue to hinder the Executive Branch's 
     ability to exercise its military, national security, and 
     foreign relations activities. While these provisions may be 
     intended to be somewhat less restrictive than the analogous 
     provisions in current law, they continue to pose unnecessary 
     obstacles, effectively blocking transfers that would advance 
     our national security interests, and would, in certain 
     circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers 
     principles. The Executive Branch must have the flexibility to 
     act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries 
     regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers.

  The provision is not only ``intended to be somewhat less 
restrictive'' than provisions that are included in previous 
authorization and appropriations acts signed by the President, it is 
less restrictive. Unlike last year's bill, this provision includes a 
waiver, which allows the administration to proceed with a transfer even 
if the certification requirements cannot be met.
  Congress has expressed strong concerns about recidivism among Gitmo 
detainees who have been released in the past. It cannot be in our 
national security interests to ``act swiftly'' if we fail to provide 
adequate safeguards against terrorists rejoining the fight against us.
  In discussions on this issue, administration officials have made a 
single priority request--that the provision be made a 1-year limitation 
instead of a permanent limitation. And the committee agreed to that 
change.

       Section 1034's ban--

  And I am now continuing the quote from SAP--

     on the use of funds to construct or modify a detention 
     facility in the United States is an unwise intrusion on the 
     military's ability to transfer its detainees as operational 
     needs dictate.

  This provision is the same as the provisions included in last year's 
authorization and appropriations acts which were signed by the 
President. In discussions on this issue, administration officials made 
a single priority request--that the provision be made a 1-year 
limitation instead of a permanent limitation. The committee agreed to 
that change.
  The next quote from the SAP:

       Section 1035 conflicts with the consensus-based interagency 
     approach to detainee reviews required under Executive Order 
     No. 13567, which establishes procedures to ensure that 
     periodic review decisions are informed by the most 
     comprehensive information and considered views of all 
     relevant agencies.

  Section 1035 does not conflict with the Executive order of the 
interagency review process established in the Executive order; rather, 
it requires the issuance of procedures to implement the review process 
required by the Executive order.
  The Executive order states that a Gitmo detainee will not be released 
if the interagency process results in a unanimous recommendation 
against release. The Executive order states that a Gitmo detainee will 
be released if the interagency process results in a unanimous 
recommendation for release. But it is silent as to what happens if the 
process does not result in a unanimous recommendation.
  The provision in the bill addresses that issue by providing that no 
Gitmo detainee will be released without the consent of the Secretary of 
Defense. This does not contradict the Executive order; it is a truism, 
since nobody can be released without agreement of all of the agencies.
  In discussions with the committee, administration officials did not 
even raise this provision as a priority issue.
  Finally, on the Statement of Administration Policy, the SAP:

       Section 1036, in addition to imposing onerous requirements, 
     conflicts with procedures for detainee reviews in the field 
     that have been developed based on many years of experience by 
     military officers and the Department of Defense.

  The only new requirement imposed by section 1036 is the requirement 
for a military judge and legal representation for any detainee who will 
be held in long-term custody. In discussions with the committee, the 
administration did not object to this new requirement. On the contrary, 
the only change requested by the administration in this provision was 
to strike the words ``long-term.'' The committee did not agree to this 
proposed change because it would have been onerous to impose this 
requirement in the case of all detainees, including those who are 
captured and released or held on a short-term basis.
  Mr. President, I now would like to move to my comments on some of the 
statements of the senior Senator from California. The first comment of 
Senator Feinstein that I wish to address is the one where she said: 
``Section 1031 needs to be reviewed to consider whether it is 
consistent with the September 18, 2001, authorization for use of 
military force.''
  On this one, the committee accepted all of the administration's 
language changes which were written to ensure that the provision is 
consistent with

[[Page 18063]]

the AUMF. The provision specifically states it does not ``limit or 
expand the authority of the President on the scope of the AUMF.'' The 
SAP on the provision states that ``the authorities codified in this 
section already exist'' under the AUMF.
  The next quote from the Senator from California is the following. 
Section 1031:

     . . . would authorize the indefinite detention of American 
     citizens without charge or trial. Do we want to go home and 
     tell the people of America that we're going to hold them if 
     such a situation comes up without any review, without any 
     habeas?

  The committee accepted all of the administration's proposed changes 
to section 1031, and as the administration has acknowledged, the 
provision does nothing more than codify existing law. Indeed, as 
revised pursuant to administration recommendations, the provision 
expressly ``affirms'' an authority that already exists. The Supreme 
Court held in the Hamdi case that existing law authorizes the detention 
of American citizens under the law of war in the limited circumstances 
spelled out here, so this is nothing new.
  The initial bill reported by the committee included language 
expressly precluding ``the detention of citizens or lawful resident 
aliens of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within 
the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution 
of the United States.''
  The administration asked that this language be removed from the bill. 
Mr. President, 1031 does not refer to habeas and in no way limits 
habeas, nor could it. No American can be held in military detention 
without habeas review and no non-American can be held in military 
detention inside the United States without habeas. For non-Americans 
outside the United States, the bill requires the administration to 
establish review procedures, including, for the first time, a military 
judge and access to a military lawyer for the status determination.
  The next quote of the Senator from California is the following. Under 
Section 1032:

     . . . any noncitizen al-Qaida operative captured in the 
     United States would be automatically turned over to military 
     custody. Military custody for captured terrorists may make 
     sense in some cases, but certainly not all.

  Mr. President, Section 1032 does not mandate military custody. It 
does not tie the administration's hands because--and this is critically 
important--it includes a national security waiver which explicitly 
allows any suspect to be held in civilian custody. Nothing is 
automatic. The administration would have the discretion to waive 
military detention and hold a detainee in civilian custody if it 
decided to do so.
  The next quote in the case of Najibullah Zazi:

       If the mandatory military custody in the armed service bill 
     was law--

  The committee bill was law--

     all of the surveillance activities, all of what the FBI did 
     would have to be transferred immediately to the military. . . 
     . Then the government would have been forced to split up co-
     defendants, even in cases where they otherwise could be 
     prosecuted as part of the same conspiracy.
       Zazi was a permanent legal resident. His co-conspirators 
     were both U.S. citizens. They would be prosecuted on 
     terrorist charges in Federal criminal court, but Zazi himself 
     would be transferred to military custody. Two different 
     detention and prosecution systems would play out and could 
     well complicate a unified prosecution.

  It is not accurate to say everything the FBI did in the Zazi case 
would have had to be ``transferred immediately to the military.'' 
First, it is not at all clear Zazi was covered by the provision because 
we don't know that he was al-Qaida, and in any event there is an 
exclusion because he is a lawful resident alien of the United States.
  Second, until a coverage determination was made, no transfer would be 
required and the President would decide how and when that determination 
would be made.
  Finally, even if Zazi were somehow determined to be covered, the 
requirement could have been waived and Zazi could have been kept in 
civilian custody in the discretion of the executive branch.
  Also, as to this statement that the executive branch would be forced 
to split up codefendants in the Zazi case, even if he was covered by 
the provision or in any other case, that is because the provision 
includes a waiver that would have allowed him to be held in civilian 
custody from the outset if the executive branch officials decided to do 
so and also because the provision expressly authorizes the transfer of 
any military detainee to civilian custody for trial in the Federal 
courts even without a waiver. So executive branch officials are always 
able to consolidate cases should they decide to do so in the Federal 
courts.
  The next statement which the Senator made was the following:

       The Department of Justice has said that approximately one-
     third of terrorists charged in Federal court in 2010 would be 
     subject to mandatory military detention, absent a waiver from 
     the Secretary of Defense.

  Taking the Justice Department at its word, there have been 
approximately 300 terrorist cases in Federal court over the last 10 
years or about 30 a year. One-third of that number would be just 10 
cases a year in which the executive branch officials would have to make 
determinations of coverage and, if necessary, exercise their waiver 
authority.
  Even that number appears to be exaggerated. Cases of attempted al-
Qaida attacks on American soil have been highly publicized and receive 
extensive scrutiny, understandably, in Congress. We are not aware of 
more than half a dozen cases, total, over the last decade. The reason 
the debate on this issue always seems to come back to the same handful 
of cases appears to be there only are a handful of cases that are 
covered by this provision potentially.
  In her next quote:

       The administration contends that the mandatory military 
     custody is unwise because our allies will not extradite 
     terror suspects to the United States for interrogation and 
     prosecution or even provide evidence about suspected 
     terrorists if they will be sent to a military brig or 
     Guantanamo.

  This provision expressly states that the waiver authority may be used 
to address these concerns and to assure an ally that a suspect will not 
be held in military custody if transferred to the United States and if 
that assurance is necessary to obtain that transfer. Administration 
officials suggested a wording change to preclude misinterpretation of 
this provision and the committee adopted the very wording proposed by 
the administration.
  The next quote of the Senator from California is that Section 1033:

     . . . essentially establishes a de facto ban on transfers of 
     detainees out of Guantanamo, even for the purpose of 
     prosecution in United States courts or in other countries.

  There is no limitation at all in the bill on the transfer of Gitmo 
detainees to the United States for trial or for any other purpose. With 
regard to the transfer to other countries, Section 1033 is less 
restrictive than current law, which was signed by the President.
  The next quote I would address is the following. Section 1033:

     . . . requires the Secretary of Defense to make a series of 
     certifications that are unreasonable and candidly unknowable 
     before any detainee is transferred out of Guantanamo. Again, 
     an example, the administration proposed eliminating the 
     requirement that the Secretary of Defense certified that the 
     foreign country from whence the detainee will be sent to is 
     not quote `facing a threat that is likely to substantially 
     affect its ability to exercise its control over the 
     individual.'

  The same language was included in last year's authorization and 
appropriations bills that were signed by the President. We added a 
waiver provision this year to make it easier to transfer detainees. In 
discussion with the committee, the administration made a single 
priority request on this issue; that the provision be made a 1-year 
limitation instead of a permanent limitation, and the committee agreed 
to that change.
  Finally, the last quote of the Senator from California from yesterday 
that I am going to address is the following:

       In March, the President issued an executive order that laid 
     out the process for reviewing each detainee's case to make 
     sure that indefinite detention continues to be an appropriate 
     and preferred course. Section 1035 essentially reverses the 
     interagency process created by the President's order.


[[Page 18064]]


  This was the same allegation made by the statement of administration 
policy. It is erroneous, and I addressed the answer to that allegation 
in my remarks a little earlier today, relative to the statement of 
administration policy, the SAP, so I am not going to comment further. 
But I would direct everyone back to those comments on the statement of 
administration policy similar to that statement of the Senator from 
California, which I addressed at that time.
  I appreciate the patience of our Presiding Officer. This was a long 
statement, but I think it is essential we understand there are issues 
that need to be debated and should be debated, but there is nothing but 
confusion created on an issue that is already complex when 
misstatements are made about what is in a bill of the committee and 
what is not in the bill of a committee.
  The words in the committee bill are words that are clear. They need 
to be debated, but they should not be exaggerated or misinterpreted. 
This is an important debate. We had a good debate yesterday, and I 
expect we will complete this debate on Monday so we can vote on these 
detention provisions and amendments relative thereto of Senator Udall 
hopefully on Monday night.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1087

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and amendment No. 1087, the Leahy FOIA 
amendment, be called up and then be set aside.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1087.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To improve the provisions relating to the treatment of 
 certain sensitive national security information under the Freedom of 
                            Information Act)

       Strike section 1044 and insert the following:

     SEC. 1044. TREATMENT UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF 
                   CERTAIN SENSITIVE NATIONAL SECURITY 
                   INFORMATION.

       (a) Critical Infrastructure Security Information.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense may exempt 
     Department of Defense critical infrastructure security 
     information from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, 
     United States Code, upon a written determination that--
       (A) the disclosure of such information would reveal 
     vulnerabilities in such infrastructure that, if exploited, 
     could result in the disruption, degradation, or destruction 
     of Department of Defense operations, property, or facilities; 
     and
       (B) the public interest in the disclosure of such 
     information does not outweigh the Government's interest in 
     withholding such information from the public.
       (2) Information provided to state or local first 
     responders.--Critical infrastructure security information 
     covered by a written determination under this subsection that 
     is provided to a State or local government to assist first 
     responders in the event that emergency assistance should be 
     required shall be deemed to remain under the control of the 
     Department of Defense.
       (b) Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance System.--
     The Secretary of Defense may exempt information contained in 
     any data file of the Military Flight Operations Quality 
     Assurance system of a military department from disclosure 
     under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, upon a 
     written determination that the disclosure of such information 
     in the aggregate (and when combined with other information 
     already in the public domain) would reveal sensitive 
     information regarding the tactics, techniques, procedures, 
     processes, or operational and maintenance capabilities of 
     military combat aircraft, units, or aircrews. Information 
     covered by a written determination under this subsection 
     shall be exempt from disclosure under such section 552 even 
     when such information is contained in a data file that is not 
     exempt in its entirety from such disclosure.
       (c) Delegation.--The Secretary of Defense may delegate the 
     authority to make a determination under subsection (a) or (b) 
     to any civilian official in the Department of Defense or a 
     military department who is appointed by the President, by and 
     with the advice and consent of the Senate.
       (d) Transparency.--Each determination of the Secretary, or 
     the Secretary's designee, under subsection (a) or (b) shall 
     be made in writing and accompanied by a statement of the 
     basis for the determination. All such determinations and 
     statements of basis shall be available to the public, upon 
     request, through the office of the Assistant Secretary of 
     Defense for Public Affairs.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``Department of Defense critical 
     infrastructure security information'' means sensitive but 
     unclassified information that could substantially facilitate 
     the effectiveness of an attack designed to destroy equipment, 
     create maximum casualties, or steal particularly sensitive 
     military weapons including information regarding the securing 
     and safeguarding of explosives, hazardous chemicals, or 
     pipelines, related to critical infrastructure or protected 
     systems owned or operated by or on behalf of the Department 
     of Defense, including vulnerability assessments prepared by 
     or on behalf of the Department, explosives safety information 
     (including storage and handling), and other site-specific 
     information on or relating to installation security.
       (2) The term ``data file'' means a file of the Military 
     Flight Operations Quality Assurance system that contains 
     information acquired or generated by the Military Flight 
     Operations Quality Assurance system, including the following:
       (A) Any data base containing raw Military Flight Operations 
     Quality Assurance data.
       (B) Any analysis or report generated by the Military Flight 
     Operations Quality Assurance system or which is derived from 
     Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance data.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I offer an amendment to the National 
Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, that would address an overbroad 
exemption to the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, contained in the 
bill. This amendment is supported by a broad coalition of open 
government groups from across the political spectrum. I hope that the 
Senate will adopt it.
  For 45 years, the Freedom of Information Act has been a cornerstone 
of open government and a hallmark of our democracy, ensuring that the 
American people have access to their government's records. My amendment 
will help ensure that FOIA remains a viable tool for access to 
information that impacts the health and safety of the American public.
  I am concerned that the exemption included in the NDAA would allow 
the Department of Defense to keep secret important information that 
Americans need to know to protect their own health and safety. For 
example, there have been alarming reports about the Department of 
Defense keeping citizens in the dark about health hazards, such as 
groundwater contamination on military facilities, by claiming that this 
information was a matter of national security. While I certainly 
understand the need for the government to keep certain sensitive 
information confidential, I believe this exemption goes too far.
  This amendment adds a public interest balancing test to the Secretary 
of Defense's determination about whether to withhold critical 
infrastructure information from the public. This change will help 
ensure that truly sensitive information is protected, while allowing 
the public to obtain important information about potential health and 
safety concerns. An essentially identical provision is contained in the 
House-passed version of this bill.
  The amendment I offer today will also revise the language in section 
1044 related to Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance Systems to 
ensure that truly sensitive flight information is protected, while 
maintaining the public's interest in obtaining information about the 
safety of military aircraft.
  This amendment strikes an appropriate balance between safeguarding 
the ability of the Department of Defense to perform its vital missions 
and the public's right to know. I hope that all Senators will support 
this commonsense amendment and that the Senate will adopt it without 
delay.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of a letter in support of this 
amendment be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                November 17, 2011.
       Dear Senators: On behalf of the undersigned organizations, 
     we are writing to urge you to support an amendment offered by 
     Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to fix an over-broad and ill-
     defined provision relating to ``critical infrastructure 
     information,'' in Section 1044 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act that could prevent the public from having 
     access to critical health and security information.

[[Page 18065]]

       Section 1044, as written in the bill passed by the Senate 
     Armed Services Committee, grants the Secretary of Defense, or 
     his delegate, the authority to expand protections from public 
     disclosure for any information that could result in the 
     ``disruption, degradation, or destruction'' of Department of 
     Defense (DoD) operations, property, or facilities. The 
     language defining ``critical infrastructure information'' is 
     exceedingly broad, encapsulating information that is crucial 
     for the public to understand public health and safety risks 
     and information already protected under one of the Freedom of 
     Information Act's (FOIA) other exemptions.
       We believe that the provision is intended to address agency 
     concerns about protecting information since the Supreme Court 
     threw out the broad use of FOIA Exemption Two in Milner v. 
     Department of Navy. Granting DoD carte-blanche to withhold 
     information under an exceedingly broad and ill-defined rubric 
     of ``critical infrastructure information'' is not the right 
     step, especially given that DoD has misused such authority to 
     hide information in the past.
       Between 1957 and 1987, the United States Marine Corps 
     knowingly allowed as many as one million Marines and their 
     family members at Camp Lejeune to be exposed to a host of 
     toxic chemicals, including known human carcinogens benzene 
     and vinyl chloride. Civilian employees who worked on the base 
     and people who live in the communities around the base near 
     Jacksonville, NC, are now reporting a high incidence of 
     cancers. For years, the Marine Corps kept this secret, 
     blocking many attempts to uncover the truth--even after the 
     first news of water contamination broke in 1987. Many FOIA 
     requests for information about the contamination were denied, 
     sometimes using Exemption Two in a way that is no longer 
     allowable after this year's Milner decision. The entire truth 
     about the incident only came to light in part from 
     information accidentally (and temporarily) posted on the 
     internet by the Marine Corps.
       We support language in Senator Leahy's proposed amendment 
     that helps protect against such cover-ups by requiring DoD to 
     weigh whether there is an over-riding public interest in 
     disclosing the information and further protects public health 
     and safety by tightening the definition of ``critical 
     infrastructure security information'' to make it clear that 
     the Secretary may withhold only information that could 
     substantially increase effectiveness of a terrorist attack. 
     The Leahy Amendment also would slightly modify another 
     exemption to FOIA in Section 1044 for information in the data 
     files of the Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance 
     System, which we support, though we would prefer it to be 
     further narrowed or stricken altogether.
       We urge you to pass the Leahy Amendment to narrow the 
     overly-broad Section 1044, and welcome an opportunity to 
     discuss this issue with you further. To reach our groups, you 
     or your staff may contact Patrice McDer-mott, Director of 
     OpenTheGovernment.org, at 202-332-6736 or 
     pmcdermottriOpenthegovernment.org or Angela Canterbury, 
     Director of Public Policy at the Project On Government 
     Oversight, at 202-347-1122 or acanterburygpogo.org.
           Sincerely,
       3P Human Security; American Association of Law Libraries; 
     American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression; American 
     Library Association; American Society of News Editors; 
     Association of Research Libraries; Agency for Toxic 
     Substances and Disease Registry's Camp Lejeune Community 
     Assistance Panel; Center for International Policy; 
     Californians Aware; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in 
     Washington--CREW; Defending Dissent Foundation; Environmental 
     Working Group; Essential Information; Federation of American 
     Scientists; Feminists for Free Expression; Freedom of 
     Information Center at the Missouri School of Journalism; 
     Friends of the Earth; Fund for Constitutional Government; 
     Government Accountability Project--GAP.
       Heart of America Northwest; Just Foreign Policy; Liberty 
     Coalition; National Association of Social Workers, North 
     Carolina Chapter; National Coalition Against Censorship; 
     National Freedom of Information Coalition; Northern 
     California Association of Law Libraries; OMB Watch; 
     OpenTheGovernment.org; Project On Government Oversight--POGO; 
     Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility--PEER; 
     Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; Society of 
     Professional Journalists; Southwest Research and Information 
     Center; Special Libraries Association; Sunlight Foundation; 
     Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive 
     Environment); Washington Coalition for Open Government


                           Amendment No. 1186

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the 
Leahy-Grassley amendment No. 1186, Fighting Fraud to Protect Taxpayers 
Act, and it then be set aside.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for himself and Mr. 
     Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 1186.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text 
of Amendments.'')
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to have joined once again with 
Senator Grassley to offer the bipartisan Fighting Fraud to Protect 
Taxpayers Act as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization 
Act. Combating fraud is a vital issue on which we have a long track 
record of working together, with great success. In these trying 
economic times, cracking down on fraud, which has harmed so many 
hardworking Americans, is more important than ever.
  Fraud in military contracting and procurement is a persistent problem 
which costs taxpayers millions and hurts our military men and women. 
This amendment will help the critically important effort to crack down 
on fraud in the military and elsewhere, and so including this amendment 
with the Department of Defense authorization bill makes good sense. I 
urge Senators from both parties to support this amendment.
  One of the first major bills the last Congress passed was the Leahy-
Grassley Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act. That bill gave fraud 
investigators and prosecutors additional tools and resources to better 
hold those who commit fraud accountable and has led to significant 
successes. Our work is not done though. Our amendment reflects the 
ongoing need to invest in enforcement to better protect hardworking 
taxpayers from fraud.
  In the last fiscal year alone, the Department of Justice recovered 
well over $6 billion through fines, penalties, and recoveries from 
fraud cases--far more than it costs to investigate and prosecute these 
matters. The recovery of these vast sums of money demonstrates that 
investment in fraud enforcement pays for itself many times over.
  The centerpiece provision of the Fighting Fraud to Protect Taxpayers 
Act capitalizes on this rate of return by ensuring that a percentage of 
money recovered by the government through fines and penalties is 
reinvested in the investigation and prosecution of fraud cases. That 
means that we can ensure more fraud enforcement, more returns to the 
government, and more savings to taxpayers, all without spending new 
taxpayer money.
  The bill also makes other modest changes to promote accountability 
and to ensure that prosecutors and investigators, including the Secret 
Service, have the tools they need to combat fraud. For example, it 
extends the international money laundering statute to tax evasion 
crimes and increases key fines. The bill also promotes accountability 
through increased reporting and transparency.
  The renewed focus on fraud enforcement we have seen from Congress and 
this administration has yielded significant results, but we must 
continue to strengthen the tools that law enforcement has to root out 
fraud. Hardworking, taxpaying Americans deserve to know that their 
government is doing all it can to prevent fraud and hold those who 
commit fraud accountable for their crimes. Fighting fraud and 
protecting taxpayer dollars are issues Democrats and Republicans have 
long worked together to address. I thank Senator Grassley for his 
commitment to these issues, and ask all Senators to support this 
amendment.


           Amendment No. 1160 and Amendment No. 1253 En Bloc

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the pending 
amendment to be set aside, and to call up amendment No. 1160 and 
amendment No. 1253 en bloc.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] proposes amendments en 
     bloc numbered 1160 and 1253.

  The amendments are as follows:

[[Page 18066]]




                           amendment no. 1160

 (Purpose: To provide for the closure of Umatilla Army Chemical Depot, 
                                Oregon)

       At the end of title XXVII, add the following:

     SEC. 2705. CLOSURE OF UMATILLA CHEMICAL DEPOT, OREGON.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of the Army shall close Umatilla Chemical 
     Depot, Oregon, not later than one year after the completion 
     of the chemical demilitarization mission in accordance with 
     the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty.
       (b) BRAC Procedures and Authorities.--The closure of the 
     Umatilla Chemical Depot, Oregon, and subsequent management 
     and property disposal shall be carried out in accordance with 
     procedures and authorities contained in the Defense Base 
     Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of 
     Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
       (c) Compliance With Environmental Laws.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to affect or limit the application 
     of, or any obligation to comply with, any environmental law, 
     including the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et 
     seq.) and the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et 
     seq.).
       (d) Retention of Property and Facilities.--The Secretary of 
     the Army may retain minimum essential ranges, facilities, and 
     training areas at Umatilla Chemical Depot totaling 
     approximately 7,500 acres as a training enclave for the 
     reserve components of the Armed Forces to permit the conduct 
     of individual and annual training.


                           amendment no. 1253

   (Purpose: To provide for the retention of members of the reserve 
components on active duty for a period of 45 days following an extended 
 deployment in contingency operations or homeland defense missions to 
            support their reintegration into civilian life)

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

     SEC. 515. TEMPORARY RETENTION ON ACTIVE DUTY AFTER 
                   DEMOBILIZATION OF RESERVES FOLLOWING EXTENDED 
                   DEPLOYMENTS IN CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS OR 
                   HOMELAND DEFENSE MISSIONS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1209 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 12323. Reserves: temporary retention on active duty 
       after demobilization following extended deployments in 
       contingency operations or homeland defense missions

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (d), a member of a 
     reserve component of the armed forces described in subsection 
     (b) shall be retained on active duty in the armed forces for 
     a period of 45 days following the conclusion of the member's 
     demobilization from a deployment as described in that 
     subsection, and shall be authorized the use of any accrued 
     leave.
       ``(b) Covered Members.--A member of a reserve component of 
     the armed forces described in this subsection is any member 
     of a reserve component of the armed forces who was deployed 
     for more than 269 days under the following:
       ``(1) A contingency operation.
       ``(2) A homeland defense mission (as specified by the 
     Secretary of Defense for purposes of this section).
       ``(c) Pay and Allowances.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, while a member is retained on active duty 
     under subsection (a), the member shall receive--
       ``(1) the basic pay payable to a member of the armed forces 
     under section 204 of title 37 in the same pay grade as the 
     member;
       ``(2) the basic allowance for subsistence payable under 
     section 402 of title 37; and
       ``(3) the basic allowance for housing payable under section 
     403 of title 37 for a member in the same pay grade, 
     geographic location, and number of dependents as the member.
       ``(d) Early Release From Active Duty.--(1) Subject to 
     paragraph (2), at the written request of a member retained on 
     active duty under subsection (a), the member shall be 
     released from active duty not later than the end of the 14-
     day period commencing on the date the request was received. 
     If such 14-day period would end after the end of the 45-day 
     period specified in subsection (a), the member shall be 
     released from active duty not later than the end of such 45-
     day period.
       ``(2) The request of a member for early release from active 
     duty under paragraph (1) may be denied only for medical or 
     personal safety reasons. The denial of the request shall 
     require the affirmative action of an officer in a grade above 
     O-5 who is in the chain of command of the member. If the 
     request is not denied before the end of the 14-day period 
     applicable under paragraph (1), the request shall be deemed 
     to be approved, and the member shall be released from active 
     duty as requested.
       ``(e) Treatment of Active Duty Under Policy on Limitation 
     of Period of Mobilization.--The active duty of a member under 
     this section shall not be included in the period of 
     mobilization of units or individuals under section 12302 of 
     this title under any policy of the Department of Defense 
     limiting the period of mobilization of units or individuals 
     to a specified period, including the policy to limit such 
     period of mobilization to 12 months as described in the 
     memorandum of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 
     and Readiness entitled `Revised Mobilization/Demobilization 
     Personnel and Pay Policy for Reserve Component Members 
     Ordered to Active Duty in Response to the World Trade Center 
     and Pentagon Attacks-Section 1,' effective January 19, 2007.
       ``(f) Reintegration Counseling and Services.--(1) The 
     Secretary of the military department concerned may provide 
     each member retained on active duty under subsection (a), 
     while the member is so retained on active duty, counseling 
     and services to assist the member in reintegrating into 
     civilian life.
       ``(2) The counseling and services provided members under 
     this subsection may include the following:
       ``(A) Physical and mental health evaluations.
       ``(B) Employment counseling and assistance.
       ``(C) Marriage and family counseling and assistance.
       ``(D) Financial management counseling.
       ``(E) Education counseling.
       ``(F) Counseling and assistance on benefits available to 
     the member through the Department of Defense and the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs.
       ``(3) The Secretary of the military department concerned 
     shall provide, to the extent practicable, for the 
     participation of appropriate family members of members 
     retained on active duty under subsection (a) in the 
     counseling and services provided such members under this 
     subsection.
       ``(4) The counseling and services provided to members under 
     this subsection shall, to the extent practicable, be provided 
     at National Guard armories and similar facilities close the 
     residences of such members.
       ``(5) Counseling and services provided a member under this 
     subsection shall, to the extent practicable, be provided in 
     coordination with the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program of 
     the State concerned under section 582 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (10 U.S.C. 10101 
     note).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 1209 of such title is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new item:

``12323. Reserves: temporary retention on active duty after 
              demobilization following extended deployments in 
              contingency operations or homeland defense missions.''.


                           Amendment No. 1160

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this first amendment has previously passed 
the Senate, and it would solve a problem created by the lawyers at the 
Pentagon who, in effect, at the last minute on a critical issue for 
eastern Oregon pulled the rug out from under our communities.
  When we have a problem or conflict in our State, we solve it the 
Oregon way, by finding consensus and building common ground. That is 
why, when it became apparent 20 years ago that the U.S. Army's chemical 
depot in Umatilla, OR would be closing once all the chemical weapons 
were destroyed, the community leaders gathered all of the critical 
organizations together and began the process of planning what to do 
with the land once the facility closed.
  The depot straddles two counties, several cities, and historic tribal 
lands. So suffice it to say, there are a lot of folks at home in my 
State who are interested in what happens to the land.
  As progress was made in destroying the weapons at Umatilla, we were 
able to find consensus. The Federal Government helped. More than $1 
million in grants was made available to move the project along. When 
the facility was listed in the 2005 BRAC recommendations for closure, 
the Pentagon eventually recognized the organizations that were involved 
in building this consensus in an official local reuse authority. 
Everything appeared on track, until last summer. That was, in effect, 
the time when at the last moment the Pentagon changed the rules.
  After decades of planning and $1 million was spent pulling together 
an extraordinary communitywide consensus, a lawyer at the Pentagon 
decided to reinterpret the law and declared that the 2005 BRAC report, 
which became law when Congress didn't pass a resolution of disapproval, 
didn't matter. He decided that the Umatilla depot would be closed 
outside of the BRAC authority because the last of the chemical weapons 
wouldn't be destroyed until after the 6-year limit for completion of 
BRAC actions.
  What this lawyer either didn't know, or chose to ignore, is this was 
precisely

[[Page 18067]]

the intention of the BRAC Commission when they put the depot on the 
closure list. The BRAC report discusses the fact that the mission of 
destroying the chemical weapons wouldn't be completed until after 
deadline.
  On page 239 of the report, the Commission found Secretary Rumsfeld's 
assertion that the chemical demilitarization would be complete by the 
second quarter of 2001 was optimistic. The Commission wrote:

       An examination of status information for the depot's 
     mission completion and subsequent closure revealed that dates 
     may slip beyond the six-year statutory period for completing 
     BRAC actions.

  Therefore, the Commission took the Secretary of Defense's 
recommendation: ``Close Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR'' and changed it 
to: ``On completion of the chemical demilitarization mission, in 
accordance with treaty operations, close Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR.''
  These facts make it clear that the Commission did not, as this 
Pentagon lawyer claimed, make a conditional recommendation that the 
facility only be closed if the chemical demilitarization mission is 
completed by September of 2011. Rather, the Commission acknowledged 
that the closure will have to happen when the demilitarization mission 
is complete, even if that is after September 2011. That decision by the 
Commission became law.
  It is also important to note that the Commission was aware that the 
demilitarization mission had a deadline of its own. Under the terms of 
the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty, Umatilla had to complete the 
mission by April 29, 2012. The fact is, they actually beat the 
deadline.
  The depot should be closed under BRAC so that the will of the 
community in the form of this local reuse authority and the will of 
Congress and the BRAC law will be taken into account. The Pentagon has 
to implement the law as it is, not as it wants it to be. But since the 
lawyers at the Pentagon seem to think there is some ambiguity, I seek 
to clarify it for them with my amendment. The amendment would require 
the Pentagon to follow the BRAC commission's report and close the 
Umatilla depot under BRAC.
  Once again, I would like to note that this has already passed the 
Senate once. I am very appreciative of Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, 
and all our colleagues who are involved, and I thank them.


                           Amendment No. 1253

  Briefly--and I appreciate the courtesy of Chairman Levin on this 
matter--I want to discuss my second amendment, which I call the Soft 
Landing Act. I think we all recognize the extraordinary contributions 
that are made by our Guard and Reserve. They do tour after tour after 
tour, and we all understand that never in our Nation's history has the 
American military relied more on the Guard and Reserve than it has in 
the last 10 years. More than 800,000 members of the Guard and Reserve 
have been called to Active Duty since 9/11. As I indicated, they are 
serving repeated tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I strongly believe that, for the period from when a Guard member is 
holding a rifle to the time when they are holding a child back at home 
in beautiful Oregon, there is not sufficient time being given in order 
to have what I call a soft landing--an opportunity to reintegrate and 
get your life back in order and get back into the community. What we 
have is a very abrupt period where a soldier faces the trauma of combat 
and comes right back to the community and really does not get an 
adequate time to readjust. Literally in a matter of days, these 
guardsmen go from holding guns in the chaos of a combat zone to holding 
their children in the serenity of their own homes. It is a difficult 
transition.
  I want to make the point that it is a very different transition than 
most of our Active-Duty troops have. Many of our Active-Duty troops 
come back to communities that are close to facilities, close to bases. 
There is a variety of support services. Many of the guardsmen come back 
to communities that do not have the support of a large base.
  It seems to me that the amount of personal and professional 
requirements that are placed on these patriotic, courageous Americans 
who serve in the Guard and Reserve warrants our making it possible for 
them to have what I call a softer landing getting back into their home 
communities.
  I am very appreciative that Chairman Levin has given me the 
opportunity to discuss this briefly. He and I and his staff have talked 
about this before.
  I will close by saying that to have all these men and women who have 
served with great valor in the Guard and Reserve coming home--we all 
understand they already face an unacceptably high unemployment rate. We 
know that in many instances they feel strongly about taking the time to 
get mental health services, to get back together again with their 
families, and very often the time period simply is insufficient for 
Guard members who come home. And right now, the reality can be pretty 
harsh. They go and serve their country. Their families are concerned 
about them being in harm's way for months on end, and then they come 
back with no job and no source of income to be able to support their 
families.
  What this legislation does is provide a soft landing for Guard and 
Reserve members by allowing returning guardsmen and reservists to take 
up to 45 days--it is not a long period of time--to come back, get home, 
get their lives in order, and still get paid. My view is that this is 
part of the promise we have made in this country to take care of our 
troops. They did their best for us. We ought to do our best for them.
  I am hopeful that the soft landing amendment, amendment No. 1253, 
will be included when this legislation passes here in the Senate.
  I again express my appreciation to Chairman Levin. I know he is 
speaking on an important matter. I thank him for working on both of 
these amendments, and I look forward to working with him on these 
matters. He is our authority on these issues. I appreciate his 
courtesy.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Oregon. We 
are happy to work with him. He is very deeply into these and so many 
other issues. His contribution is well known to all of us in the 
Senate. We are happy to work with him on these matters.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee for such a thorough analysis of the detainee 
provisions represented in section 1031 through 1034 of the Defense 
authorization bill. This is a very important part of the Defense 
authorization bill, and I certainly appreciate the thoughtful analysis 
that the chairman did.
  I would say that his thoughtful and detailed analysis addressed all 
the red herrings that have been raised about these particular 
provisions. Because if you read carefully the language in the 
provisions that were addressed by the Armed Services Committee, they do 
provide the flexibility that the administration says they have sought 
in making the best decisions on how to treat detainees, particularly 
those who become members of al-Qaida and come to our country to commit 
an attack against our country. We have to make sure we have the right 
provisions in place to protect Americans and the flexibility so the 
executive branch officials are able to decide what is the best track to 
handle a particular case or member of al-Qaida who comes to our country 
to, unfortunately, attack us.
  I also wish to remind this body that these provisions of the Defense 
Authorization Act were passed out of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee on an overwhelming bipartisan basis. In fact, the entire 
Defense Authorization Act was voted out twice unanimously by the Armed 
Services Committee, including on Monday of this week, when we again 
voted out the entire provisions of this act unanimously.
  So the particular provisions the chairman just discussed were the 
result

[[Page 18068]]

of extensive discussions not only within the committee but also based 
upon testimony we heard over months from military officials regarding 
concerns they had about the lack of clarity in our detention policy, 
and that is where we came to the provisions in 1031 through 1034.
  I wish to also remind this body there were many of us who would have 
gone much further in terms of how we would handle members of al-Qaida 
who come to our country to commit attacks against our citizens or those 
who would commit attacks against our citizens or soldiers overseas and 
our coalition partners. I brought forth an amendment on the CJS 
appropriations minibus that would have prohibited funding altogether 
for civilian trials of this same category for terrorists in the United 
States. So I would have liked to have gone much further. But I respect 
the amendment the committee voted out, which, in this instance, 
addressed the administration's concerns of allowing the administration 
a national security waiver to decide how to handle these cases whether 
they wanted to take a military track or a civilian track based on the 
national security interests of our country, which is, of course, what 
has to be foremost in these cases.
  I wish to again remind everyone of the problem we have, which is that 
the priority, when we are dealing with a member of al-Qaida who is 
seeking to attack our country, has to be intelligence gathering. We 
have to make sure we give our executive branch agencies the tools they 
need to be able to gather information to know about future attacks and 
to protect our country.
  What happens now in our civilian system is, if someone is arrested 
here, if they are in the civilian system, they are given rights that 
are part of our constitutional system, which is Miranda rights, for 
example. If they are in custody and there is interrogation, they have 
to be told they have the right to remain silent, that they have a right 
to a lawyer, and that they have a right to speedy presentment. These 
types of rights are incredibly important to our civilian system.
  When we have a terrorist who is a member of al-Qaida, who is a 
foreigner, and who comes to this country to attack our country, the 
first thing they hear should not be ``you have the right to remain 
silent.'' We have to allow our executive branch officials the ability 
to make intelligence gathering the first priority. This amendment 
allows that and gives the executive branch the ability to decide in 
which system they want to treat them and to be able to prioritize 
intelligence gathering so we can protect Americans and make sure if 
someone who is a member of al-Qaida comes to our country to attack us, 
we can gather information without immediately having to tell them ``you 
have the right to remain silent.''
  That is what is so important with this amendment. It was a bipartisan 
compromise. As I said, there are Members of the Senate, including 
myself, who would have liked to have gone much further. But we 
addressed so many of the concerns of the administration they came up 
with to make sure they had, with these provisions, the ability to not 
have to interrupt an interrogation, to conduct the interrogation as 
they saw fit, to make sure they could conduct ongoing surveillance, and 
to decide whether a military or civilian track was best based on our 
national security interests.
  I will say just one thing with respect to the transfer provisions and 
the concerns that have been raised about the provisions set forth for 
transferring detainees from Guantanamo. This is an area that cried out 
for some clarification, and it is important that the standard the 
committee came up with is in statute. Actually, as the chairman 
mentioned, the reason the committee addressed this is because our 
defense officials raised some concerns about what the waiver provisions 
should be from Guantanamo. This has been an area of interest of mine 
because of where we are right now with the Guantanamo detainees.
  Unfortunately, the reality is that 27 percent of those who have been 
released from Guantanamo have gotten back into the fight and are back 
trying to kill us, our troops, and our coalition partners. This is an 
area where it was very important to have clear standards: where 
transfer would only be appropriate in the instances where we could 
ensure there wouldn't be recidivism so that we could protect our troops 
and our partners from having to see the very same individuals we had 
already had in custody at Guantanamo. So the provisions set forth here 
are very important to have that statutory standard for when transfers 
can be made and how they should be handled.
  In fact, I would add, when we think about some of the detainees who 
have gotten back into theater whom we had in our custody at Guantanamo, 
they are conducting suicide bombings, recruiting radicals, and training 
them to kill Americans and our allies. Some of the former Gitmo 
detainees--and I think unfortunately it is a little bit of a badge of 
honor now to get back into theater and to be engaged in fighting again. 
Said al-Shihri and Abdul Zakir represent two examples of former 
Guantanamo detainees who returned to the fight and assumed leadership 
positions in terrorist organizations that are dedicated to killing 
Americans and our allies. Said al-Shihri has worked his way up to be 
No. 2 in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. We had him in our custody 
and, unfortunately, he was released. Abdul Zakir now serves as a top 
Taliban military commander and a senior leader in the Taliban Quetta 
Shura again fighting us and our allies.
  Again, I am concerned that in the world of terrorists it has become a 
badge of honor to be released from Guantanamo and then to get back into 
the fight against us. So I just wanted to put in perspective what we 
heard from our senior defense officials over a period of months in the 
Armed Services Committee as to why it is important to have a standard 
that allows the Department of Defense, under limited circumstances and 
based on protecting our country, to transfer the detainees, but only 
when we have addressed the issue of recidivism and they are assured 
that these individuals aren't going to get back in theater and try to 
kill American soldiers or our allies. That is why this provision is in 
here, and I am very pleased it is in here to make sure we address this 
important issue to keep Americans protected and our allies protected.
  I will repeat again that this was a bipartisan compromise. This 
morning the chairman very thoroughly went through each of the issues 
raised in the Statement of Administration Policy. Also, in my view, he 
thoroughly knocked down many of the red herrings that were raised about 
this provision on the Senate floor yesterday by Senators who are 
seeking to strike this provision from the Defense Authorization Act.
  It is important that this body pass this Defense authorization. It is 
important for not only these provisions, but also so many of the 
provisions of this Defense authorization that give our troops the tools 
they need, as we tell them we are here to support them, to make sure we 
move forward with the Defense authorization, including these important 
provisions that address how we handle detainees.
  Again, I wish to thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee 
for his leadership on this issue. I know he has worked very hard in 
meeting with the administration, meeting with those of us on the other 
side of the aisle who actually wanted to go much further in coming up 
with a very strong, important piece of legislation that will protect 
Americans and move us forward and provide some clarity in an area where 
we need clarity to make sure our executive branch officials have the 
tools they need to gather intelligence to protect Americans from the 
terrorist attacks because, unfortunately, those who are members of al-
Qaida still seek to kill us for what we believe, not for anything we 
have done, and we can't forget that.
  So I thank the chairman.


   Amendments Nos. 1179, 1230, 1137, 1138, 1247, 1246, 1229, 1230 as 
     Modified, 1249, 1071, 1220, 1132, 1248, 1250, and 1118 En Bloc

  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of other

[[Page 18069]]

Republican Senators to temporarily set aside the pending amendment and 
call up the following amendments en bloc: amendment No. 1179 on behalf 
of Senator Graham; amendment No. 1230 on behalf of Senator McCain; 
amendment No. 1137 on behalf of Senator Heller related to the U.S. 
Embassy in Israel; also for Senator Heller, amendment No. 1138 related 
to the repatriation of U.S. military remains from Libya; for Senator 
McCain, amendment No. 1247 related to further restrictions on the use 
of defense funds on Guam; for Senator McCain, amendment No. 1246 
related to a commission for U.S. military force structure in the 
Pacific; for Senator McCain, amendment No. 1229 related to a 
cybersecurity agreement between the Department of Defense and the 
Department of Homeland Security; for Senator McCain, amendment No. 
1230, as modified, related to the annual adjustment in enrollment fees 
for TRICARE Prime; for Senator McCain, amendment No. 1249 related to 
cost-plus contracting--and this is also an amendment that I am 
cosponsoring; for Senator McCain, amendment No. 1071 related to the 
oversight of the evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle; for Senator McCain, 
amendment No. 1220 related to a GAO report of Alaskan Native 
Corporation contracting; for Senator McCain, amendment No. 1132 related 
to a Statement of Budgetary Resource Auditability; for Senator McCain, 
amendment No. 1248 related to authorizing ship repairs in the Northern 
Marianas; for Senator McCain, amendment No. 1250 related to a report on 
the probation of the F-35B program; for Senator McCain, amendment No. 
1118 to modify the availability of surcharges collected by commissary 
stores.
  I have to make a clarification on an amendment I previously offered 
on behalf of Senator McCain: amendment No. 1230, as modified, Senator 
McCain's amendment on TRICARE.
  I ask unanimous consent from the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee to allow the Senator from Alabama to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, before the Chair recognizes our friend from 
Alabama, let me thank the Senator from New Hampshire not just for her 
kind and warm remarks, but also for the great contribution she has made 
to our committee. It has been an extraordinary launch for her, if I may 
put it that way. I think--and I know our Presiding Officer would agree 
with me on this because he has been a witness as well--it has been a 
major contribution.
  I thank the Senator. She has the kind of experience and is so 
committed to the security of this country that the Senator is already 
venerable as a member of our committee.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I thank the chairman. He is very kind, and it has been 
wonderful to serve under his leadership on the Armed Services 
Committee, of which I would say, one of the great experiences in the 
Senate is that the Armed Services Committee--in a time when people see 
so much partisan--works on a very strong, bipartisan basis to ensure 
our country is protected.
  With that, I would yield to my colleague who also serves on the Armed 
Services Committee, whom I have great respect for, Senator Sessions 
from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments the Senator 
from New Hampshire has offered will be considered to have been read and 
will be considered in the order they have been offered.
  The amendments en bloc are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1179

(Purpose: To specify the number of judge advocates of the Air Force in 
                the regular grade of brigadier general)

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

     SEC. 505. NUMBER OF JUDGE ADVOCATES OF THE AIR FORCE IN THE 
                   REGULAR GRADE OF BRIGADIER GENERAL.

       Section 8037 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new 
     subsection (f):
       ``(f) Four officers of the Air Force designated as judge 
     advocates shall hold the regular grade of brigadier 
     general.''.


                           amendment no. 1137

(Purpose: To provide for the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of 
Israel and the relocation to Jerusalem of the United States Embassy in 
                                Israel)

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

     SEC. 1088. RECOGNITION OF JERUSALEM AS THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL 
                   AND RELOCATION OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSY TO 
                   JERUSALEM.

       (a) Statement of Policy.--It is the policy of the United 
     States to recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the 
     state of Israel, both de jure and de facto.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the 
     rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected as 
     they have been by Israel since 1967;
       (2) every citizen of Israel should have the right to reside 
     anywhere in the undivided city of Jerusalem;
       (3) the President and the Secretary of State should 
     publicly affirm as a matter of United States policy that 
     Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of the State of 
     Israel;
       (4) the President should immediately implement the 
     provisions of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 
     104-45) and begin the process of relocating the United States 
     Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem; and
       (5) United States officials should refrain from any actions 
     that contradict United States law on this subject.
       (c) Amendment of Waiver Authority.--The Jerusalem Embassy 
     Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-45) is amended--
       (1) by striking section 7; and
       (2) by redesignating section 8 as section 7.
       (d) Identification of Jerusalem on Government Documents.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any official 
     document of the United States Government which lists 
     countries and their capital cities shall identify Jerusalem 
     as the capital of Israel.


                           amendment no. 1138

  (Purpose: To provide for the exhumation and transfer of remains of 
     deceased members of the Armed Forces buried in Tripoli, Libya)

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

     SEC. 1088. EXHUMATION AND TRANSFER OF REMAINS OF DECEASED 
                   MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES BURIED IN TRIPOLI, 
                   LIBYA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall take 
     whatever actions may be necessary to--
       (1) exhume the remains of any deceased members of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States buried at a burial site described 
     in subsection (b);
       (2) transfer such remains to an appropriate forensics 
     laboratory to be identified;
       (3) in the case of any remains that are identified, 
     transport the remains to a veterans cemetery located in 
     proximity, as determined by the Secretary, to the closest 
     living family member of the deceased individual or at another 
     cemetery as determined by the Secretary;
       (4) for any member of the Armed Forces whose remains are 
     identified, provide a military funeral and burial; and
       (5) in the case of any remains that cannot be identified, 
     transport the remains to Arlington National Cemetery for 
     interment at a an appropriate grave marker identifying the 
     United States Navy Sailors of the USS Intrepid who gave their 
     lives on September 4, 1804, in Tripoli, Libya.
       (b) Burial Sites Described.--The burial sites described in 
     this subsection are the following:
       (1) The mass burial site containing the remains of five 
     United States sailors located in Protestant Cemetery in 
     Tripoli, Libya.
       (2) The mass burial site containing the remains of eight 
     United States sailors located near the walls of the Tripoli 
     Castle in Tripoli, Libya.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the effective 
     date of this section, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report describing the status of the actions under this 
     section. The report shall include an estimate of the date of 
     the completion of the actions undertaken, and to be 
     undertaken, under this section.
       (d) Effective Date.--This section takes effect on the date 
     on which Operation Unified Protector of the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization (NATO), or any successor operation, 
     terminates.
       (e) Available Funds.--The Secretary shall carry out this 
     section using amounts authorized to be appropriated for the 
     Department of Defense by Acts enacted before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.


                           amendment no. 1247

  (Purpose: To restrict the authority of the Secretary of Defense to 
develop public infrastructure on Guam until certain conditions related 
                   to Guam realignment have been met)

       Beginning on page 534, strike line 8 and all that follows 
     through page 535, line 17, and insert the following:

[[Page 18070]]

       (a) Restriction on Use of Funds.--None of the funds 
     authorized to be appropriated under this title, or amounts 
     provided by the Government of Japan for military construction 
     activities on land under the jurisdiction of the Department 
     of Defense, may be obligated or expended to implement the 
     realignment of United States Marine Corps forces from Okinawa 
     to Guam as envisioned in the United States-Japan Roadmap for 
     Realignment Implementation issued May 1, 2006, until--
       (1) the Commandant of the Marine Corps provides the 
     congressional defense committees the Commandant's preferred 
     force lay-down for the United States Pacific Command Area of 
     Responsibility;
       (2) the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional 
     defense committees a master plan for the construction of 
     facilities and infrastructure to execute the Commandant's 
     preferred force lay-down on Guam, including a detailed 
     description of costs and a schedule for such construction;
       (3) the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional 
     defense committees that tangible progress has been made 
     regarding the relocation of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma; 
     and
       (4) a plan coordinated by all pertinent Federal agencies is 
     provided to the congressional defense committees detailing 
     descriptions of work, costs, and a schedule for completion of 
     construction, improvements, and repairs to the non-military 
     utilities, facilities, and infrastructure on Guam affected by 
     the realignment of forces.
       (b) Restriction on Development of Public Infrastructure.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of Defense is prohibited from using the 
     authority provided by section 2391 of title 10, United States 
     Code, to carry out any grant, cooperative agreement, or 
     supplement of funds available under Federal programs 
     administered by agencies other than the Department of Defense 
     provided under this section that will result in the 
     development (including repair, replacement, renovation, 
     conversion, improvement, expansion, acquisition, or 
     construction) of public infrastructure on Guam until the 
     requirements under subsection (a) are satisfied.
       (2) Public infrastructure defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``public infrastructure'' means any utility, method of 
     transportation, item of equipment, or facility under the 
     control of a public entity or State or local government that 
     is used by, or constructed for the benefit of, the general 
     public.


                           amendment no. 1246

 (Purpose: To establish a commission to study the United States Force 
              Posture in East Asia and the Pacific region)

       Strike section 1079 and insert the following:

     SEC. 1079. COMMISSION TO STUDY UNITED STATES FORCE POSTURE IN 
                   EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC REGION.

       (a) Independent Assessment.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall establish a 
     commission to conduct an independent assessment of America's 
     security interests in East Asia and the Pacific region. The 
     commission shall be supported by an independent, non-
     governmental institute which is described in section 
     501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt 
     from tax under section 501(a) of such Code, and has 
     recognized credentials and expertise in national security and 
     military affairs with ready access to policy experts 
     throughout the country and from the region.
       (2) Elements.--The commission established pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) shall assess the following elements:
       (A) A review of current and emerging United States national 
     security interests in the East Asia and Pacific region.
       (B) A review of current United States military force 
     posture and deployment plans, with an emphasis on the current 
     plans for United States force realignments in Okinawa and 
     Guam.
       (C) Options for the realignment of United States forces in 
     the region to respond to new opportunities presented by 
     allies and partners.
       (D) The views of noted policy leaders and regional experts, 
     including military commanders in the region.
       (b) Members of the Commission.--
       (1) Composition.--For purposes of conducting the assessment 
     required by paragraph (a), the commission established shall 
     include eight members as follows:
       (A) Two appointed by the chairman of the Committee on Armed 
     Services of the House of Representatives.
       (B) Two appointed by the chairman of the Committee on Armed 
     Services of the Senate.
       (C) Two appointed by the ranking member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services of the House of Representatives.
       (D) Two appointed by the ranking member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services of the Senate.
       (2) Qualifications.--Individuals appointed to the 
     commission shall have significant experience in the national 
     security or foreign policy of the United States.
       (3) Deadline for appointment.--Appointments of the members 
     of the commission shall be made not later than 60 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (4) Chairman and vice chairman.--The commission shall 
     select a Chairman and Vice Chairman from among it members.
       (5) Tenure; vacancies.--Members shall be appointed for the 
     life of the commission. Any vacancy in the commission shall 
     not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner 
     as the original appointment.
       (6) Meetings.--
       (A) Initial meeting.--Not later than 14 days after the date 
     on which all members of the commission have been appointed, 
     the commission shall hold its first meeting.
       (B) Calling of the chairman.--The commission shall meet at 
     the call of the Chairman.
       (C) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the commission 
     shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may 
     hold hearings.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 270 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the commission shall provide to the 
     Secretary of Defense an unclassified report, with a 
     classified annex, containing its findings. Not later than 90 
     days after the date of receipt of the report, the Secretary 
     of Defense, after consultation with the Chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff, shall transmit the report to the 
     congressional defense committees, together with such comments 
     on the report as the Secretary considers appropriate.
       (d) Powers.--
       (1) Hearings.--The commission may hold such hearings, sit 
     and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and 
     receive such evidence as the commission considers advisable 
     to carry out this section.
       (2) Information sharing.--The commission may secure 
     directly from any Federal department or agency such 
     information as the commission considers necessary to carry 
     out this section. Upon request of the Chairman of the 
     commission, the head of such department or agency shall 
     furnish such information to the commission.
       (3) Administrative support.--Upon request of the 
     commission, the Administrator of General Services shall 
     provide to the commission, on a reimbursable basis, the 
     administrative support necessary for the commission to carry 
     out its duties under this section.
       (4) Mails.--The commission may use the United States mails 
     in the same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       (5) Gifts.--The commission may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property.
       (e) Personnel Matters.--
       (1) Compensation of members.--Each member of the commission 
     who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government 
     shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent 
     of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of 
     the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including travel time) during 
     which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties 
     of the commission under this section. All members of the 
     commission who are officers or employees of the United States 
     shall serve without compensation in addition to that received 
     for their services as officers or employees of the United 
     States.
       (2) Travel.--Members of the commission shall be allowed 
     travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, 
     at rates authorized for employees of agencies under 
     subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, 
     while away from their homes or regular places of business in 
     the performance of services for the commission under this 
     section.
       (3) Staffing.--
       (A) Executive director.--The Chairman of the commission 
     may, without regard to the civil service laws and 
     regulations, appoint and terminate an executive director and 
     such other additional personnel as may be necessary to enable 
     the commission to perform its duties under this section. The 
     employment of an executive director shall be subject to 
     confirmation by the commission.
       (B) Staff.--The commission may employ a staff to assist the 
     commission in carrying out its duties.
       (C) Compensation.--The Chairman of the commission may fix 
     the compensation of the executive director and other 
     personnel without regard to chapter 51 and subchapter III of 
     chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, relating to 
     classification of positions and General Schedule pay rates, 
     except that the rate of pay for the executive director and 
     other personnel may not exceed the rate payable for level V 
     of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
       (4) Details.--Any employee of the Department of Defense or 
     the Department of State may be detailed to the commission 
     without reimbursement, and such detail shall be without 
     interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       (5) Temporary and intermittent services.--The Chairman of 
     the commission may procure temporary and intermittent 
     services under section 3109(b) of title 5, United States 
     Code, at rates for individuals which do not exceed the daily 
     equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for 
     level V of the

[[Page 18071]]

     Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
       (f) Security.--
       (1) Security clearances.--Members and staff of the 
     commission, and any experts and consultants to the 
     commission, shall possess security clearances appropriate for 
     their duties with the commission under this section.
       (2) Information security.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     assume responsibility for the handling and disposition of any 
     information relating to the national security of the United 
     States that is received, considered, or used by the 
     commission under this section.
       (g) Termination of Panel.--The Panel shall terminate 45 
     days after the date on which the Panel submits its final 
     report under subsection (c).


                           amendment no. 1229

 (Purpose: To provide for greater cybersecurity collaboration between 
   the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security)

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

     SEC. 1088. CYBERSECURITY COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT 
                   OF DEFENSE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
                   SECURITY.

       (a) Interdepartmental Collaboration.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security shall provide personnel, equipment, and 
     facilities in order to increase interdepartmental 
     collaboration with respect to--
       (A) strategic planning for the cybersecurity of the United 
     States;
       (B) mutual support for cybersecurity capabilities 
     development; and
       (C) synchronization of current operational cybersecurity 
     mission activities.
       (2) Efficiencies.--The collaboration provided for under 
     paragraph (1) shall be designed--
       (A) to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 
     requirements formulation and requests for products, services, 
     and technical assistance for, and coordination and 
     performance assessment of, cybersecurity missions executed 
     across a variety of Department of Defense and Department of 
     Homeland Security elements; and
       (B) to leverage the expertise of each individual Department 
     and to avoid duplicating, replicating, or aggregating 
     unnecessarily the diverse line organizations across 
     technology developments, operations, and customer support 
     that collectively execute the cybersecurity mission of each 
     Department.
       (b) Responsibilities.--
       (1) Department of homeland security.--The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall identify and assign, in coordination 
     with the Department of Defense, a Director of Cybersecurity 
     Coordination within the Department of Homeland Security to 
     undertake collaborative activities with the Department of 
     Defense.
       (2) Department of defense.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     identify and assign, in coordination with the Department of 
     Homeland Security, one or more officials within the 
     Department of Defense to coordinate, oversee, and execute 
     collaborative activities and the provision of cybersecurity 
     support to the Department of Homeland Security.


                    amendment no. 1230, as modified

   (Purpose: To modify the annual adjustment in enrollment fees for 
                             TRICARE Prime)

       On page 220, strike line 13 and all that follows through 
     page 221, line 6, and insert the following:
       ``(c) Cost-of-living Adjustment in Enrollment Fee.--(1)(A) 
     Whenever after September 30, 2011, and before October 1, 
     2012, the Secretary of Defense increases the retired pay of 
     members and former members of the armed forces pursuant to 
     section 1401a of this title, the Secretary shall increase the 
     amount of the fee payable for enrollment in TRICARE Prime by 
     an amount equal to the percentage of such fee payable on the 
     day before the date of the increase of such fee that is equal 
     to the percentage increase in such retired pay. In 
     determining the amount of the increase in such retired pay 
     for purposes of this subparagraph, the Secretary shall use 
     the amount computed pursuant to section 1401a(b)(2) of this 
     title.
       ``(B) Effective as of October 1, 2013, the Secretary shall 
     increase the amount of the fee payable for enrollment in 
     TRICARE Prime on an annual basis by a percentage equal to the 
     percentage of the most recent annual increase in the National 
     Health Expenditures per capita, as published by the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       ``(C) Any increase under this paragraph in the fee payable 
     for enrollment shall be effective as of October 1 following 
     the date on which such increase is made.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register 
     the amount of the fee payable for enrollment in TRICARE Prime 
     whenever increased pursuant to this subsection.''.
       (b) Clarification of Application for 2013.--For purposes of 
     determining the enrollment fees for TRICARE Prime for 2013 
     under the first sentence of section 1097a(c) of title 10, 
     United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), the amount 
     of the enrollment fee in effect during 2012 shall be deemed 
     to be the following:
       (1) $260 for individual enrollment.
       (2) $520 for family enrollment.


                           amendment no. 1249

(Purpose: To limit the use of cost-type contracts by the Department of 
            Defense for major defense acquisition programs)

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

     SEC. 808. LIMITATION ON USE OF COST-TYPE CONTRACTS.

       (a) Prohibition With Respect to Production of Major Defense 
     Acquisition Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     modify the acquisition regulations of the Department of 
     Defense to prohibit the Department from entering into cost-
     type contracts for the production of major defense 
     acquisition programs (MDAPs).
       (2) Exception for joint urgent operational needs.--The 
     prohibition under subsection (a) shall not apply in the case 
     of a particular cost-plus contract if the Under Secretary for 
     Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics--
       (A) certifies, in writing, with reasons, and on the basis 
     of a validation of a joint urgent operational need by the 
     Joint Requirements Oversight Council, that a cost-type 
     contract is needed to provide capability required to satisfy 
     a joint urgent operational need; and
       (B) provides the certification to the congressional defense 
     committees not later than 30 business before issuing a 
     solicitation for the production of a major defense 
     acquisition program.
       (b) Conditions With Respect to Development of Major Defense 
     Acquisition Programs.--Section 818(d) of the John Warner 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
     (Public Law 109-364; 120 Stat. 2329; 10 U.S.C. 2306 note) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(3) all reasonable efforts have been made to define the 
     requirements sufficiently to allow for the use of a fixed-
     price contract for the development of the major defense 
     acquisition program; and
       ``(4) despite these efforts, the Department of Defense 
     cannot define requirements sufficiently to allow for the use 
     of a fixed-price contract for the development of the major 
     defense acquisition program.''.
       (c) Reporting of Cost-type Development Contracts.--Not 
     later than 30 business days before issuing a solicitation for 
     the development of a major defense acquisition program, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees notice of the proposed award and the 
     written determinations required under paragraphs (1) and (4) 
     of section 818(d) of the John Warner National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, as amended by 
     subsection (b), and the reasons supporting the 
     determinations.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Major defense acquisition program.--The term ``major 
     defense acquisition program'' has the meaning given the term 
     in section 2430(a) of title 10, United States Code.
       (2) Production of a major defense acquisition program.--The 
     term ``production of a major defense acquisition program'' 
     means the production, either on a low-rate initial production 
     or full-rate production basis, and deployment of a major 
     system that is intended to achieve operational capability 
     that satisfies mission needs, or any activity otherwise 
     defined as Milestone C, or Key Decision Point C in the case 
     of a space program, under Department of Defense Instruction 
     5000.02 or related authorities.
       (3) Development of a major defense acquisition program.--
     The term ``development of a major defense acquisition 
     program'' means the development of a major defense 
     acquisition program or related increment of capability, the 
     completion of full system integration, the development of an 
     affordable and executable manufacturing process, the 
     demonstration of system integration, interoperability, 
     safety, and utility, or any activity otherwise defined as 
     Milestone B, or Key Decision Point B in the case of a space 
     program, under Department of Defense Instruction 5000.02 or 
     related authorities.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1071

    (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to report on all 
   information with respect to the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle 
  program that would be required if the program were designated as a 
    major defense acquisition program not in the sustainment phase)

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

     SEC. 889. OVERSIGHT OF AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS WITH 
                   RESPECT TO EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE 
                   PROGRAM.

       The Secretary of Defense shall--
       (1) redesignate the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle 
     program as a major defense acquisition program not in the 
     sustainment phase under section 2430 of title 10, United 
     States Code; or
       (2) require the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program--

[[Page 18072]]

       (A) to provide to the congressional defense committees all 
     information with respect to the cost, schedule, and 
     performance of the program that would be required to be 
     provided under sections 2431 (relating to weapons development 
     and procurement schedules), 2432 (relating to Select 
     Acquisition Reports, including updated program life-cycle 
     cost estimates), and 2433 (relating to unit cost reports) of 
     title 10, United States Code, with respect to the program if 
     the program were designated as a major defense acquisition 
     program not in the sustainment phase; and
       (B) to provide to the Under Secretary of Defense for 
     Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics--
       (i) a quarterly cost and status report, commonly known as a 
     Defense Acquisition Executive Summary, which serves as an 
     early-warning of actual and potential problems with a program 
     and provides for possible mitigation plans; and
       (ii) earned value management data that contains 
     measurements of contractor technical, schedule, and cost 
     performance.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1220

 (Purpose: To require Comptroller General of the United States reports 
   on the Department of Defense implementation of justification and 
        approval requirements for certain sole-source contracts)

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

     SEC. 848. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES REPORTS ON 
                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
                   JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS FOR 
                   CERTAIN SOLE-SOURCE CONTRACTS.

       Not later than 90 days after March 1, 2012, and March 1, 
     2013, the dates on which the Department of Defense submits to 
     Congress a report on its implementation of section 811 of the 
     Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report setting forth an 
     assessment of the extent to which the implementation of such 
     section 811 by the Department ensures that sole-source 
     contracts are awarded in applicable procurements only when 
     those awards have been determined to be in the best interest 
     of the Department.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1132

(Purpose: To require a plan to ensure audit readiness of statements of 
                          budgetary resources)

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

     SEC. 1005. PLAN TO ENSURE AUDIT READINESS OF STATEMENTS OF 
                   BUDGETARY RESOURCES.

       (a) Planning Requirement.--The report to be issued pursuant 
     to section 1003(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for 2010 (Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2440; 10 U.S.C. 2222 
     note) and provided by not later than May 15, 2012, shall 
     include a plan, including interim objectives and a schedule 
     of milestones for each military department and for the 
     defense agencies, to ensure that the statement of budgetary 
     resources of the Department of Defense meets the goal 
     established by the Secretary of Defense of being validated 
     for audit by not later than September 30, 2014. Consistent 
     with the requirements of such section, the plan shall ensure 
     that the actions to be taken are systemically tied to process 
     and control improvements and business systems modernization 
     efforts necessary for the Department to prepare timely, 
     reliable, and complete financial management information on a 
     repeatable basis.
       (b) Semiannual Updates.--The reports to be issued pursuant 
     to such section after the report described in subsection (a) 
     shall update the plan required by such subsection and explain 
     how the Department has progressed toward meeting the 
     milestones established in the plan.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1248

   (Purpose: To expand the authority for the overhaul and repair of 
    vessels to the United States, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the 
                       Northern Mariana Islands)

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

     SEC. 1024. AUTHORITY FOR OVERHAUL AND REPAIR OF VESSELS IN 
                   COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS.

       Section 7310(a) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``United States 
     or Guam'' and inserting ``United States, Guam, or the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands''; and
       (2) by striking ``United States or Guam'' both places it 
     appears and inserting ``United States, Guam, or the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1250

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the 
probationary period in the development of the short take-off, vertical 
              landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter)

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

     SEC. 158. REPORT ON PROBATIONARY PERIOD IN DEVELOPMENT OF 
                   SHORT TAKE-OFF, VERTICAL LANDING VARIANT OF THE 
                   JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER.

       Not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report on the development 
     of the short take-off, vertical landing variant of the Joint 
     Strike Fighter (otherwise known as the F-35B Joint Strike 
     Fighter) that includes the following:
       (1) An identification of the criteria that the Secretary 
     determines must be satisfied before the F-35B Joint Strike 
     Fighter can be removed from the two-year probationary status 
     imposed by the Secretary on or about January 6, 2011.
       (2) A mid-probationary period assessment of--
       (A) the performance of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter based 
     on the criteria described in paragraph (1); and
       (B) the technical issues that remain in the development 
     program for the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter.
       (3) A plan for how the Secretary intends to resolve the 
     issues described in paragraph (2)(B) before January 6, 2013.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1118

    (Purpose: To modify the availability of surcharges collected by 
                           commissary stores)

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

     SEC. 346. MODIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY OF SURCHARGES 
                   COLLECTED BY COMMISSARY STORES.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1)(A) of section 2484(h) of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking clauses 
     (i) and (ii) and inserting the following new clauses:
       ``(i) to replace, renovate, expand, improve, repair, and 
     maintain commissary stores and central product processing 
     facilities of the defense commissary system;
       ``(ii) to acquire (including acquisition by lease), 
     convert, or construct such commissary stores and central 
     product processing facilities as are authorized by law;
       ``(iii) to equip the physical infrastructure of such 
     commissary stores and central product processing facilities; 
     and
       ``(iv) to cover environmental evaluation and construction 
     costs related to activities described in clauses (i) and 
     (ii), including costs for surveys, administration, overhead, 
     planning, and design.''.
       (b) Source and Availability of Certain Funds.--Such section 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6)(A) There shall be credited to the `Surcharge 
     Collections, Sales of Commissary Stores, Defense Commissary' 
     account on the books of the Treasury receipts from sources or 
     activities identified in the following:
       ``(i) Paragraph (5).
       ``(ii) Subsections (c), (d), and (g).
       ``(iii) Subsections (e), (g), and (h) of section 2485 of 
     this title.
       ``(B)(i) Funds may not be appropriated for the account 
     referred to in subparagraph (A), or appropriated for transfer 
     into the account, unless such appropriation or transfer is 
     specifically authorized in an Act authorizing appropriations 
     for military activities of the Department of Defense.
       ``(ii) Funds appropriated for or transferred into the 
     account in accordance with clause (i) may not be merged with 
     amounts within the account.
       ``(iii) Funds appropriated for or transferred into the 
     account in accordance with clause (i) shall not be available 
     to acquire, convert, construct, or improve a commissary store 
     or central product processing facility of the defense 
     commissary system unless specifically authorized in an Act 
     authorizing military construction for the Department of 
     Defense.''.

  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator from Alabama, our friend, would yield for 
one second.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. We are then on the regular order; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The regular order will 
be restored.
  Mr. LEVIN. So the regular order is the Levin-McCain amendment; is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I do believe the Defense authorization 
bill has been moved in the way more legislation needs to be handled in 
the Congress. I am confident that is in large part due to the 
leadership of Senator Levin, who is a professional, skilled lawyer, who 
knows the big picture and the small details of the legislation. It has 
been a pleasure to work with him over the years. I have learned a great 
deal about our defense from him and how legislation is enacted. So I 
want to express my appreciation for that.
  And I thank Senator McCain, who brings a vast knowledge of defense 
and military issues, and who is courageous

[[Page 18073]]

in defending what he believes the legitimate interests of the United 
States are. That has been a real pleasure.
  I will join Senator Levin in thanking Senator Ayotte for her 
leadership. Her contributions to our committee have been immediate, and 
that is reflected in the fact that Senator McCain has asked her to 
manage the floor today for him. I also appreciate the Senator's work on 
the budget and the effort we have made there.


        Amendments Nos. 1182, 1183, 1184, 1185, and 1274 en Bloc

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the 
pending amendment and call up the following amendments en bloc: 
amendment No. 1182, dealing with Army brigade combat teams; amendment 
No. 1183, dealing with the nuclear triad; amendment No. 1184, dealing 
with naval surface vessels; amendment No. 1185, dealing with missile 
defense; and amendment No. 1274, dealing with the detention of enemy 
combatants.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, those amendments are 
considered pending in that order.
  The amendments en bloc are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1182

 (Purpose: To prohibit the permanent stationing of more than two Army 
  Brigade Combat Teams within the geographic boundaries of the United 
                        States European Command)

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

     SEC. 1049. PROHIBITION ON PERMANENT STATIONING OF MORE THAN 
                   TWO ARMY BRIGADE COMBAT TEAMS WITHIN UNITED 
                   STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND.

       (a) In General.--Effective as of January 1, 2016, the 
     number of Army Brigade Combat Teams that may be permanently 
     stationed within the geographic boundaries of the United 
     States European Command (EUCOM) may not exceed two brigade 
     combat teams.
       (b) Military Construction.--No military construction 
     project may be commenced or undertaken for or in connection 
     with or support of the permanent stationing of more than two 
     Army Brigade Combat Teams within the geographic boundaries of 
     the United States European Command.


                           amendment no. 1183

 (Purpose: To require the maintenance of a triad of strategic nuclear 
                           delivery systems)

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

     SEC. 1049. MAINTENANCE OF A TRIAD OF STRATEGIC NUCLEAR 
                   DELIVERY SYSTEMS.

       The Secretary of Defense shall take appropriate actions to 
     maintain for the United States a range of strategic nuclear 
     delivery systems appropriate for the current and anticipated 
     threats faced by the United States, including a triad of sea-
     based, land-based, and air-based strategic nuclear delivery 
     systems.


                           amendment no. 1184

(Purpose: To limit any reduction in the number of surface combatants of 
                      the Navy below 313 vessels)

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

     SEC. 1024. LIMITATION ON REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF SURFACE 
                   COMBATANTS OF THE NAVY BELOW 313 VESSELS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The 2011 Shipbuilding Plan of the Navy contemplates a 
     baseline of 313 surface combatants in the Navy.
       (2) The national security of the United States requires 
     that the shipbuilding activities of the Navy ensure a Navy 
     composed of at least 313 surface combatants.
       (3) It is in the national interest that the future-years 
     defense programs of the Department of Defense provide for a 
     Navy composed of at least 313 surface combatants.
       (b) Limitation.--The Secretary of the Navy may not carry 
     out any reduction in the number of surface combatants of the 
     Navy below 313 surface combatants unless the Secretary, after 
     consultation with the commanders of the combatant commands, 
     certifies to Congress that the Navy will continue to possess 
     the capacity to support the requirements of the combatant 
     commands after such reduction.


                           amendment no. 1185

  (Purpose: To require a report on a missile defense site on the East 
                      Coast of the United States)

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

     SEC. 234. REPORT ON MISSILE DEFENSE SITE ON THE EAST COAST OF 
                   THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Finding.--Congress finds that the Obama Administration 
     plans to limit or cancel the deployment of the European 
     Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) to missile defense.
       (b) Report.--In light of the finding in subsection (a), the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report setting forth an assessment of 
     the feasibility and advisability of establishing a missile 
     defense site on the East Coast of the United States.


                           amendment no. 1274

 (Purpose: To clarify the disposition under the law of war of persons 
   detained by the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to the 
                Authorization for Use of Military Force)

       On page 360, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       (5) Notwithstanding disposition under paragraph (2) or (3), 
     further detention under the law of war until the end of 
     hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of 
     Military Force.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to share a few general comments 
about where we are. All of us have been confronting, whether we want to 
or not--I think some of us more realistically than others--the debt 
situation this Nation faces. We are, indeed, borrowing 40 cents of 
every $1 we spend. That is an unsustainable path. We have already had 3 
consecutive years of deficits exceeding $1 trillion, and we are 
projected to have another trillion-dollar deficit next year.
  The debt under President Obama has now increased by 42 percent in the 
first 3 years of his term in office. It is an unsustainable course. We 
have to do better.
  The National Defense Authorization Act represents our committee's 
vision for defense in the future. We have done something about the 
spending problem America has. As we calculate the numbers, we are down 
from $548 billion--in actual money spent on the Defense Department last 
year--to $527 billion this year, an actual reduction, in noninflation-
adjusted dollars, of over $20 billion, which represents about a 5-
percent reduction, a 4-percent reduction in defense spending.
  That is what all of our accounts should be doing. But, indeed, that 
is not happening. In the other aspects of discretionary spending--
defense being the largest portion of discretionary spending in the 
Congress--the other agencies and departments are not showing a 
reduction at all. Indeed, they are showing an increase, even after 
nondefense discretionary spending increased 24 percent in the first 2 
years under President Obama.
  Some think the base defense budget has been surging--and it has been 
increasing over the last decade--but it has increased 84 percent over 
the past decade. I will note that Medicaid, for example, has increased 
over 100 percent. Food stamps are now up to $80 billion this year. It 
is four times what it was in 2001, from $20 billion to about $80 
billion.
  So defense has not been surging out of proportion, I would suggest, 
to the other spending programs in our government. In fact, it has been 
increasing, even in this decade long of war against terrorism, at a 
rate that is not excessive, in my view. It has been a pretty 
significant increase under realistic controls and not out of proportion 
to what we are concerned about. However, it is looking to be hammered a 
great deal more in the future, disproportionate, again, to what is 
happening in other spending accounts.
  The Defense Department now is working on a total reduction in 
spending of $489 billion more, which is about 10 percent of what we 
would expect to spend in the next 10 years. That is because of the 
Budget Control Act we passed in August that required reductions in 
spending in discretionary accounts. The choices so far have been to 
reduce defense spending far more than the other accounts.
  In addition, if the deficit committee--the 12 supercommittee 
members--if they do not reach an accord, we all need to understand 
there will be an automatic sequester. Many people thought--and I think 
Senators probably thought--if that were to be done, it would be done 
across the board in an equal way. Not so. If that happens, $600 billion 
additional would be taken out of defense, and items such as food 
stamps, Medicaid, the earned income tax credit, Social Security--all of 
those would have no reductions. So it would amount to almost a 20-
percent reduction in the Defense Department in real dollars over 10 
years.

[[Page 18074]]

  It should not have been that way. The agreement should not have 
targeted the Defense Department in such a Draconian way. We cannot 
allow that to happen.
  All accounts need to be tightened. Every agency and department has to 
tighten its belt, including the Defense Department, but not 
disproportionately so.
  Admiral Mullen said, if this were to occur, it would ``hollow us 
out,'' it could break the Defense Department and our military; so did 
Leon Panetta, President Obama's Secretary of Defense. He said it was 
basically an unacceptable situation, and he agreed with Admiral Mullen, 
who was sitting beside him at the time of that testimony, and in 
response to questions I asked of him.
  When I asked him about it--the hearing was on another subject--he 
responded with passion, Secretary Panetta did, and expressed deep 
concern about the course of our Defense Department if these cuts were 
to take place.
  I will quote former Secretary Robert Gates, who served President Bush 
and President Obama. Recently, he said this:

       I think, frankly, the creation of this supercommittee was a 
     complete abdication of responsibility on the part of the 
     Congress. It basically says, ``this is too hard for us. Give 
     us a BRAC. Give us a package where all I have to do is vote 
     it up or vote it down and I don't have to take any personal 
     responsibility for any of the tough decisions.'' So now we're 
     left with this sword of Damocles hanging over the government, 
     hanging over defense, and if these cuts are automatically 
     made, I think that the results for our national security will 
     be catastrophic.

  That is what the former Secretary of Defense, a most respected 
Secretary, said not long ago. So I think that is fundamentally correct, 
that we are proceeding on a path that disproportionately impacts the 
Defense Department and would be damaging in a way that is not necessary 
and should not happen.
  A lot of these other programs have been surging out of control with 
problems after problems--whether it is Solyndra loans that were made, 
apparently knowing the company is going under--those kinds of things we 
need to focus on. To suggest they cannot have any cuts, and all the 
cuts have to fall on defense, or a disproportionate number of them, is 
a mistake.
  I am a firm believer that the Defense Department, and every 
department of our government, has to tighten its belt, and we cannot 
continue with business as usual, and we should be having reductions in 
spending in every single bill that is coming before us. But I am afraid 
the only bill that will actually show an actual reduction in spending 
is the Defense bill, when we have men and women in harm's way right now 
on guard to defend our country.
  I feel we need to get our act together. I am hopeful this committee 
of 12 can reach an accord that would not hammer the Defense Department 
additionally from the huge cuts they are already being asked to make 
over the next 10 years. Maybe they can help us begin to get on a path 
to fiscal responsibility. But I am doubtful they are going to make a 
big change. Hopefully, they will make some agreement, but it does not 
look hopeful we will have the kind of financial alteration of spending 
in America that is necessary to get our country on the right path.
  After all, Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
said last year that the greatest threat to our national security is our 
debt. We are already seeing how it impacts us when you see these cuts 
being discussed and being threatened.
  I want to thank Senator Ayotte--a former prosecutor, attorney general 
of New Hampshire--for jumping in right away into the very critical 
issue of detainees and how they should be treated in the United States. 
In the short time she has been here, she is making a big difference on 
that.
  I was involved in it on the Judiciary Committee. I have been involved 
in it on the Armed Services Committee. I am basically exhausted with 
it. I remain flabbergasted. I think you are right, Senator Ayotte. This 
is progress I believe you have made in these negotiations, but I think 
we have gone too far in many of these ideas already. It does not make 
common sense.
  Let me say a couple of things about it. When a person is at war 
against the United States and they are captured in combat activities 
against the United States, they are able to be detained. They do not 
have to be tried. They do not have to be given Miranda rights. They 
have to comply with the Geneva Conventions about food and the right to 
communicate, and, within limits, they can be interrogated. All of those 
things are part of the Geneva Conventions. And they are to be detained 
until the war is over. That is so fundamentally logical. Why in the 
world would a person who is fighting an enemy and could have killed the 
enemy at one moment and captures them the next moment then be required, 
while the war is still ongoing, to release them so they can shoot you 
again and attack you again?
  This is perfectly logical. It is part of the history of war, and it 
has long been established that when you capture enemy combatants, you 
can detain them until the conflict is over. But we have had this 
obsessive desire and attack by some that the people who have been 
captured need to be released, and they insisted that they be released. 
So they started with the least dangerous members, and they have 
released, I guess now, a majority of the people who have been detained. 
And among the least dangerous members who have been released, as 
Senator Ayotte says, we now have 27 percent who have been identified as 
in the war, attacking us now, and one of them is one of the top leaders 
in al-Qaida. This was never necessary.
  Guantanamo is a perfectly logical place to hold these individuals, 
and how it became such a political issue--and President Obama 
campaigned on it, and Attorney General Eric Holder was out there 
complaining about it. Then he gets in as the Attorney General of the 
United States, and they commence to make some serious errors, in my 
opinion.
  One of the biggest errors was to create a presumption that somebody 
who has been apprehended attacking the United States should be treated 
in civilian courts. I know Senator Ayotte just said this earlier, but 
people need to know. If you are going to try someone in civilian court, 
you have to give them the Miranda immediately because when they come 
before the judge, if they made an admission without Miranda, it cannot 
be used against them. And you have to tell them immediately that they 
are entitled to a lawyer. When you capture people in a war, you don't 
give them lawyers. That has never been a part of the rules of war. And 
they are guaranteed presentment, the right to speedy trial in Federal 
court within 70 days. They are entitled to a preliminary hearing. So 
all of the other bad guys and terrorists now have an opportunity to 
know that you have captured their co-conspirator, perhaps, and are 
aware of the circumstances and may scatter in a way that you would not 
want to occur.
  So these are realistic things. So if there is a presumption--first of 
all, I would say all of the cases should be tried in military 
commissions, if they are tried, and not in civilian court. But 
certainly the presumption should be that they would be in military 
commissions because if the presumption, as Attorney General Holder has 
declared, is that it is civilian, then you have to do the warning.
  I remember in one of my hearings, Senator Lindsey Graham, a JAG 
officer in the Air Force--still trains as a reservist--grilled I 
believe it was Attorney General Holder and asked him: Well, what would 
happen if bin Laden were captured? Would you give him Miranda rights? 
And he could not answer the question. He would not answer the question 
because under his presumption, if Osama bin Laden were apprehended, he 
should be given Miranda rights.
  So that is the nub of the problem we have been wrestling with, and we 
have had a lot of political rhetoric, in my opinion, attacked President 
Bush time and time again. They did not conduct everything perfectly, 
but many of the attacks on President Bush, his Department of Justice, 
and his military were unfair.

[[Page 18075]]

  Do you know that not a single person in Guantanamo was ever 
waterboarded, that the U.S. military never participated in that? These 
were intel interrogations done under limited circumstances to a very 
few people. Whether they should have been done or not, we can all argue 
and disagree, but the idea that the U.S. military, the Defense 
Department, was systematically torturing and abusing prisoners is 
absolutely untrue. No military under such difficult circumstances has 
performed so well.
  Another subject. One of my amendments deals with a subject I have had 
an opportunity to be engaged in for some years. Around 2002, 2003, or 
2004, I led a congressional delegation to Europe dealing with the 
extent of our forces in Europe, how many we have deployed there, and 
the opportunity we had and maybe the need we have to bring home some of 
those forces.
  We were going through a BRAC process in the United States, closing 
bases and consolidating bases. That process did not apply officially to 
Europe and bases around the world. And a number of us were engaged in 
that. I recall that Senator Saxby Chambliss and Mike Enzi traveled with 
us to Europe, and we examined--went to Germany and Italy and Spain, and 
we saw the bases that were important to the United States, bases that 
we really needed and we had good support from our allies on and that 
would be enduring bases. And there was a plan in place to reduce the 
deployment in areas where it was less important.
  So as a matter of background, I would share these thoughts. Since 
2004, the Defense Department has had a plan to transfer two of its four 
combat brigades in Europe back to the United States as part of a larger 
post-Cold War realignment. However, in April of this year---April of 
this year--the Department of Defense announced it would maintain three 
combat brigades and the fourth would not leave Europe until 2015.
  Earlier this year, Admiral Stavridis told the Senate Armed Services 
Committee that roughly 80,000 troops remain in Europe. Moving a brigade 
combat team back to the United States would have cut U.S. forces by 
5,000 personnel.
  A 2010 plan developed by a congressionally appointed committee found 
that cutting one-third of the U.S. military presence in Europe and the 
Pacific would save billions of dollars over 10 years. I do believe 
significant cost savings can be realized. In addition to these savings, 
stationing these troops in the United States would have a stimulative 
effect on State and local economies, with these soldiers and families 
living in their local economies and being able to stay with their 
families more easily and reducing the number of extensive movements of 
personnel and families to deploy in different places around the world. 
So I believe we need stay on track with this plan.
  A February 2011 GAO report found that DOD posture planing guidance 
does not require the EUCOM--the European Command--to include 
comprehensive cost data in its theater posture plan. As a result, DOD 
does not have critical information that can be used by decision-makers 
as they deliberate posture requirements.
  The GAO analysis showed that of the approximately $17 billion 
obligated to the services to support installations in Europe between 
2006 and 2009, approximately $13 billion--78 percent--was for operation 
and maintenance costs. Now, those countries want our people there. It 
brings American money to their economy--just like we would like to have 
a brigade combat in Alabama, New Hampshire, or some other places. It is 
good for the economy.
  NATO and European allies, however, are not meeting their defense 
spending obligations. Many of our allies do not meet the EU standard. 
The United States should not be continuing to subsidize NATO and 
European allies' defense spending. They need to participate some more.
  I believe there are significant savings that could be found by 
bringing both of these brigade combat teams to the United States, as 
has been planned.
  I would ask, is Europe more threatened today than it was 2, 3, 4, 6 
years ago? I do not think so. They do not think so. Europeans committed 
to 2 percent of their GDP to be committed to defense, but many of those 
nations are down to 1 percent. They are not even fulfilling their 2 
percent goal. The United States is at 4 percent of GDP on defense, 
almost.
  I think the Europeans need to be prepared to understand that they 
cannot live off the United States. There is a great book by Kagan 
called ``Paradise and Power.'' It is very insightful, a very insightful 
book. It says, in a sense: Europeans are comfortable. Why? Because they 
are under the umbrella of American power. They have been comfortable 
with that. They do not feel threatened. They are not paying their fair 
share of the defense burden. And they do not like it when we want to 
bring home troops. Give me a break. It is time to do something about 
that.
  I believe all of our allies around the world, whether in the Pacific 
or in Europe or in other areas of the globe, ought to work with us in 
partnership so that we can be most effective in providing some 
stability around the world. But the idea that the United States can 
unilaterally fund a security force for the whole world is unrealistic. 
It can't be sustained.
  I just cannot possibly see how we need this many troops in Europe at 
this point in history. I believe it would be good for our economy to 
have those troops back home in the United States. You can have the 
bases there that we could surge and meet any challenge in short order. 
I believe that is the right approach.
  I see my friend, Senator Enzi. We traveled together on that trip to 
Europe a number of years ago to examine the bases that we felt should 
be permanent and the ones that should be closed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I would like to give my thanks to the 
Senator from Alabama for his comments about the concerns he has about 
our detainee policy and about how important it is that we have the 
right policies in place to protect Americans so that we can prioritize 
gathering intelligence.
  I also wanted to share in his concerns about what is happening with 
the supercommittee in terms of the impact on our national security. 
There is no question that there are areas where we can do much better 
and be more effective with taxpayer dollars on defense spending. But we 
cannot subjugate our national security for our failure around here to 
do our job and to have courage to take on the entire budget and bring 
ourselves on a path of fiscal responsibility.
  So I know the Senator from Alabama has been a great leader in this 
area, and I appreciate his comments in that regard.


                           Amendment No. 1249

  Mr. President, I also wanted to speak briefly on an amendment that 
has already been made pending that Senator McCain and I are 
cosponsoring together.
  Over the last year, as a new Member of the Senate and the Senate 
Armed Services Committee, one of the concerns I have had is the way we 
do contracting at the Department of Defense. My overall impression has 
been that a third year law student could negotiate much better terms 
for the United States than we have been negotiating for the country. In 
some of the negotiations with our defense contracts we end up on the 
hook when contractors don't perform or it takes longer than they 
indicate, and we seem to always bear the financial burden of that.
  When we look at the fiscal state of the country and where we are, we 
need to reform that process. That is what drew my interest to this 
issue. Senator McCain has long worked on this issue of reforming our 
acquisition process, and I have great respect for the work he has done 
there. So we have offered on this National Defense Authorization Act 
amendment No. 1249, which would prevent millions of dollars in wasteful 
contract cost overruns from the Department of Defense on major defense

[[Page 18076]]

acquisition programs and help to ensure that our warfighters have the 
weapons and systems they need to protect our Nation but doing so within 
budget and on time frames that contractors commit to for our needs to 
make sure we have what we need to protect our country.
  According to the Government Accountability Office, in a March 2011 
report entitled ``Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapons 
Programs,'' from fiscal year 2010 collectively, we ran more than $400 
billion over budget and were an average of almost 2 years behind 
schedule for major defense acquisitions programs.
  Today, half of the Department of Defense major defense acquisition 
programs do not meet cost performance goals. Eighty percent of our 
major defense acquisition programs have an increase in unit costs from 
initial estimates that were given. While there can be many factors that 
explain the cost overruns, the cost-type contracts have been a 
significant contributing factor in why we have these overruns both for 
production and development of our major defense acquisition programs. 
We have to address these cost overruns, particularly at a time when we 
are asking our Department of Defense to reduce spending. We need to get 
the maximum bang for our buck and hold contractors accountable when 
they do not perform what we have contracted them for. We need to make 
sure the terms of our contracts are good for the United States and are 
fiscally responsible, and that is what this amendment would do.
  It would prohibit the use of cost-type contracts for the production 
of major defense acquisition contracts and limit the use of cost-type 
contracts for major defense acquisition development contracts. This 
represents the core investment in our Nation's military, and as these 
costs increase, and as the Department of Defense faces the looming 
prospect of major budget cuts over the next decade, we have to address 
this now for our troops and for our national security. We have to get 
this right.
  I am hoping for and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment we 
are bringing forward. Again, I would say on behalf of Senator McCain, 
who has done so much work in this area, reforming our acquisition 
process and getting this right is so important to what we are asking 
our military to do right now, which is to do more with less.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


   Amendments Nos. 1146, 1147, 1148, 1204, 1294, 1293, 1206, and 1292

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the 
following amendments, the first four on behalf of Senator Jack Reed, 
Nos. 1146, 1147, 1148, and 1204; a fifth for Senator Reed, amendment 
No. 1294; No. 1293, a Levin amendment; No. 1206, a Boxer amendment; and 
No. 1292, a Menendez amendment; and I then ask unanimous consent that 
we return to the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1146

  (Purpose: To provide for the participation of military technicians 
(dual status) in the study on the termination of military technician as 
               a distinct personnel management category)

       On page 114, strike line 2 and insert the following:

     the study; and
       (8) ensure the involvement and input of military 
     technicians (dual status), including through their exclusive 
     representatives in the case of military technicians (dual 
     status) who are members of a collective bargaining unit.


                           amendment no. 1147

(Purpose: To prohibit the repayment of enlistment or related bonuses by 
 certain individuals who become employed as military technicians (dual 
         status) while already a member of a reserve component)

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

     SEC. 515. PROHIBITION ON REPAYMENT OF ENLISTMENT OR RELATED 
                   BONUSES BY CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED AS 
                   MILITARY TECHNICIANS (DUAL STATUS) WHILE 
                   ALREADY A MEMBER OF A RESERVE COMPONENT.

       (a) Prohibition.--Section 10216 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(h) Prohibition on Repayment of Certain Enlistment and 
     Related Bonuses.--The Secretary concerned may not require an 
     individual who becomes employed as a military technician 
     (dual status) while the individual is already a member of a 
     reserve component to repay an enlistment, reenlistment, or 
     affiliation bonus provided to the individual in connection 
     with the individual's enlistment or reenlistment before such 
     employment if the individual becomes so employed in the same 
     occupational specialty for which such bonus was provided.''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     and shall apply with respect to individuals first becoming 
     employed as a military technician (dual status) on or after 
     that date.


                           amendment no. 1148

  (Purpose: To provide rights of grievance, arbitration, appeal, and 
      review beyond the adjutant general for military technicians)

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

     SEC. 515. RIGHTS OF GRIEVANCE, ARBITRATION, APPEAL, AND 
                   REVIEW BEYOND THE ADJUTANT GENERAL FOR MILITARY 
                   TECHNICIANS.

       (a) Rights in Adverse Actions Not Related to Military 
     Service.--Section 709 of title 32, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (f)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law and under'' and 
     inserting ``Under''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``a right of appeal'' and 
     inserting ``subject to subsection (j), a right of appeal''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(j)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (f)(4) or any other 
     provision of law, a technician and a labor organization that 
     is the exclusive representative of a bargaining unit 
     including the technician shall have the rights of grievance, 
     arbitration, appeal, and review extending beyond the adjutant 
     general of the jurisdiction concerned and to the Merit 
     Systems Protection Board and thereafter to the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in the same manner 
     as provided in sections 4303, 7121, and 7701-7703 of title 5, 
     with respect to a performance-based or adverse action 
     imposing removal, suspension for more than 14 days, furlough 
     for 30 days or less, or reduction in pay or pay band (or 
     comparable reduction).
       ``(2) The rights in paragraph (1) shall not apply to 
     actions relating to military service.
       ``(3) This subsection does not apply to a technician who is 
     serving under a temporary appointment or in a trial or 
     probationary period.''.
       (b) Adverse Actions Covered.--Subsection (g) of such 
     section is amended by striking ``, 3502, 7511, and 7512'' and 
     inserting ``and 3502''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 7511(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (5); and
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (10) as 
     paragraphs (5) through (9), respectively.


                           amendment no. 1204

(Purpose: To authorize a pilot program on enhancements of Department of 
  Defense efforts on mental health in the National Guard and Reserves 
                    through community partnerships)

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

     SEC. 723. PILOT PROGRAM ON ENHANCEMENTS OF DEPARTMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE EFFORTS ON MENTAL HEALTH IN THE 
                   NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES THROUGH COMMUNITY 
                   PARTNERSHIPS.

       (a) Pilot Program Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense may carry out a 
     pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of 
     enhancing the efforts of the Department of Defense in 
     research, treatment, education, and outreach on mental health 
     and substance use disorders and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) 
     in members of the National Guard and Reserves, their family 
     members, and their caregivers through community partners 
     described in subsection (c).
       (2) Duration.--The duration of the pilot program may not 
     exceed three years.
       (b) Grants.--In carrying out the pilot program, the 
     Secretary may award not more than five grants to community 
     partners described in subsection (c). Any grant so awarded 
     shall be awarded using a competitive and merit-based award 
     process.
       (c) Community Partners.--A community partner described in 
     this subsection is a private non-profit organization or 
     institution (or multiple organizations and institutions) 
     that--
       (1) engages in each of the research, treatment, education, 
     and outreach activities described in subsection (d); and
       (2) meets such qualifications for treatment as a community 
     partner as the Secretary shall establish for purposes of the 
     pilot program.
       (d) Activities.--Amounts awarded under a grant under the 
     pilot program shall be utilized by the community partner 
     awarded the grant for one or more of the following:

[[Page 18077]]

       (1) To engage in research on the causes, development, and 
     innovative treatment of mental health and substance use 
     disorders and Traumatic Brain Injury in members of the 
     National Guard and Reserves, their family members, and their 
     caregivers.
       (2) To provide treatment to such members and their families 
     for such mental health and substance use disorders and 
     Traumatic Brain Injury.
       (3) To identify and disseminate evidence-based treatments 
     of mental health and substance use disorders and Traumatic 
     Brain Injury described in paragraph (1).
       (4) To provide outreach and education to such members, 
     their families and caregivers, and the public about mental 
     health and substance use disorders and Traumatic Brain Injury 
     described in paragraph (1).
       (e) Requirement for Matching Funds.--
       (1) Requirement.--The Secretary may award a grant under 
     this section to an organization or institution (or 
     organizations and institutions) only if the awardee agrees to 
     make contributions toward the costs of activities carried out 
     with the grant, from non-Federal sources (whether public or 
     private), an amount equal to not less than $3 for each $1 of 
     funds provided under the grant.
       (2) Nature of non-federal contributions.--Contributions 
     from non-Federal sources for purposes of paragraph (1) may be 
     in cash or in-kind, fairly evaluated. Amounts provided by the 
     Federal Government, or services assisted or subsidized to any 
     significant extent by the Federal Government, may not be 
     included in determining the amount of contributions from non-
     Federal sources for such purposes.
       (f) Application.--An organization or institution (or 
     organizations and institutions) seeking a grant under this 
     section shall submit to the Secretary an application 
     therefore in such a form and containing such information as 
     the Secretary considers appropriate, including the following:
       (1) A description how the activities proposed to be carried 
     out with the grant will help improve collaboration and 
     coordination on research initiatives, treatment, and 
     education and outreach on mental health and substance use 
     disorders and Traumatic Brain Injury among the Armed Forces.
       (2) A description of existing efforts by the applicant to 
     put the research described in (c)(1) into practice.
       (3) If the application comes from multiple organizations 
     and institutions, how the activities proposed to be carried 
     out with the grant would improve coordination and 
     collaboration among such organizations and institutions.
       (4) If the applicant proposes to provide services or 
     treatment to members of the Armed Forces or family members 
     using grant amounts, reasonable assurances that such services 
     or treatment will be provided by a qualified provider.
       (5) Plans to comply with subsection (g).
       (g) Exchange of Medical and Clinical Information.--A 
     community partner awarded a grant under the pilot program 
     shall agree to any requirements for the sharing of medical or 
     clinical information obtained pursuant to the grant that the 
     Secretary shall establish for purposes of the pilot program. 
     The exchange of medical or clinical information pursuant to 
     this subsection shall comply with applicable privacy and 
     confidentiality laws.
       (h) Dissemination of Information.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall share with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     information on best practices in research, treatment, 
     education, and outreach on mental health and substance use 
     disorders and Traumatic Brain Injury identified by the 
     Secretary of Defense as a result of the pilot program.
       (i) Report.--Not later than 180 days before the completion 
     of the pilot program, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and to Congress, a 
     report on the pilot program. The report shall include the 
     following:
       (1) A description of the pilot program, including the 
     community partners awarded grants under the pilot program, 
     the amount of grants so awarded, and the activities carried 
     out using such grant amounts.
       (2) A description of any research efforts advanced using 
     such grant amounts.
       (3) The number of members of the National Guard and 
     Reserves provided treatment or services by community partners 
     using such grant amounts, and a summary of the types of 
     treatment and services so provided.
       (4) A description of the education and outreach activities 
     undertaken using such grant amounts.
       (5) A description of efforts to exchange clinical 
     information under subsection (g).
       (6) A description and assessment of the effectiveness and 
     achievements of the pilot program with respect to research, 
     treatment, education, and outreach on mental health and 
     substance use disorders and Traumatic Brain Injury.
       (7) Such recommendations as the Secretary of Defense 
     considers appropriate in light of the pilot program on the 
     utilization of organizations and institutions such as 
     community partners under the pilot program in efforts of the 
     Department described in subsection (a).
       (8) A description of the metrics used by the Secretary in 
     making recommendations under paragraph (7).
       (j) Available Funds.--Funds for the pilot program shall be 
     derived from amounts authorized to be appropriated for the 
     Department of Defense for Defense Health Program and 
     otherwise available for obligation and expenditure.
       (k) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``family 
     member'' and ``caregiver'', in the case of a member of the 
     National Guard or Reserves, have the meaning given such terms 
     in section 1720G(d) of title 38, United States Code, with 
     respect to a veteran.


                           amendment no. 1294

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

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

     SEC. 577. ENHANCEMENT OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTIONS FOR 
                   MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND THEIR 
                   DEPENDENTS.

       (a) Prohibited Actions.--Subsection (e) of section 987 of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (9); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(7) the creditor charges the borrower a fee for overdraft 
     service (as that term is defined by the Electronic Fund 
     Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq.) and implementing 
     regulations) in connection with a withdrawal from an 
     automated teller machine or a one-time debit card 
     transaction;
       ``(8) the creditor charges the borrower a fee for overdraft 
     service (as so defined) where such fee is triggered as the 
     result of the institution having posted the borrower's 
     transactions in order from largest to smallest; or''.
       (b) Regulations.--Subsection (h)(3) of such section is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``at least every two years'' after 
     ``consult''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(H) The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.''.
       (c) Consumer Credit.--Subsection (i)(6) of such section is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Such term shall also include credit under an open end 
     consumer credit plan (as defined by section 103 of the Truth 
     in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602) and implementing 
     regulations), except that the Secretary of Defense may 
     exclude credit under such a plan that provides for amortizing 
     payments over a period of at least 92 days.''.


                           amendment no. 1293

 (Purpose: To authorize the transfer of certain high-speed ferries to 
                               the Navy)

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

     SEC. 1024. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN HIGH-SPEED FERRIES TO THE 
                   NAVY.

       (a) Transfer From MARAD Authorized.--The Secretary of the 
     Navy may, from funds available for the Department of Defense 
     for fiscal year 2012, provide to the Maritime Administration 
     of the Department of Transportation an amount not to exceed 
     $35,000,000 for the transfer by the Maritime Administration 
     to the Department of the Navy of jurisdiction and control 
     over the vessels as follows:
       (1) M/V HUAKAI.
       (2) M/V ALAKAI.
       (b) Use as Department of Defense Sealift Vessels.--Each 
     vessel transferred to the Department of the Navy under 
     subsection (a) shall be administered as a Department of 
     Defense sealift vessel (as such term is defined in section 
     2218(k)(2) of title 10, United States Code).


                           amendment no. 1206

  (Purpose: To implement common sense controls on the taxpayer-funded 
                    salaries of defense contractors)

       Strike section 842 of division A and insert the following:

     SEC. 842. LIMITATION ON DEFENSE CONTRACTOR COMPENSATION.

       Section 2324(e)(1)(P) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(P) Costs of compensation of contractor and subcontractor 
     employees for a fiscal year, regardless of the contract 
     funding source, to the extent that such compensation exceeds 
     the annual amount paid to the President of the United States 
     in accordance with section 102 of title 3.''.


                           amendment no. 1292

(Purpose: To require the President to impose sanctions with respect to 
 the Central Bank of Iran if the President determines that the Central 
    Bank of Iran has engaged in conduct that threatens the national 
     security of the United States or allies of the United States)

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

     SEC. 1243. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE 
                   CENTRAL BANK OF IRAN.

       Section 104 of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, 
     Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8513) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (h) and (i) as subsections 
     (i) and (j), respectively; and

[[Page 18078]]

       (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(h) Imposition of Sanctions With Respect to the Central 
     Bank of Iran.--
       ``(1) Determination required.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2012, the President shall determine whether the 
     Central Bank of Iran has engaged in conduct that threatens 
     the national security of the United States or allies of the 
     United States, taking into consideration whether the Bank 
     has--
       ``(i) facilitated activities of the Government of Iran that 
     threaten global or regional peace and security;
       ``(ii) sought to evade multilateral sanctions directed 
     against the Government of Iran on behalf of that Government;
       ``(iii) engaged in deceptive financial practices or 
     mechanisms to facilitate illicit transactions with non-
     Iranian financial institutions;
       ``(iv) conducted transactions prohibited by binding 
     resolutions of the United Nations Security Council or allowed 
     itself to be used to permit conduct prohibited by such 
     resolutions;
       ``(v) conducted transactions on behalf of persons 
     designated by the United States for the imposition of 
     sanctions pursuant to the International Emergency Economic 
     Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.);
       ``(vi) provided financial services in support of, or 
     otherwise facilitated, the ability of Iran to--

       ``(I) acquire or develop chemical, biological, or nuclear 
     weapons, or related technologies;
       ``(II) construct, equip, operate, or maintain nuclear 
     enrichment facilities; or
       ``(III) acquire or develop ballistic missiles, cruise 
     missiles, or destabilizing types and amounts of conventional 
     weapons; or

       ``(vii) facilitated a transaction or provided financial 
     services for--

       ``(I) Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps; or
       ``(II) a financial institution whose property or interests 
     in property are blocked pursuant to the International 
     Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) in 
     connection with--

       ``(aa) Iran's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 
     or delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction; or
       ``(bb) Iran's support for acts of international terrorism.
       ``(B) Submission to congress.--The President shall submit 
     in writing to the appropriate congressional committees the 
     determination made under subparagraph (A) and the reasons for 
     the determination.
       ``(2) Imposition of sanctions.--Subject to paragraphs (4), 
     (5), and (6), if the President determines under paragraph 
     (1)(A) that the Central Bank of Iran has engaged in conduct 
     described in that paragraph, the President shall--
       ``(A) prohibit, or impose strict conditions on, the opening 
     or maintaining in the United States of a correspondent 
     account or a payable-through account by a foreign financial 
     institution that the President determines has knowingly 
     conducted any significant financial transaction with the 
     Central Bank of Iran; and
       ``(B) impose sanctions pursuant to the International 
     Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) with 
     respect to the Central Bank of Iran.
       ``(3) Additional sanctions.--In addition to the sanctions 
     required to be imposed under paragraph (2), and subject to 
     paragraph (4), the President may impose such other targeted 
     sanctions with respect to the Central Bank of Iran as the 
     President determines appropriate to terminate the engagement 
     of the Central Bank of Iran in conduct described in paragraph 
     (1)(A) and activities described in subsection (c)(2).
       ``(4) Exception for sales of food, medicine, and medical 
     devices.--The President may not impose sanctions under this 
     subsection on a person for engaging in a transaction with the 
     Central Bank of Iran for the sale of food, medicine, or 
     medical devices to Iran.
       ``(5) Applicability of prohibitions and conditions on 
     accounts.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     paragraph (2)(A) applies with respect to financial 
     transactions commenced on or after the date that is 60 days 
     after the date on which the President makes the determination 
     required by paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(B) Petroleum transactions.--Paragraph (2)(A) applies 
     with respect to financial transactions for the purchase of 
     petroleum or petroleum products through the Central Bank of 
     Iran commenced on or after the date that is 180 days after 
     the date on which the President makes the determination 
     required by paragraph (1)(A).
       ``(6) Waiver.--The President may waive the application of 
     paragraph (2) for a period of 180 days, and renew such a 
     waiver for additional periods of 180 days, if the President--
       ``(A) determines that such a waiver is necessary to the 
     national security interest of the United States; and
       ``(B) submits to the appropriate congressional committees a 
     report--
       ``(i) providing the justification for the waiver; and
       ``(ii) describing--

       ``(I) any concrete cooperation the President has received 
     or expects to receive as a result of the waiver; and
       ``(II) any assurances the President has received or expects 
     to receive as a result of the waiver from foreign financial 
     institutions that such institutions have ceased engaging in 
     financial transactions with the Central Bank of Iran related 
     to terrorism or the facilitation, acquisition, or financing 
     of weapons of mass destruction.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                             Reno Wildfire

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Reno, NV, is a beautiful place. It is right 
below the great Lake Tahoe, the beautiful Sierra Nevada Mountains. It 
is a beautiful picturesque place.
  I was troubled this morning to wake up and find that Reno, NV, is in 
trouble because of a devastating fire. We have more than 500 acres that 
have been burned, and we have a number of homes that have been 
destroyed. The problem we have is, because of these beautiful Sierra 
Nevada mountains that are towering over Reno, we get devastating winds, 
and those winds are blowing now. The winds are at 60 miles an hour 
while they are trying to control this fire. It is ravaging everything 
in its path.
  So my thoughts are certainly with the families who have lost their 
homes and the thousands of residents who have been evacuated. The 
Pinehaven and Caughlin Ranch neighborhoods at this time have been 
particularly affected. But this terrible fire is raging across these 
acres in Reno and Washoe County. We have fire crews from all over the 
region that are trying to stop this disaster, trying to get this 
rampaging fire under control, but the winds are so strong that 
helicopters can't take off. So there is a lot of help that should be 
available that isn't because the winds are so difficult and because, as 
I said, the helicopters can't get off the ground.
  Of course, I called my son Leif as soon as I heard about this. The 
phone was answered by my little granddaughter Nina, who was trying to 
explain to me what was going on. Her dad--my son--had been called to 
his best friend's home to try to help him. He had been ordered to 
evacuate. They have no water. Alfredo Alonso's home has no water 
because there is a well and the electricity is out so he can't pump 
water. But my son couldn't make it there because the police stopped 
him. They wanted no one coming into the neighborhood because they are 
evacuating everyone. But my son and his children--my four 
grandchildren--seem to be well, and they are quite a ways away from the 
fire.
  Of course, I express my appreciation to the brave firefighters who 
have been working around the clock to contain the blaze and to the 
dedicated first responders who acted so quickly to protect lives and 
assist in the evacuation.
  Mr. President, it is times such as this we understand what happens to 
local governments when they have to lay off people--firefighters, 
police officers. It has happened all over Nevada and all over this 
country. We were here, as you remember, a week or two ago trying to get 
assistance for places such as Reno and other communities in America for 
their fire and police, but the bill was defeated. But these people who 
are working are shorthanded, so they are working long hours there. It 
is impossible to say how many lives they have already saved, but they 
have.
  So my heart, and all our hearts, go out to the firefighters as they 
carry on with this difficult work to control the flames and protect the 
communities. I will continue to follow the progress of this fire, and, 
of course, I will assist Mayor Bob Cashell and members of the Reno City 
Council and the Washoe County Commission with anything they think I can 
do to help. I support Governor Sandoval's decision to request a Federal 
emergency declaration, as firefighters and first responders are doing 
their utmost to contain things.
  So Reno and all of Washoe County can depend on my support in any way 
they think I can help, and I will continue, as I have indicated, and I 
indicate for the second time, to monitor this situation very closely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.

[[Page 18079]]


  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, first of all, let me say to the 
majority leader that our thoughts and prayers go out to folks in 
Nevada, and we certainly hope this emergency situation is rectified in 
the near term.
  In Georgia, we had about 400,000 acres destroyed by a forest fire 
back earlier this summer, and it is always a tragedy. Loss of property 
is one thing, but injury and potential loss of life, obviously, is very 
much a part of that, and our hearts go out to all the residents. Our 
thanks go out to these brave men and women who are fighting those fires 
out there, as they did in my State, to get them under control.


                           Amendment No. 1304

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside and that my amendment, which is at the desk, be made pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss] for himself and 
     Mr. Isakson, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Coburn, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1304.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require a report on the reorganization of the Air Force 
                           Materiel Command)

       Strike section 324 and insert the following:

     SEC. 324. REPORTS ON DEPOT-RELATED ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Report on Depot-level Maintenance and Recapitalization 
     of Certain Parts and Equipment.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Defense 
     Logistics Agency (DLA), in consultation with the military 
     departments, shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees a report on the status of the DLA Joint Logistics 
     Operations Center's Drawdown, Retrograde and Reset Program 
     for the equipment from Iraq and Afghanistan and the status of 
     the overall supply chain management for depot-level 
     activities.
       (2) Elements.--The report required under paragraph (1) 
     shall include the following elements:
       (A) An assessment of the number of backlogged parts for 
     critical warfighter needs, an explanation of why those parts 
     became backlogged, and an estimate of when the backlog is 
     likely to be fully addressed.
       (B) A review of critical warfighter requirements that are 
     being impacted by a lack of supplies and parts and an 
     explanation of steps that the Director plans to take to meet 
     the demand requirements of the military departments.
       (C) An assessment of the feasibility and advisability of 
     working with outside commercial partners to utilize flexible 
     and efficient turn-key rapid production systems to meet 
     rapidly emerging warfighter requirements.
       (D) A review of plans to further consolidate the ordering 
     and stocking of parts and supplies from the military 
     departments at depots under the control of the Defense 
     Logistics Agency.
       (3) Flexible and efficient turn-key rapid production 
     systems defined.--For the purposes of this subsection, 
     flexible and efficient turn-key rapid production systems are 
     systems that have demonstrated the capability to reduce the 
     costs of parts, improve manufacturing efficiency, and have 
     the following unique features:
       (A) Virtual and flexible.--Systems that provide for 
     flexibility to rapidly respond to requests for low-volume or 
     high-volume machined parts and surge demand by accessing the 
     full capacity of small- and medium-sized manufacturing 
     communities in the United States.
       (B) Speed to market.--Systems that provide for flexibility 
     that allows rapid introduction of subassemblies for new parts 
     and weapons systems to the warfighter.
       (C) Risk management.--Systems that provide for the 
     electronic archiving and updating of turn-key rapid 
     production packages to provide insurance to the Department of 
     Defense that parts will be available if there is a supply 
     chain disruption.
       (b) Report on Air Force Materiel Command Reorganization.--
       (1) Restriction on reorganization activities.--With respect 
     to the planned reorganization of the Air Force Materiel 
     Command announced on November 2, 2011, the Secretary of the 
     Air Force shall make no changes related to organizational 
     alignment, reporting officials, or any other change related 
     to oversight or the duties of system program managers, 
     sustainment program managers, or product support managers who 
     reside at installations where Air Logistics Centers or depots 
     are located until 60 days after the report required under 
     paragraph (2) is submitted to the congressional defense 
     committees.
       (2) Report.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     containing an analysis of alternatives for alignment and 
     reporting of Air Force System Program Managers and Product 
     Support Managers.
       (B) Elements.--The report required under subparagraph (A) 
     shall--
       (i) focus on the impacts to Air Force life cycle 
     management, sustainment, readiness, and overall support to 
     the warfighter that would likely be realized through the 
     various alternatives;
       (ii) address legal, financial, and other relevant issues;
       (iii) identify criteria for evaluating alternatives;
       (iv) include a list of alternatives, including analysis and 
     recommendations relating to the alternatives;
       (v) describe cost and savings factors; and
       (vi) focus on how the Air Force should be best organized to 
     conduct life cycle management and sustainment, with overall 
     readiness being the highest priority.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to voice my support for the 2012 
National Defense Authorization Act, S. 1867. This is one of the most 
important bills the Senate considers each year, and this is the ninth 
Defense authorization bill I have been involved in drafting since being 
elected to the Senate. It sets funding levels and implements policies 
for the Department of Defense and provides pay raises for our men and 
women in uniform.
  After extended debate, this bill, which authorizes $662 billion for 
the Department of Defense and national security-related aspects of the 
Department of Energy, was passed unanimously out of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. The committee was in a difficult situation this 
year, considering our Nation's fiscal crisis. As I have firmly believed 
all along, everything, including defense spending, must be on the table 
to address our fiscal circumstances.
  In the midst of intense budget negotiations, I am pleased we can 
offer and debate a bill that addresses the real need to reduce 
government spending in a responsible and calculated manner. As several 
of my colleagues have already stated on the Senate floor, the National 
Defense Authorization Act cuts a considerable amount from the defense 
budget, as requested by the President. It is $27 billion less than the 
administration requested and $43 billion less than the amount 
appropriated for 2011. These were very difficult decisions to make, but 
it was the fiscally responsible thing to do given our Nation's fiscal 
situation.
  I am pleased the committee was able to make these cuts without 
jeopardizing our national security. Given the unstable state of affairs 
around the world, now is not the time to slash important programs that 
help our military carry out their responsibilities. We still have 
widespread enemies and interests around the world. With this in mind, 
the bill authorizes $3.2 billion for DOD's Mine Resistant Ambush 
Protected Vehicle fund; authorizes $10.3 billion for U.S. Special 
Operations Command, an increase of 6 percent above fiscal year 2011 
levels; and authorizes more than $2.4 billion for DOD's counter-
improvised explosive device activities.
  In recent months, we have seen what a remarkable impact a small, 
elite force of U.S. soldiers can have, and I am pleased this bill 
authorizes a deserved funding increase for U.S. Special Operations 
Command in order to expand their resources, training, technology, and 
equipment to accomplish their missions. Along with funding, this bill 
will extend the authority of Special Operations Forces to provide 
support to operations fighting against terrorism around the world.
  Regarding our ongoing operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere 
overseas, the bill allocates $11.2 billion for training and equipping 
the Afghan security forces commensurate with recommendations from the 
Commander of U.S. Central Command, and fully supports the budget 
request of $1.75 billion in Coalition Support Funds to reimburse key 
partner nations supporting U.S. military operations in Operation 
Enduring Freedom.
  I am also pleased that I will be leaving later on today, along with 
Senator Burr, and heading to Afghanistan to visit our troops and to 
visit with our commanders on the ground, both from an intelligence 
standpoint as well as an operational standpoint. This is the fourth 
Thanksgiving I have had the opportunity to be on the ground with our

[[Page 18080]]

troops and to look them in the eye, with their boots on the ground, and 
tell them how much we, as policymakers, but more importantly we, as 
Americans, appreciate the great sacrifice each and every one of them is 
making and how much we appreciate the great job they are doing of 
protecting America and protecting Americans.
  This bill also authorizes $500 million for counterterrorism, 
capacity-building activities, including targeted efforts in east Africa 
and Yemen, and fully supports the budget request of $524 million to 
support the activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq in 
overseeing and implementing foreign military sales to the Iraqi 
security forces.
  Keeping in mind the strategic value of our nuclear deterrent and our 
ongoing need to modernize and maintain our nuclear triad, the bill 
authorizes $1.1 billion to continue to develop the Ohio-class 
replacement program, the SSBN(X), to modernize the sea-based leg of the 
nuclear deterrent system.
  The U.S. military requires the capability to counter a growing amount 
of nontraditional threats. In this bill, we strengthen our forces on 
the threat of cyber warfare and the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction and their means of delivery. It is no secret that American 
computer networks are the victim of attempted hacking from state and 
non-state actors around the world on a regular basis. With funds 
authorized in this bill, the Department of Defense will be able to 
better guard against the threat of cyber attacks.
  I am also pleased that in this bill we were able to focus on the 
well-being of our brave men and women fighting on the front lines for 
our freedom overseas, as well as their devoted family members back at 
home who make sacrifices every single day. The bill authorizes $100.6 
billion for military personnel, including costs of pay, allowances, 
bonuses, death benefits, and permanent change of station moves. The 
bill also authorizes a 1.6-percent across-the-board pay raise for our 
service men and women as well as authorizes over 30 types of bonuses 
and special pays aimed at encouraging enlistment, re-enlistment, and 
continued service by Active-Duty and Reserve component military 
personnel. Our attention remains on improving the quality of life of 
the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families, as well as 
Department of Defense civilian personnel, through fair pay, policies, 
and benefits, including first-rate health care, while addressing the 
needs of wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers and their families.
  Let me also briefly address the amendment I have just filed. I have 
been working for the last several weeks with my colleagues, Senators 
Isakson, Hatch, Lee, Inhofe, and Coburn, on an issue related to the 
reorganization of the Air Force Materiel Command.
  Let me first say that I support this reorganization. It is the first 
major reorganization of the Materiel Command by the Air Force in some 
60 years. I support the Air Force's need and desire to make themselves 
more efficient and more effective, and for the most part, I believe the 
proposed reorganization will do that.
  In these tight budget times, when we are all going to have to accept 
streamlined budgets and resources, some loss of jobs and positions is, 
unfortunately, inevitable, and I realize that. However, there is one 
issue with respect to this proposed reorganization that I think we are 
all having a hard time understanding and that relates to how the 
reorganization may affect the way the Air Force organizes for 
sustainment of weapon systems.
  The proposed reorganization would take some of the key personnel who 
are helping to orchestrate these sustainment efforts and put them in a 
separate chain of command from their partners in carrying out those 
sustainment efforts. This is hard to understand. And, in a time when 
our Air Force is working harder than ever and keeping their aircraft in 
the fleet longer than ever, it is hard to imagine how a change such as 
the Air Force is proposing here will help sustainment of weapon 
systems.
  We are working with the Air Force on this issue, and we are still in 
negotiations, but this is an issue for which we have yet to receive a 
satisfactory explanation, and we have not reached a conclusion of this 
issue. I think the Air Force needs to clearly understand that there is 
a risk here. There is a risk that this reorganization may have some 
unintended consequences specifically related to the readiness of our 
Air Force. This is serious. We have not seen any explanation for how 
the Air Force arrived at their proposed course of action on this 
specific issue or why they think it will improve readiness. I would 
also note that the way the Air Force is seeking to reorganize in this 
respect goes against some of the basic principles and recommendations 
of a recent, very thorough report on this specific issue.
  It is with these issues in mind that we are filing this amendment. I 
very much look forward to the Air Force's explanations on this issue 
and to having this reorganization be executed in a way that allows the 
Air Force to conserve personnel and resources, organize more 
efficiently, and sustain weapon systems to support the warfighter in 
the most effective way possible.
  In conclusion, I am extremely proud of the hard work the Armed 
Services Committee Members and staff have done to put together this 
Defense authorization bill. I would particularly like to compliment our 
leadership, Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain, on the job they 
have done and their willingness to work with Members of the Committee 
on our specific issues--issues such as the one Senator Ayotte and I 
discussed on the floor yesterday, along with Senator Graham, Senator 
McCain, and Senator Levin, regarding detainee policy, of which we have 
none at the present time and to which folks such as Senator Ayotte have 
given a great deal of thought and have come up with some very logical 
ways in which we can address this issue of detainees so that we can get 
actionable intelligence from those detainees and, at the same time, 
ensure they are treated in ways that are respectful to our system of 
jurisprudence on the military side as well as on the civilian side.
  I want to also say that we have had a couple of hiccups along the 
way, but staff on both sides, the majority and minority, have addressed 
those hiccups, and we have been working very closely to try to ensure 
that the issues we raised with staff after the bill was filed have been 
addressed and are in the process of being taken care of.
  As a reflection of the extremely tight budget environment, we have 
taken responsible reductions in spending; however, we maintain our 
commitment to the Armed Forces by providing funds and authorizations to 
protect our national security and support our men and women on the 
front lines, as well as their dedicated families here in America.
  I look forward to the remainder of the debate on this bill when we 
return after our Thanksgiving break.
  To all of our men and women who wear the uniform of the United States 
of America, Happy Thanksgiving.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for his 
leadership on the Armed Services Committee and also for the important 
work he has been doing as the vice chair of the Intelligence Committee 
to make sure our country is protected. He is particularly knowledgeable 
on these issues of how we treat detainees, and we did have a detailed 
colloquy on the floor. His insight has been so important in making sure 
we have the right policies in place to protect America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Enzi pertaining to the introduction of S. 1909 
are located in today's Record under Statements on Introduced Bills and 
Joint Resolutions.)
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 18081]]

  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           The National Debt

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I was sorry to hear the supercommittee is in 
trouble, that they might not be able to agree. Then this morning's 
Washington Post front page headline was ``Debt Panel Failure Won't 
Cause Catastrophe.''
  Every day we do not find a solution, every day we spend is a 
catastrophe. We have maxed out our credit cards. Here is one way that 
came to my attention. I was traveling in Wyoming and I checked into the 
hotel for the night. The person checking me in, very embarrassed, said: 
I am sorry, but it will not take your credit card. It was a Federal 
credit card.
  I said: Goodness, we are in more trouble than I thought. I gave them 
my personal credit card and that went right through so I am not sure 
where we are. But I know we have maxed out our credit cards and not 
just that but also the symbolic credit cards that we have. We have as 
much debt as we probably can sustain and as debt comes due across the 
world for other countries, it is going to be tougher and tougher to be 
able to sell more debt.
  We are kind of in the same situation as Greece and Italy, except for 
two things. No. 1 is we are a big, flexible country that has pulled 
itself out of terrible situations time and time again, and we will do 
it this time too. We also own our own money supply. That helps.
  When constituents ask what can they expect, I always start the 
conversation by saying you should expect to get no more than what the 
2008 level was. We increased things considerably after that with the 
stimulus bill and that increased some bases. We have to get back down 
to 2008, just as a beginning.
  I have to say the President has had a chance to change direction. I 
have to congratulate the President for naming a deficit commission. I 
even like the people he named to it, with Senator Simpson from Wyoming 
and Erskine Bowles heading up that committee. I think they did some 
tremendous work. I think we should pay more attention to what they had 
to say.
  I had a little disappointment when the President did his State of the 
Union speech following their report. He had an opportunity to repaint 
the same bleak picture that committee painted and America would have 
understood better. Although from traveling across our country, and 
particularly in Wyoming, I know the people there understand it better 
than Congress does. But he could have changed it by repainting that 
picture and then he could have followed it up with a solution which 
would have been his budget. Instead, his budget was another stimulus 
plan. It has been voted on by Congress. It was not voted for by 
Congress, it was voted on by Congress, and it was voted 97 to nothing--
it was defeated. I think the deficit commission report would have done 
much better.
  Congress has also had the chance to change direction--and in some 
cases we have. We have kind of eliminated earmarks. There are still 
some of them that are slipped in, but we kind of eliminated them. We 
have a couple new problems. Now we add demonstration projects. We have 
always had demonstration projects, but now we do it as a substitute for 
earmarks and that is where we allow maybe five States to have an 
opportunity to do a particular program to see if it works. So we fund 
it in a minimal amount--that still is millions. The difficulty is that 
at the end of the period of time for that demonstration project, they 
all work. They are all spectacular. They all would save America if we 
just put it in every single State and funded it from the Federal 
Government.
  It can't happen. We are out of money. There are lots of good ideas 
out there, lots of good ideas that would help. When those ideas are 
proved--the idea with the demonstration is that it would demonstrate 
well enough how good it is that somewhere at the local level that 
project would be picked up and done or forgotten. But, no, we do make 
them a national program and we do fund them forever in chunks of time.
  Another thing we are doing is that we propose a project and, because 
we like the word ``pay-for,'' because we should pay for whatever we are 
doing, we put up a project, we put a 2-year limit on the project, and 
then we pick a pay-for by showing some program that, if it were 
eliminated for 10 years, might bring in that amount of revenue. We 
cannot pay for a 2-year program with 10 years' worth of revenue because 
somebody is going to spend the rest of that anyway and it may never be 
collected. A Congress can change its mind all the time. We have to quit 
using gimmicks and we have to quit adding new programs. What part of 
maxed out credit cards don't we understand? We have to quit buying 
votes with dollars we do not have.
  We do have to address mandatory spending. Social Security and 
Medicare have been a problem for a long time. I remember when I first 
came to Congress, President Clinton was the President and he called for 
a special conference on Social Security. We had 1 day where we got to 
be initiated into what all the problems were--fantastic speakers. We 
had a second day where Members of the House and Congress met in smaller 
committees to work on pieces of the Social Security problem. We came up 
with a plan and President Clinton looked at the plan and met with us as 
a group and said: If all of you are willing to put your fingerprint on 
this, we will do it. We can only do it if everybody puts their 
fingerprint on it so both parties are responsible for it, and everybody 
in the room agreed to do that.
  Unfortunately, we were distracted a little bit by something called 
Monica Lewinsky, and that bill never came up anywhere.
  The situation we are in right now is passing bills to fail. Each side 
has a tendency to put up a bill that has something good in it, packaged 
with something they like but the other side doesn't like. It is going 
to get defeated on the basis of what each side doesn't like and the 
good part is left out. That is not going to get anything done for us.
  We have tried the stimulus bill. We got negligible effects on jobs. 
It did escalate the basis for budgets and it was the use of one-time 
money. That has created some problems for it. We hear that 30,000 
teachers and firefighters are going to be laid off. That comes from 
safety money and education money that went to the States. It was one-
time money. They cannot use one-time money for a continuing contract. 
If a State did, yes, they are having to lay off people because the 
stimulus is not being repeated each and every year.
  Are there solutions? Yes, there are solutions. I am optimistic about 
the solutions. I do recognize everything has to be on the table and we 
should all reread the deficit commission report. We have to ask 
constituents to suggest their own programs to reduce.
  In the spring, we will be inundated by a whole lot of people who will 
be ready to have us support the program that makes a difference in 
their life and the life of the community. I always ask them how we are 
going to pay for it? They always suggest somebody else's program to 
cancel. There are never any suggestions of how to consolidate within 
their own program and do it. They have to do it and each of us in 
Congress needs to evaluate our own programs. Not all of them can be 
sacred cows. I wish to congratulate Senator Rubio and Senator Coons for 
a jobs creation bill they have put together. They have taken the 
diverse bills from both sides of the aisle and several others and 
looked to see if there was any common thread. All they did was pick out 
the common thread from each of those and put them into a bill. If both 
sides and others in Congress like it, why would that not pass and pass 
quickly?
  I congratulate our Congresswoman Lummis, from Wyoming. She is on the

[[Page 18082]]

Appropriations Committee. I think that is the first time we have ever 
had anybody on the Appropriations Committee. She gets into the details 
of the budget. In fact, she has gotten into details of the budget down 
to very small amounts, so much that she has been told she is not going 
to be invited on any trips with any of the rest of them. That is 
probably what we need right now, and I congratulate her on her 
attention to detail.
  Another thing we have to do is make sure the bills go to committee. I 
have been a committee chairman. I have been a ranking member. I know 
when a bill goes to committee, that is where we can get into the 
details of the bill, and we can do nuances. When a bill comes to the 
floor of the Senate, and it came from the President to the leader and 
then to us, the amendments we put in are not very workable as far as 
reaching agreement from both sides. They are kind of an up-or-down 
vote. They are very political, and that kind of stymies what we are 
trying to do.
  We have to quit doing comprehensive bills. We can do them in stages. 
We can do parts of them. They can be very major parts, but they can be 
done in parts.
  I remember reading a book about the compromise of 1850. Henry Clay 
put himself in the hospital trying to pass this huge compromise. When 
he did, some of his friends took the bill, broke it into parts, four 
parts, and got all the parts passed. Now, there were only four people 
in all of the Senate at that time who voted for all the parts, but all 
the parts passed. There should be a lesson in there for us. I do follow 
an 80-percent rule; I found we can agree on 80 percent of the issues. 
If we stick to that 80 percent, we can pick any one issue and we can 
solve 80 percent of that problem. We can solve 100 percent if we can 
get everybody to think of an alternative way to do that, one sticky 
part that we have polarized for years.
  Another thing we need to do is eliminate duplication. Senator Coburn 
and I took a look at the primary department that comes under the 
jurisdiction of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. 
We found $9 billion in duplication. Because it is duplication, we 
cannot eliminate $9 billion because there are some who would stay and 
do the same thing the other group was doing. It stimulated Dr. Coburn 
enough that he looked at all the programs. In all of the programs he 
found $900 billion worth of duplication.
  Duplication is not like fraud, waste, and abuse. Fraud, waste, and 
abuse, we don't know how much is out there. We catch a piece at a time, 
and we speculate on how much there is. But duplication is specific 
because it is already in the budget.
  We can look at what they are paid right now, and if we eliminate 
that, it is a specific amount. When he talks about $900 billion worth 
of duplication, it is $900 billion worth of duplication. We ought to be 
able to get rid of at least $450 billion of that. Half of it could be 
duplication. It is twice as much of what we effectively need.
  Why did we find $9 billion in one agency and $900 billion by looking 
at all of them? When we go outside the jurisdiction, we find--this one 
always kind of interests me--financial literacy programs in virtually 
every department and agency in this Federal Government. If we really 
have financial literacy, would we be in the position we are in now? I 
don't think so. So that is a whole lot of duplication. It is 
duplicating each and every agency. If we have only one jurisdiction 
over one agency, that is the only place we can eliminate it.
  When I got here there were 119 preschool programs. I took a look at 
them, and there were quite a few of them that were failing according to 
their own evaluation--not my evaluation, their own evaluation. We were 
able to get that down to 69 programs. There are 69 preschool programs 
at the present time. Here is the interesting part of that: Only eight 
of those are under the Department of Education. Sixty-one of them are 
in other departments. It seems like we could have consolidation and 
maybe some elimination of duplication.
  Also, we have the States and the local governments coming to us and 
saying: We are out of money. We need money, and we don't have any 
money. We cannot afford to help them that way.
  I have put in a bill to help them collect the sales tax already due 
them, and this is the marketplace fairness bill that would take care of 
their infrastructure and their jobs. So I hope everyone will take a 
look at that.
  Finally, another solution would be the Buy Back America Bonds that I 
spoke about just a little while ago. If everybody bought some bonds, 
that could reduce the amount of debt held by foreign countries; that 
would help us and then that would reduce the amount of spending by an 
equal amount. There are solutions out there. It is time we got busy on 
them.
  I thank the supercommittee for their work and ask everybody to pay 
attention to whatever they come up with.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


 Amendments Nos. 1259, 1260, 1261, 1262, 1263, 1080, 1296, 1151, 1152, 
                       1209, 1210, 1236, and 1255

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that the following amendments be called up 
en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. They are, Senator Sherrod Brown, 1259, 1260, 1261, 1262, 
1263; Senator Leahy, 1080; Senator Wyden, 1296; Senator Pryor, 1151, 
1152; and Senator Bill Nelson, 1209, 1210, 1236, and 1255.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments en bloc are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1259

   (Purpose: To link domestic manufacturers to defense supply chain 
                             opportunities)

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

     SEC. 325. LINKING DOMESTIC MANUFACTURERS TO DEFENSE SUPPLY 
                   CHAIN OPPORTUNITIES.

       The Secretary of Defense is authorized to work with the 
     Hollings Manufacturing Partnership Program and other 
     manufacturing-related local intermediaries designated by the 
     Secretary to develop a multi-agency comprehensive plan to 
     expand domestic defense and industrial base supply chains 
     with involvement from other applicable Federal agencies or 
     industry consortiums--
       (1) to identify United States manufacturers currently 
     producing, or capable of producing, defense and industrial 
     base equipment, component parts, or similarly performing 
     products; and
       (2) to work with partners to identify and address gaps in 
     domestic supply chains.


                           amendment no. 1260

    (Purpose: To strike section 846, relating to a waiver of ``Buy 
    American'' requirements for procurement of components otherwise 
  producible overseas with specialty metal not produced in the United 
                                States)

       Strike section 846.


                           amendment no. 1261

  (Purpose: To extend treatment of base closure areas as HUBZones for 
                  purposes of the Small Business Act)

       At the end of title XXVII, add the following:

     SEC. 2705. SMALL BUSINESS HUBZONES.

       Section 152(a)(2) of the Small Business Reauthorization and 
     Manufacturing Assistance Act of 2004 (15 U.S.C. 632 note) is 
     amended by inserting before the period at the end ``, 
     beginning on the date of enactment of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012''.


                           amendment no. 1262

   (Purpose: To clarify the meaning of ``produced'' for purposes of 
    limitations on the procurement by the Department of Defense of 
               specialty metals within the United States)

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

     SEC. 889. ADDITIONAL DEFINITION RELATING TO PRODUCTION OF 
                   SPECIALTY METALS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.

       Section 2533b(m) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(11) The term `produced', as used in subsections (a) and 
     (b), means melted, or processed in a manner that results in 
     physical or chemical property changes that are the equivalent 
     of melting. The term does not include finishing processes 
     such as rolling, heat treatment, quenching, tempering, 
     grinding, or shaving.''.


                           amendment no. 1263

 (Purpose: To authorize the conveyance of the John Kunkel Army Reserve 
                         Center, Warren, Ohio)

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

[[Page 18083]]



     SEC. 2823. LAND CONVEYANCE, JOHN KUNKEL ARMY RESERVE CENTER, 
                   WARREN, OHIO.

       (a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may 
     convey to the Western Reserve Port Authority of Vienna, Ohio 
     (in this section referred to as the ``Port Authority''), all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a 
     parcel of real property, including any improvements thereon, 
     consisting of approximately 6.95 acres and containing the 
     John Kunkel Army Reserve Center located at 4967 Tod Avenue in 
     Warren, Ohio, for the purpose of permitting the Port 
     Authority to use the parcel for development of a port 
     facility and for other public purposes.
       (b) Inclusion of Personal Property.--The Secretary of the 
     Army may include as part of the conveyance under subsection 
     (a) personal property located at the John Kunkel Army Reserve 
     Center that--
       (1) the Secretary of Transportation recommends would be 
     appropriate for the development or operation of a port 
     facility at the site; and
       (2) the Secretary of the Army agrees is excess to the needs 
     of the Army.
       (c) Interim Lease.--Until such time as the real property 
     described in subsection (a) is conveyed to the Port 
     Authority, the Secretary of the Army may lease the property 
     to the Port Authority.
       (d) Consideration.--
       (1) Conveyance.--The conveyance under subsection (a) shall 
     be made without consideration as a public benefit conveyance 
     for port development if the Secretary of the Army determines 
     that the Port Authority satisfies the criteria specified in 
     section 554 of title 40, United States Code, and regulations 
     prescribed to implement such section. If the Secretary 
     determines that the Port Authority fails to qualify for a 
     public benefit conveyance, but the Port Authority still 
     desires to acquire the property, the Port Authority shall pay 
     to the United States an amount equal to the fair market value 
     of the property to be conveyed. The fair market value of the 
     property shall be determined by the Secretary.
       (2) Lease.--The Secretary of the Army may accept as 
     consideration for a lease of the property under subsection 
     (c) an amount that is less than fair market value if the 
     Secretary determines that the public interest will be served 
     as a result of the lease.
       (e) Payment of Costs of Conveyance.--
       (1) Payment required.--The Secretary shall require the Port 
     Authority to reimburse the Secretary to cover costs (except 
     costs for environmental remediation of the property) to be 
     incurred by the Secretary, or to reimburse the Secretary for 
     costs incurred by the Secretary, to carry out the conveyance 
     under subsection (a), including survey costs, costs for 
     environmental documentation, and any other administrative 
     costs related to the conveyance.
       (2) Treatment of amounts received.--Amounts received as 
     reimbursement under paragraph (1) shall be credited to the 
     fund or account that was used to cover those costs incurred 
     by the Secretary in carrying out the conveyance. Amounts so 
     credited shall be merged with amounts in such fund or 
     account, and shall be available for the same purposes, and 
     subject to the same conditions and limitations, as amounts in 
     such fund or account.
       (f) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the property to be conveyed under subsection 
     (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the 
     Secretary of the Army and the Port Authority. The cost of 
     such survey shall be borne by the Port Authority.
       (g) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary of the 
     Army may require such additional terms and conditions in 
     connection with the conveyance as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.


                           amendment no. 1080

  (Purpose: To clarify the applicability of requirements for military 
                   custody with respect to detainees)

       On page 361, line 9, insert after ``a person who is 
     described in paragraph (2) who is captured'' the following: 
     ``abroad or on a United States military facility''.


                           amendment no. 1296

 (Purpose: To require reports on the use of indemnification agreements 
                  in Department of Defense contracts)

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

     SEC. 848. REPORTS ON USE OF INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 137 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 2335. Reports on use of indemnification agreements

       ``(a) In General.--Beginning October 1, 2011, not later 
     than 90 days after the date on which any action described in 
     subsection (b)(1) occurs, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees and the 
     Committees on the Budget of the House of Representatives and 
     the Senate a report on such action.
       ``(b) Action Described.--(1) An action described in this 
     paragraph is the Secretary of Defense--
       ``(A) entering into a contract that includes an 
     indemnification agreement; or
       ``(B) modifying an existing indemnification agreement in 
     any contract.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any contract awarded 
     in accordance with--
       ``(A) section 2354 of this title; or
       ``(B) the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et 
     seq.).
       ``(c) Matters Included.--For each contract covered in a 
     report under subsection (a), the report shall include--
       ``(1) the name of the contractor;
       ``(2) the actual cost or estimated potential cost involved;
       ``(3) a description of the items, property, or services for 
     which the contract is awarded; and
       ``(4) a justification of the contract including the 
     indemnification agreement.
       ``(d) National Security.--The Secretary may omit any 
     information in a report under subsection (a) if the 
     Secretary--
       ``(1) determines that the disclosure of such information is 
     not in the national security interests of the United States; 
     and
       ``(2) includes in the report a justification of the 
     determination made under paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 137 of such title is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new item:

``2335. Reports on use of indemnification agreements.''.


                           amendment no. 1151

   (Purpose: To authorize a death gratuity and related benefits for 
Reserves who die during an authorized stay at their residence during or 
           between successive days of inactive duty training)

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

     SEC. 634. DEATH GRATUITY AND RELATED BENEFITS FOR RESERVES 
                   WHO DIE DURING AN AUTHORIZED STAY AT THEIR 
                   RESIDENCE DURING OR BETWEEN SUCCESSIVE DAYS OF 
                   INACTIVE DUTY TRAINING.

       (a) Death Gratuity.--
       (1) Payment authorized.--Section 1475(a)(3) of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting before the 
     semicolon the following: ``or while staying at the Reserve's 
     residence, when so authorized by proper authority, during the 
     period of such inactive duty training or between successive 
     days of inactive duty training''.
       (2) Treatment as death during inactive duty training.--
     Section 1478(a) of such title is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (8) as 
     paragraphs (5) through (9), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph (4):
       ``(4) A person covered by subsection (a)(3) of section 1475 
     of this title who died while on authorized stay at the 
     person's residence during a period of inactive duty training 
     or between successive days of inactive duty training is 
     considered to have been on inactive duty training on the date 
     of his death.''.
       (b) Recovery, Care, and Disposition of Remains and Related 
     Benefits.--Section 1481(a)(2) of such title is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (E) and (F) as 
     subparagraphs (F) and (G), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new 
     subparagraph (E):
       ``(E) staying at the member's residence, when so authorized 
     by proper authority, during a period of inactive duty 
     training or between successive days of inactive duty 
     training;''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on January 1, 2010, and shall apply with 
     respect to deaths that occur on or after that date.


                           amendment no. 1152

  (Purpose: To recognize the service in the reserve components of the 
    Armed Forces of certain persons by honoring them with status as 
                          veterans under law)

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

     SEC. 1088. PROVISION OF STATUS UNDER LAW BY HONORING CERTAIN 
                   MEMBERS OF THE RESERVE COMPONENTS OF THE ARMED 
                   FORCES AS VETERANS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 38, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 107 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 107A. Honoring as veterans certain persons who 
       performed service in the reserve components

       ``Any person who is entitled under chapter 1223 of title 10 
     to retired pay for nonregular service or, but for age, would 
     be entitled under such chapter to retired pay for nonregular 
     service shall be honored as a veteran but shall not be 
     entitled to any benefit by reason of this section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 107 the following new item:

``107A. Honoring as veterans certain persons who performed service in 
              the reserve components.''.


                           amendment no. 1209

(Purpose: To repeal the requirement for reduction of survivor annuities 
 under the Survivor Benefit Plan by veterans' dependency and indemnity 
                             compensation)

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

[[Page 18084]]



     SEC. ___. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT OF REDUCTION OF SURVIVOR 
                   BENEFITS PLAN SURVIVOR ANNUITIES BY DEPENDENCY 
                   AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION.

       (a) Repeal.--
       (1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended as follows:
       (A) In section 1450, by striking subsection (c).
       (B) In section 1451(c)--
       (i) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (2) and (3), respectively.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Such subchapter is further 
     amended as follows:
       (A) In section 1450--
       (i) by striking subsection (e);
       (ii) by striking subsection (k); and
       (iii) by striking subsection (m).
       (B) In section 1451(g)(1), by striking subparagraph (C).
       (C) In section 1452--
       (i) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ``does not apply--'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``does not apply in the 
     case of a deduction made through administrative error.''; and
       (ii) by striking subsection (g).
       (D) In section 1455(c), by striking ``, 1450(k)(2),''.
       (b) Prohibition on Retroactive Benefits.--No benefits may 
     be paid to any person for any period before the effective 
     date provided under subsection (f) by reason of the 
     amendments made by subsection (a).
       (c) Prohibition on Recoupment of Certain Amounts Previously 
     Refunded to SBP Recipients.--A surviving spouse who is or has 
     been in receipt of an annuity under the Survivor Benefit Plan 
     under subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, United States 
     Code, that is in effect before the effective date provided 
     under subsection (f) and that is adjusted by reason of the 
     amendments made by subsection (a) and who has received a 
     refund of retired pay under section 1450(e) of title 10, 
     United States Code, shall not be required to repay such 
     refund to the United States.
       (d) Repeal of Authority for Optional Annuity for Dependent 
     Children.--Section 1448(d) of such title is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Except as provided in 
     paragraph (2)(B), the Secretary concerned'' and inserting 
     ``The Secretary concerned''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``Dependent children.--'' and all that 
     follows through ``In the case of a member described in 
     paragraph (1),'' and inserting ``Dependent children annuity 
     when no eligible surviving spouse.--In the case of a member 
     described in paragraph (1),''; and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (B).
       (e) Restoration of Eligibility for Previously Eligible 
     Spouses.--The Secretary of the military department concerned 
     shall restore annuity eligibility to any eligible surviving 
     spouse who, in consultation with the Secretary, previously 
     elected to transfer payment of such annuity to a surviving 
     child or children under the provisions of section 
     1448(d)(2)(B) of title 10, United States Code, as in effect 
     on the day before the effective date provided under 
     subsection (f). Such eligibility shall be restored whether or 
     not payment to such child or children subsequently was 
     terminated due to loss of dependent status or death. For the 
     purposes of this subsection, an eligible spouse includes a 
     spouse who was previously eligible for payment of such 
     annuity and is not remarried, or remarried after having 
     attained age 55, or whose second or subsequent marriage has 
     been terminated by death, divorce or annulment.
       (f) Effective Date.--The sections and the amendments made 
     by this section shall take effect on the later of--
       (1) the first day of the first month that begins after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; or
       (2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in the 
     calendar year in which this Act is enacted.


                           amendment no. 1210

 (Purpose: To require an assessment of the advisability of stationing 
 additional DDG-51 class destroyers at Naval Station Mayport, Florida)

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

     SEC. 1024. ASSESSMENT OF STATIONING OF ADDITIONAL DDG-51 
                   CLASS DESTROYERS AT NAVAL STATION MAYPORT, 
                   FLORIDA.

       (a) Navy Assessment Required.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall 
     conduct an analysis of the costs and benefits of stationing 
     additional DDG-51 class destroyers at Naval Station Mayport, 
     Florida.
       (2) Elements.--The analysis required by paragraph (1) shall 
     include, at a minimum, the following:
       (A) Consideration of the negative effects on the ship 
     repair industrial base at Naval Station Mayport caused by the 
     retirement of FFG-7 class frigates and the procurement delays 
     of the Littoral Combat Ship, including, in particular, the 
     increase in costs (which would be passed on to the taxpayer) 
     of reconstituting the ship repair industrial base at Naval 
     Station Mayport following the projected drastic decrease in 
     workload.
       (B) Updated consideration of life extensions of FFG-7 class 
     frigates in light of continued delays in deliveries of the 
     Littoral Combat Ship deliveries.
       (C) Consideration of the possibility of bringing additional 
     surface warships to Naval Station Mayport for maintenance 
     with the consequence of spreading the ship repair workload 
     appropriately amongst the various public and private 
     shipyards and ensuring the long-term health of the shipyard 
     in Mayport.
       (b) Comptroller General of the United States Assessment.--
     Not later than 120 days after the submittal of the report 
     required by subsection (a), the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall submit to Congress an assessment by the 
     Comptroller General of the report, including a determination 
     whether or not the report complies with applicable best 
     practices.


                           amendment no. 1236

 (Purpose: To require a report on the effects of changing flag officer 
            positions within the Air Force Material Command)

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

     SEC. 1030. REPORT ON EFFECTS OF CHANGING FLAG OFFICER 
                   POSITIONS WITHIN THE AIR FORCE MATERIAL 
                   COMMAND.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force 
     shall conduct an analysis and submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report on the effects of changing flag 
     officer positions within the Air Force Materiel Command 
     (AFMC), including consideration of the following issues:
       (1) The effect on the weapons testing mission of AFMC.
       (2) The potential for lack of oversight if flag positions 
     are reduced or eliminated.
       (3) The reduced experience level of general officers 
     managing challenging weapons development programs under a new 
     command structure.
       (4) The additional duties of base management functions 
     impacting the test wing commander's ability to manage actual 
     weapons testing under the new structure.
       (b) Comptroller General Assessment.--Not later than 60 days 
     after the submittal of the report under subsection (a), the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to 
     Congress an assessment by the Comptroller General of the 
     report, including a determination whether or not the report 
     complies with applicable best practices.


                           amendment no. 1255

(Purpose: To require an epidemiological study on the health of military 
      personnel exposed to burn pit emissions at Joint Base Balad)

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

     SEC. 723. EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY ON HEALTH OF MILITARY 
                   PERSONNEL EXPOSED TO BURN PIT EMISSIONS AT 
                   JOINT BASE BALAD.

       The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a cohort study on 
     the long-term health effects of exposure to burn pit 
     emissions in military personnel deployed at Joint Base Balad. 
     The study shall include a prospective evaluation from 
     retrospective estimates of such exposures. The study shall be 
     conducted in accordance with recommendations by the Institute 
     of Medicine concluding that further study is needed to 
     establish correlation between burn pit exposure and disease.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


      Amendments Nos. 1281, 1133, 1134, 1286, 1287, 1290, and 1291

  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set 
aside the pending amendment and call up the following amendments en 
bloc: Senator McCain's amendment No. 1281 regarding the transfer of 
arms to Georgia; Senator Blunt's two amendments, Nos. 1133 and 1134; 
Senator Murkowski's two amendments, Nos. 1286 and 1287; and Senator 
Rubio's two amendments, Nos. 1290 and 1291.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments en bloc are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1281

 (Purpose: To require a plan for normalizing defense cooperation with 
                        the Republic of Georgia)

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

     SEC. 1243. DEFENSE COOPERATION WITH REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA.

       (a) Plan for Normalization.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall 
     develop and submit to the congressional defense committees 
     and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives 
     a plan for normalizing United States defense cooperation with 
     the Republic of Georgia, including the sale of defensive 
     arms.
       (b) Objectives.--The plan required under subsection (a) 
     shall address the following objectives:

[[Page 18085]]

       (1) To reestablish a normal defense relationship with the 
     Republic of Georgia.
       (2) To support the Government of the Republic of Georgia in 
     providing for the defense of its government, people, and 
     sovereign territory, consistent with the continuing 
     commitment of the Government of the Republic of Georgia to 
     its nonuse-of-force pledge and consistent with Article 51 of 
     the Charter of the United Nations.
       (3) To enhance the ability of the Government of the 
     Republic of Georgia to participate in coalition operations 
     and meet NATO partnership goals.
       (4) To resume the sale by the United States of defense 
     articles and services that may be necessary to enable the 
     Government of the Republic of Georgia to maintain a 
     sufficient self-defense capability.
       (5) To encourage NATO member and candidate countries to 
     restore and increase their sales of defensive articles and 
     services to the Republic of Georgia as part of broader NATO 
     effort to deepen its defense relationship and cooperation 
     with the Republic of Georgia.
       (6) To ensure maximum transparency in the United States-
     Georgia defense relationship.
       (c) Included Information.--The plan required under 
     subsection (a) shall include the following information:
       (1) A needs-based assessment, or an update to an existing 
     needs-based assessment, of the defense requirements of the 
     Republic of Georgia, which shall be prepared by the United 
     States Armed Forces.
       (2) A description of each of the requests by the Government 
     of the Republic of Georgia for purchase of defense articles 
     and services during the two-year period ending on the date of 
     the report.
       (3) A summary of the defense needs asserted by the 
     Government of the Republic of Georgia as justification for 
     its requests for defensive arms purchases.
       (4) A description of the action taken on any defensive arms 
     sale request by the Government of the Republic of Georgia and 
     an explanation for such action.
       (d) Form.--The plan required under subsection (a) shall be 
     submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified 
     annex.


                           amendment no. 1133

(Purpose: To provide for employment and reemployment rights for certain 
         individuals ordered to full-time National Guard duty)

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

     SEC. ___. REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS FOLLOWING CERTAIN NATIONAL 
                   GUARD DUTY.

       (a) In General.--Section 4312(c)(4) of title 38, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) ordered to full-time National Guard duty under the 
     provisions of section 502(f) of title 32 when the period of 
     duty is expressly designated in writing by the Secretary of 
     Defense as covered by this subparagraph.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Subparagraph (F) of such section 
     4312(c)(4), as added by subsection (a)(3), shall apply with 
     respect to an individual ordered to full-time National Guard 
     duty under section 502(f) of title 32 of such Code, on or 
     after September 11, 2001, and shall entitle such individual 
     to rights and benefits under chapter 43 of title 38 of such 
     Code on or after that date.


                           amendment no. 1134

(Purpose: To require a report on the policies and practices of the Navy 
                  for naming the vessels of the Navy)

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

     SEC. 1024. REPORT ON POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF THE NAVY FOR 
                   NAMING THE VESSELS OF THE NAVY.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the policies and 
     practices of the Navy for naming vessels of the Navy.
       (b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     set forth the following:
       (1) A description of the current policies and practices of 
     the Navy for naming vessels of the Navy.
       (2) A description of the extent to which the policies and 
     practices described under paragraph (1) vary from historical 
     policies and practices of the Navy for naming vessels of the 
     Navy, and an explanation for such variances (if any).
       (3) An assessment of the feasibility and advisability of 
     establishing fixed policies for the naming of one or more 
     classes of vessels of the Navy, and a statement of the 
     policies recommended to apply to each class of vessels 
     recommended to be covered by such fixed policies if the 
     establishment of such fixed policies is considered feasible 
     and advisable.
       (4) Any other matters relating to the policies and 
     practices of the Navy for naming vessels of the Navy that the 
     Secretary of Defense considers appropriate.


                           amendment no. 1286

 (Purpose: To require a Department of Defense Inspector General report 
on theft of computer tapes containing protected information on covered 
                beneficiaries under the TRICARE program)

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

     SEC. 705. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT ON 
                   THEFT OF COMPUTER TAPES CONTAINING PROTECTED 
                   INFORMATION ON COVERED BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE 
                   TRICARE PROGRAM.

       The Inspector General of the Department of Defense shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a report on 
     the circumstances surrounding the theft of computer tapes 
     containing personally identifiable and protected health 
     information of approximately 4,900,000 covered beneficiaries 
     under the TRICARE program from the vehicle of a contractor 
     under the TRICARE program. The report shall include the 
     following:
       (1) An assessment of the risk that the personally 
     identifiable and protected health information so stolen can 
     be accessed by a third party.
       (2) Such recommendations as the Inspector General considers 
     appropriate to reduce the risk of similar incidents in the 
     future.


                           amendment no. 1287

  (Purpose: To provide limitations on the retirement of C-23 aircraft)

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

     SEC. 136. LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT OF C-23 AIRCRAFT.

       (a) In General.--Upon determining to retire a C-23 
     aircraft, the Secretary of the Army shall first offer title 
     to such aircraft to the chief executive officer of the State 
     in which such aircraft is based.
       (b) Transfer Upon Acceptance of Offer.--If the chief 
     executive officer of a State accepts title of an aircraft 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary shall transfer title of 
     the aircraft to the State without charge to the State. The 
     Secretary shall provide a reasonable amount of time for 
     acceptance of the offer.
       (c) Use.--Notwithstanding the transfer of title to an 
     aircraft to a State under this section, the aircraft may 
     continue to be utilized by the National Guard of the State in 
     State status using National Guard crews in that status.


                           amendment no. 1290

 (Purpose: To strike the national security waiver authority in section 
          1032, relating to requirements for military custody)

       On page 362, strike lines 8 through 15.


                           amendment no. 1291

 (Purpose: To strike the national security waiver authority in section 
   1033, relating to requirements for certifications relating to the 
 transfer of detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 
                Cuba, to foreign countries and entities)

       On page 365, line 9, strike ``and subsection (d)''.
       On page 367, line 14, strike ``and subsection (d)''.
       On page 368, strike line 13 and all that follows through 
     page 370, line 13.

  Ms. AYOTTE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order after all of 
those actions are taken.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.


        Amendments Nos. 1071, 1086, 1106, 1140, and 1219 en bloc

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up five 
amendments en bloc which have been cleared by myself and the ranking 
member as follows: amendment No. 1071 on behalf of Senator McCain, to 
require the Secretary of Defense to report on all information with 
respect to the Evolved Expendible Launch Vehicle Program that would be 
required if the program were designated as a major defense acquisition 
program not in the sustainment phase; amendment No. 1086 on behalf of 
Senators Roberts and Moran, to authorize and request the President to 
award the Medal of Honor posthumously to CPT Emil Kapaun of the U.S. 
Army for acts of valor during the Korean War; amendment No. 1106 on 
behalf of Senator McCain, to require a report on the status of the 
implementation of accepted recommendations in the Final Report of the 
2010 Army Acquisition Review Panel; amendment No. 1140 on behalf of 
Senator Casey, to require a report by the Comptroller General on the 
Department of Defense Military Spouse Employment Program; and amendment 
No. 1219 on behalf of myself, to provide authority to order military 
Reserves to Active Duty to provide assistance and response to a 
disaster or emergency.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, the amendments have been cleared on our 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are as 
listed.

[[Page 18086]]

  The amendments en bloc are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1071

    (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to report on all 
   information with respect to the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle 
  program that would be required if the program were designated as a 
    major defense acquisition program not in the sustainment phase)

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

     SEC. 889. OVERSIGHT OF AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS WITH 
                   RESPECT TO EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE 
                   PROGRAM.

       The Secretary of Defense shall--
       (1) redesignate the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle 
     program as a major defense acquisition program not in the 
     sustainment phase under section 2430 of title 10, United 
     States Code; or
       (2) require the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program--
       (A) to provide to the congressional defense committees all 
     information with respect to the cost, schedule, and 
     performance of the program that would be required to be 
     provided under sections 2431 (relating to weapons development 
     and procurement schedules), 2432 (relating to Select 
     Acquisition Reports, including updated program life-cycle 
     cost estimates), and 2433 (relating to unit cost reports) of 
     title 10, United States Code, with respect to the program if 
     the program were designated as a major defense acquisition 
     program not in the sustainment phase; and
       (B) to provide to the Under Secretary of Defense for 
     Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics--
       (i) a quarterly cost and status report, commonly known as a 
     Defense Acquisition Executive Summary, which serves as an 
     early-warning of actual and potential problems with a program 
     and provides for possible mitigation plans; and
       (ii) earned value management data that contains 
     measurements of contractor technical, schedule, and cost 
     performance.


                           amendment no. 1086

(Purpose: To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of 
Honor posthumously to Captain Emil Kapaun of the United States Army for 
                  acts of valor during the Korean War)

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

     SEC. ___. AUTHORIZATION AND REQUEST FOR AWARD OF MEDAL OF 
                   HONOR TO EMIL KAPAUN FOR ACTS OF VALOR DURING 
                   THE KOREAN WAR.

       (a) Authorization.--Notwithstanding the time limitations 
     specified in section 3744 of title 10, United States Code, or 
     any other time limitation with respect to the awarding of 
     certain medals to persons who served in the Armed Forces, the 
     President is authorized and requested to award the Medal of 
     Honor posthumously under section 3741 of such title to Emil 
     Kapaun for the acts of valor during the Korean War described 
     in subsection (b).
       (b) Acts of Valor Described.--The acts of valor referred to 
     in subsection (a) are the actions of then Captain Emil Kapaun 
     as a member of the 8th Cavalry Regiment during the Battle of 
     Unsan on November 1 and 2, 1950, and while a prisoner of war 
     until his death on May 23, 1951, during the Korean War.


                           amendment no. 1106

 (Purpose: To require a report on the status of the implementation of 
     accepted recommendations in the Final Report of the 2010 Army 
                       Acquisition Review panel)

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

     SEC. 1080. REPORT ON STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACCEPTED 
                   RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE FINAL REPORT OF THE 2010 
                   ARMY ACQUISITION REVIEW PANEL.

       Not later than 1 October 2012, the Secretary of the Army 
     shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     describing the plan and implementation status of the 
     recommendations contained in the Final Report of the 2010 
     Army Acquisition Review panel (also known as the ``Decker-
     Wagner Report'') that the Army agreed to implement.


                           amendment no. 1140

(Purpose: To require a report by the Comptroller General on Department 
            of Defense military spouse employment programs)

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

     SEC. 577. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES REPORT ON 
                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY SPOUSE 
                   EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall carry out a review of all current Department of 
     Defense military spouse employment programs.
       (b) Elements.--The review required by subsection (a) shall, 
     address, at a minimum, the following:
       (1) The efficacy and effectiveness of Department of Defense 
     military spouse employment programs.
       (2) All current Department programs to support military 
     spouses or dependents for the purposes of employment 
     assistance.
       (3) The types of military spouse employment programs that 
     have been considered or used in the past by the Department.
       (4) The ways in which military spouse employment programs 
     have changed in recent years.
       (5) The benefits or programs that are specifically 
     available to provide employment assistance to spouses of 
     members of the Armed Forces serving in Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation New Dawn, 
     or any other contingency operation being conducted by the 
     Armed Forces as of the date of such review.
       (6) Existing mechanisms available to military spouses to 
     express their views on the effectiveness and future direction 
     of Department programs and policies on employment assistance 
     for military spouses.
       (7) The oversight provided by the Office of Personnel and 
     Management regarding preferences for military spouses in 
     Federal employment.
       (c) Comptroller General Report.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller 
     General shall submit to the congressional defense committees 
     a report on the review carried out under subsection (a). The 
     report shall set forth the following:
       (1) The results of the review concerned.
       (2) Such clear and concrete metrics as the Comptroller 
     General considers appropriate for the current and future 
     evaluation and assessment of the efficacy and effectiveness 
     of Department of Defense military spouse employment programs.
       (3) A description of the assumptions utilized in the 
     review, and an assessment of the validity and completeness of 
     such assumptions.
       (4) Such recommendations as the Comptroller General 
     considers appropriate for improving Department of Defense 
     military spouse employment programs.
       (d) Department of Defense Report.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees 
     a report setting forth the number (or a reasonable estimate 
     if a precise number is not available) of military spouses who 
     have obtained employment following participation in 
     Department of Defense military spouse employment programs. 
     The report shall set forth such number (or estimate) for the 
     Department of Defense military spouse employment programs as 
     a whole and for each such military spouse employment program.


                           amendment no. 1219

  (Purpose: To provide authority to order Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, 
 Marine Corps Reserve, and Air Force Reserve to active duty to provide 
       assistance in response to a major disaster or emergencies)

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

     SEC. 515. AUTHORITY TO ORDER ARMY RESERVE, NAVY RESERVE, 
                   MARINE CORPS RESERVE, AND AIR FORCE RESERVE TO 
                   ACTIVE DUTY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE IN RESPONSE 
                   TO A MAJOR DISASTER OR EMERGENCY.

       (a) Authority.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 1209 of title 10, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 511(a)(1), is further amended by 
     inserting after section 12304a the following new section:

     ``Sec. 12304b. Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps 
       Reserve, and Air Force Reserve: order to active duty to 
       provide assistance in response to a major disaster or 
       emergency

       ``(a) Authority.--When a Governor requests Federal 
     assistance in responding to a major disaster or emergency (as 
     those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5122)), the Secretary of Defense may, without the 
     consent of the member affected, order any unit, and any 
     member not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit, 
     of the Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and 
     Air Force Reserve to active duty for a continuous period of 
     not more than 120 days to respond to the Governor's request.
       ``(b) Exclusion From Strength Limitations.--Members ordered 
     to active duty under this section shall not be counted in 
     computing authorized strength of members on active duty or 
     members in grade under this title or any other law.
       ``(c) Termination of Duty.--Whenever any unit or member of 
     the reserve components is ordered to active duty under this 
     section, the service of all units or members so ordered to 
     active duty may be terminated by order of the Secretary of 
     Defense or law.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter, as amended by section 511(a)(2), 
     is further amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 12304a the following new item:

``12304b. Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Air Force 
              Reserve: order to active duty to provide assistance in 
              response to a major disaster or emergency.''.

       (b) Treatment of Operations as Contingency Operations.--
     Section 101(a)(13)(B) of

[[Page 18087]]

     such title is amended by inserting ``12304b,'' after 
     ``12304,''.
       (c) Usual and Customary Arrangement.--
       (1) Dual-status commander.--When the Armed Forces and the 
     National Guard are employed simultaneously in support of 
     civil authorities in the United States, appointment of a 
     commissioned officer as a dual-status commander serving on 
     active duty and duty in, or with, the National Guard of a 
     State under sections 315 or 325 of title 32, United States 
     Code, as commander of Federal forces by Federal authorities 
     and as commander of State National Guard forces by State 
     authorities, should be the usual and customary command and 
     control arrangement, including for missions involving a major 
     disaster or emergency as those terms are defined in section 
     102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122). The chain of command for the 
     Armed Forces shall remain in accordance with sections 162(b) 
     and 164(c) of title 10, United States Code.
       (2) State authorities supported.--When a major disaster or 
     emergency occurs in any area subject to the laws of any 
     State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, the Governor 
     of the State affected normally should be the principal civil 
     authority supported by the primary Federal agency and its 
     supporting Federal entities, and the Adjutant General of the 
     State or his or her subordinate designee normally should be 
     the principal military authority supported by the dual-status 
     commander when acting in his or her State capacity.
       (3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in paragraphs (1) or (2) 
     shall be construed to preclude or limit, in any way, the 
     authorities of the President, the Secretary of Defense, or 
     the Governor of any State to direct, control, and prescribe 
     command and control arrangements for forces under their 
     command.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
consider the amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, and the 
motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 1071, 1086, 1106, 1140, and 1219) were agreed 
to.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, one of the greatest--if not the greatest 
threats to the security of our Nation and our ally Israel--is the 
concerted effort by the Government of Iran to acquire the technology 
and materials to create a nuclear weapon that will alter the balance of 
power in the Middle East, and which would most certainly lead to 
hostilities. To forestall or ideally prevent this scenario, we must use 
ALL of the tools of peaceful diplomacy available to us.
  Simply put, we must do everything in our power to prevent Iran from 
obtaining a nuclear weapon. I am pleased to offer an amendment that 
will limit Iran's ability to finance its nuclear ambitions by 
sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran, which is complicit in Iran's 
efforts.
  This amendment will require the President to make a determination 
about whether the Central Bank of Iran's conduct threatens the national 
security of the United States or its allies based on its facilitation 
of the activities of the Government of Iran that threaten global or 
regional peace and security, its evasion of multilateral sanctions 
directed against the Government of Iran; its engagement in deceptive 
financial practices and illicit transactions, and most importantly its 
provision of financial services in support of Iran's effort to acquire 
the knowledge, materials, and facilities to enrich uranium and to 
ultimately develop weapons of mass destruction.
  Last week we learned just how far down the nuclear road Iran has 
come. The International Atomic Energy Agency's report indicates that 
Iran continues to enrich uranium and is seeking to develop as many as 
10 new enrichment facilities; has conducted high explosives testing and 
detonator development to set off a nuclear charge, as well as computer 
modeling of a core of a nuclear warhead; and has engaged in preparatory 
work for a nuclear weapons test. We also learned that an August IAEA 
inspection revealed that 43.5 pounds of a component--used to arm 
nuclear warheads--was unaccounted for in Iran and that Iran is working 
on an indigenous design for a nuclear payload small enough to fit on 
Iran's long-range Shahab-3 missile, a missile capable to reaching 
Israel.
  These revelations--combined with Iran's provocative effort in October 
to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States--demonstrate 
that Iran's aggression has taken a violent turn and that we can expect 
that if it gets a nuclear weapon that it will use that weapon.
  This amendment will impose sanctions on any foreign financial 
institutions that engage in significant transactions with the Central 
Bank of Iran, with the exception of transactions in food, medicine, and 
medical devices. It sends the message that you have a choice--to do 
business with the United States or to do business with Iran.
  Iran has a history of exporting terrorism--against coalition forces 
in Iraq, in Argentina, Lebanon, and even in Washington; and while 
Iran's drive to advance its nuclear weapons program has been slowed by 
U.S. and international sanctions, it remains undeterred. Today, we take 
the next step to isolate Iran politically and financially.
  I also look forward to continuing to work with the administration and 
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve our shared 
goals and to make this a bipartisan initiative.
  Our efforts to date have been transformative, but Iran has adapted to 
the sanctions, unanticipated loopholes have allowed the regime to 
adjust and circumvent the sanctions and drive forward its effort to 
achieve a robust nuclear program.
  We have to be just as prepared to adjust and adapt by closing each 
loophole that arises. By identifying the Central Bank of Iran as the 
Iranian regime's partner and financier of its terrorist agenda we can 
begin to starve the regime of the money it needs to achieve its nuclear 
goals.


                           Amendment No. 1114

  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak on amendment No. 
1114 to S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012. The amendment is cosponsored by Senators Snowe, Casey, Leahy, 
Graham, Murkowski, Akaka, Pryor, Brown of Massachusetts, Tester, and 
Manchin.
  This amendment can be explained very simply. It expands the ability 
of Reserve component members and surviving spouses to travel on 
military aircraft when space is available.
  Members of the National Guard and Reserve and surviving military 
spouses make great sacrifices for our Nation. However, too often these 
individuals do not receive the benefits they have earned for their 
service. For example, Reserve component members' and retirees' space-
available travel privileges are limited within the United States and 
their family cannot travel with them.
  As we all know, the National Guard and Reserve contributions to our 
Nation's defense since 9/11 are invaluable. There is no reason why 
their ability to travel on a military aircraft when space is available 
should be limited or restricted just because they are in the Guard or 
Reserve. They have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have lost 
comrades. Virtually every member of the National Guard in Alaska has 
deployed in support of Iraq or Afghanistan.
  Surviving spouses of a military member eligible for retired pay or of 
a member killed in the line of duty retain no space-available travel 
privileges at all after the death of their spouse. Yet they have made a 
lifetime commitment to the military or, in many cases, lost their loved 
one in war--the ultimate sacrifice.
  We must continue to provide support to our surviving spouses and 
recognize their commitment to our military. As many of our Nation's 
most senior leaders have said, families are the backbone of the 
military. We must continue to recognize the National Guard and Reserve 
who are such a vital part of our Nation's defense and homeland 
security.
  In this time of fiscal constraint, this amendment gives us the 
opportunity to support our National Guard, Reserves, and surviving 
spouses without a cost to taxpayers. The amendment is budget neutral.
  The amendment is supported by the National Guard Association of the 
United States, Air Force Sergeants Association, and the Gold Star 
Wives.

[[Page 18088]]

  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in providing better 
benefits--at no cost--to surviving spouses and Reserve component 
members.


                           Amendment No. 1149

  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to speak about my 
amendment No. 1149. I would like to thank my cosponsor, Senator 
Murkowski, for her work on this amendment.
  This amendment is very simple. It authorizes the Air Force to enter 
into a land exchange and conveyance in Alaska.
  The exchange will resolve land-use conflicts between the municipality 
of Anchorage, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, and Eklutna, an Alaska 
Native village.
  By working out this agreement, we are ensuring the airmen and 
soldiers at the joint base have more land available to continue the 
vital training they need to defend our Nation.
  All Federal agencies involved support this land exchange and 
conveyance. This includes the Air Force and Bureau of Land Management.
  I appreciate my colleagues' consideration of this amendment and urge 
their support.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleagues, 
Senator Collins, Senator Akaka, and Senator Lugar, to support an 
amendment to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our government 
by fostering greater integration among the personnel who work on 
critical national security and homeland security missions.
  The national security and homeland security challenges that our 
Nation faces in the 21st century are far more complex than those of the 
last century. Threats such as terrorism, proliferation of nuclear and 
biological weapons, insurgencies, and failed states are beyond the 
capability of any single agency of our government--such as the 
Department of Defense, DOD; the Department of State; or the 
intelligence community--to counter on its own.
  In addition, threats such as terrorism and organized crime know no 
borders and instead cross the so-called foreign/domestic divide--the 
bureaucratic, cultural, and legal division between agencies that focus 
on threats from beyond our borders and those that focus on threats from 
within.
  Finally, a new group of government agencies is now involved in 
national and homeland security. These agencies bring to bear critical 
capabilities--such as interdicting terrorist finance, enforcing 
sanctions, protecting our critical infrastructure, and helping foreign 
countries threatened by terrorism to build their economies and legal 
systems--but many of them have relatively little experience of 
involvement with the traditional national security agencies. Some of 
these agencies have existed for decades or centuries--such as the 
Departments of Treasury; Justice; and Health and Human Services, HHS--
while others are new since 9/11, such as the Department of Homeland 
Security, DHS.
  As a result, our government needs to be able to apply all instruments 
of national power--including military, diplomatic, law enforcement, 
foreign aid, homeland security, and public health--in a whole-of-
government approach to counter these threats. We only need to look at 
our government's failure to use the full range of civilian and military 
capabilities to stymie the Iraqi insurgency immediately after the fall 
of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003, the government's failure to prepare 
and respond to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the government's failure 
to share information and coordinate action prior to the attack at Fort 
Hood, TX, in 2009, for examples of failure of interagency coordination 
and their costs in terms of lives, money, and the national interest.
  The challenge of integrating the agencies of the executive branch 
into a whole-of-government approach has been recognized by 
congressionally chartered commissions for more than a decade. Prior to 
9/11, the commission led by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren 
Rudman, entitled the U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st 
Century, issued reports recommending fundamental reorganization to 
integrate government capabilities, including for homeland security.
  In 2004, the 9/11 Commission, led by former Governor Tom Kean and 
former Representative Lee Hamilton, found that the U.S. Government 
needed reform in order to foster a stronger, faster, and more efficient 
governmentwide effort against terrorism.
  And in 2008, the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass 
Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, led by former Senators Bob 
Graham and Jim Talent, called for improving interagency coordination in 
our Nation's defenses against bioterrorism and other weapons of mass 
destruction.
  Congress has long recognized that a key way to better integrate our 
government's capabilities is to provide strong incentives for personnel 
to do rotational assignments across bureaucratic stovepipes. The 
personnel who serve in our government are our Nation's best and 
brightest, and they have and will respond to incentives that we 
institute in order to improve coordination across our government.
  In 1986, Congress enacted the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense 
Reorganization Act. That legislation sought to break down stovepipes 
and foster jointness across the military services by requiring that 
military officers have served in a position outside of their service as 
a requirement for promotion to general or admiral.
  Twenty-five years later, this requirement has produced a sea change 
in military officers' mindsets and created a dominant military culture 
of jointness.
  In 2004, Congress enacted the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act at the 9/11 Commission's recommendation and required a 
similar rotational requirement for intelligence personnel. The Director 
of National Intelligence has since instituted rotations across the 
intelligence community as an eligibility requirement for promotion to 
senior intelligence positions, and this requirement is helping to 
integrate the 16 agencies and elements of the intelligence community.
  Finally, in 2005, Congress enacted the Post-Katrina Emergency 
Management Reform Act to improve our Nation's preparedness for and 
responses to domestic catastrophes and instituted a rotational program 
within the Department of Homeland Security in order to integrate that 
Department.
  This proven mechanism of rotations must be applied to integrate the 
government as a whole on national security and homeland security 
issues. Indeed, the Hart/Rudman Commission called for rotations to 
other agencies and interagency professional education to be required in 
order for personnel to hold certain positions or be promoted to certain 
levels. And the Graham/Talent Commission called for the government to 
recruit the next generation of national security experts by 
establishing a program of joint duty, education, and training in order 
to create a culture of interagency collaboration, flexibility, and 
innovation.
  The executive branch has also recognized the need to foster greater 
interagency rotations and experience in order to improve integration 
across its agencies. In 2007, President George W. Bush issued Executive 
Order 13434 concerning national security professional development and 
to include interagency assignments. However, that Executive order was 
not implemented aggressively toward the end of the Bush administration 
and has languished as the Obama administration pursued other 
priorities.
  Clearly, it is time for Congress to act and to institute the 
personnel incentives and reforms necessary to further integrate our 
government and enable it to counter the national security and homeland 
security threats of the 21st century.
  In June of this year, I joined with Senator Susan M. Collins and 
Senator Daniel K. Akaka to introduce the bipartisan Interagency 
Personnel Rotation Act of 2011, S. 1268. Companion legislation was 
introduced in the House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis by 
Representative Geoff Davis and Representative John F. Tierney. The 
legislation was marked up by the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs on October 19, 2011. I am pleased that Senator 
Richard Lugar, ranking member of the

[[Page 18089]]

Committee on Foreign Relations, has joined as a cosponsor of that bill. 
Senator Collins, Senator Akaka, Senator Lugar, and I are pleased to 
offer the Interagency Personnel Rotation Act, with minor modifications 
from the marked-up version, as an amendment to the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
  The purpose of this amendment is to enable executive branch personnel 
to view national security and homeland security issues from a whole-of-
government perspective and be able to capitalize upon communities of 
interest composed of personnel from multiple agencies who work on the 
same national security or homeland security issue.
  This amendment requires that the executive branch identify 
``Interagency Communities of Interest''--which are subject areas 
spanning multiple agencies and within which the executive branch needs 
to operate on a more integrated basis. Interagency communities of 
interest could include counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, counter 
proliferation, or regional areas such as the Middle East.
  This amendment then requires that agencies identify positions that 
are within each interagency community of interest. Government personnel 
would then rotate to positions within other agencies but within the 
particular interagency community of interest related to their 
expertise.
  Government personnel could also rotate to positions at offices that 
have specific interagency missions such as the national security staff. 
Completing an interagency rotation would be a prerequisite for 
selection to certain Senior Executive Service positions within that 
interagency community of interest. As a result, personnel would have 
the incentives to serve in a rotational position and to develop the 
whole-of-government perspective and the network of contacts necessary 
for integrating across agencies and accomplishing national security and 
homeland security missions more efficiently and effectively.
  Let me offer some examples of how this might work.
  An employee of the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, 
who specializes in development strategy could rotate to a DOD 
counterinsurgency office to advise DOD in planning on how development 
issues should be taken into account in military operations, while a DOD 
counterinsurgency specialist could rotate to USAID to advise on how 
development priorities should be assessed in a counterinsurgency.
  A Treasury employee who does terrorist finance work could benefit 
from a rotation to Department of Justice to understand operations to 
take down terrorist cells and how terrorist finance work can help 
identify and prosecute their members, while a Justice employee would 
have the chance to learn from the Treasury's financial expertise in 
understanding how sources of funding can affect cells' formation and 
plotting.
  An HHS employee who specializes in public health could rotate to a 
DOD counterinsurgency office to advise on improving public health in 
order to win over the hearts and minds of the population to counter 
insurgency, while a DHS employee could rotate to HHS in order to learn 
about HHS's work to prepare the U.S. public health system for a 
biological terrorist attack.
  The cosponsors of this amendment and I recognize the complexity 
involved in the creation of interagency communities of interest, the 
institution of rotations across a wide variety of government agencies, 
and having a rotation as a prerequisite for selection to certain Senior 
Executive Service positions. As a result, our legislation gives the 
executive branch substantial flexibility--including to identify 
interagency communities of interest; to identify which positions in 
each agency are within a particular interagency community of interest; 
to identify which positions in an interagency community of interest 
should be open for rotation and how long the rotations will be; and, 
finally, which Senior Executive Service positions have interagency 
rotational service as a prerequisite.
  To be clear, this legislation does not mandate that any agency be 
included in an interagency community of interest or the interagency 
personnel rotations; instead, this legislation permits the executive 
branch to include any agency or part of an agency as the executive 
branch determines that our Nation's national and homeland security 
missions require.
  Finally, I wish to stress that this amendment is designed to be 
implemented with no cost to the executive branch.
  First, this amendment is designed to be implemented without requiring 
any additional personnel for the executive branch. The amendment 
envisions that rotations will be conducted so that there is a 
reasonable equivalence between the number of personnel rotating out of 
an agency and the number rotating in. That way, no agency will be short 
staffed as a result of having sent its best and brightest to do 
rotations; each agency will be receiving the best and brightest from 
other agencies.
  Second, this amendment relies on the office that is currently 
implementing the executive branch's national security professional 
development program to implement this framework instituted by this 
amendment. This office is currently housed at DOD, and the legislation 
would move the office and its three employees to the Office of 
Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management, which 
have oversight responsibility for this framework. Thus, no new staff 
would be required to administer the framework set forth in the 
amendment.
  Third, this amendment has a 5-year implementation period which 
requires the executive branch to create two interagency communities of 
interest--for emergency management, and stabilization and 
reconstruction--to restrict the number of personnel doing rotations to 
20 to 25 per year per each of these two interagency communities of 
interest, and to restrict the rotations to within a metropolitan area 
in order to avoid any relocation costs.
  Fourth, this amendment requires that personnel doing a rotation 
receive the same training by the receiving agency that the receiving 
agency would provide to its own new employees, rather than more 
elaborate training that would incur costs.
  And fifth, this amendment requires that any reports produced pursuant 
to the amendment be submitted on line rather than published in hard 
copy.
  Let me close by answering a common objection to government 
reorganization. To quote the 9/11 Commission:

       An argument against change is that the nation is at war, 
     and cannot afford to reorganize in midstream. But some of the 
     main innovations of the 1940s and 1950s, including the 
     creation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and even the 
     construction of the Pentagon itself, were undertaken in the 
     midst of war. Surely the country cannot wait until the 
     struggle against Islamic terrorism is over.

  I urge my colleagues to take bold action to improve the efficiency 
and effectiveness of our government in countering 21st century national 
security and homeland security threats by promptly adopting this 
amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012.

                          ____________________