next year. members of the armed services committee changed the bill to address white house concerns that holding terrorism suspects in military custody, but the white housish i shooed a veto threat yesterday afternoon saying that the bill, quote, micromanagings the work of our experienced counterterrorism officials. and now live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal lord god, the center of our joy, give our senators today a passion for you. may they find joy in doing your

will and delight in obeying your precepts. give them courage and resolve to do their duty, as you give them the wisdom to see it. create in them hearts that strive to be spent in your service, doing all the good they can for as many people as they can. we pray in your holy name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible,

with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, november 18, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable christopher a. coons, a senator from the state of delaware, to perform the duties of the chai. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. the senator from michigan. mr. levin: the senate -- the

pending business now is senate bill p 1867, the defense authorization act; is that correct? the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 230, s. 1867, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the department of defense, for military construction, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. levin: mr. president, senators are encouraged to come to the floor to offer their amendments this morning. we're going to be here doing business. senators that have remarks, speeches, proponents of 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 we return as well. before the vote at 5:30 montana

dpai on a judicial nomination, but we will be here before that time also to hear from proponents and opponents of amendments, to have people offer amendments. we're not going to have the whole week, we've been told by the leader, when we come back for this bill. so we're going to have to make additional progress today. we made some progress last night. we cleared some amendments last night. we're going to try to clear some additional amendments this morning and adopt some amendments that can be cleared. we have 155 filed amendments. we have 31 pending amendments. and, again, we're going to try to clear some of those today, adopt some of those today, and we're going to try to do the same on monday when we return. but, again, i would urge that senators that 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 or opposition of pending or filed amendments. obviously, if people want to oppose amendments, then we're 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 which may be open to revision, so that the work is going to go on, and we have it use these time periods today, next monday and tuesday for work on amendments, the monday we get back for work on amendments because we need to get this bill

passed. this is a critically important bill, with 15 filed amendments, 31 of which -- with 15 filed amendments, 31 of which are already pending, we've got a lot of work to do. we've got to get a bill passed and we've got 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. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator arizona. cane cannes i want to thank senator leaf -- mr. mccain: i want to thank senator levin and his staff for their hard work on this very important piece of legislation. i'm glad to see that the chairman announced the staff will be in working next week. for a change, they'll get -- the taxpayers will get a return on their investment. very glad to know that. but, in all serious in they have done a lot of work late last

night. they've been working hard all this week. mr. chairman, i think maybe our colleagues should plan on some late nights when we get back, because we do need to get this done. there's a lot of important business before the united states senate. i'd 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. but i do believe that hopefully we can get a vote on that -- on that amendment so we can move forward to other very important amendments that members obviously, by the sheer number of amendments, are interested in this process. so i hope also we are able to get an 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 want to thank the chairman again and our respective staffs and our colleagues. i thought it was a very beneficial debate that we had yesterday, that a lot of members participated in. i think it served to not only

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 both sides of this issue, very well-informed senators on this issue. and, again, i understand, for example, th the senator from illinois, senator durbin, came to the floor and said, that we needed very in-depth discussion on this issue. i think we had that. but il i also think that this ia very, very important issue and one that deserved the attention of the senate but now i think it's time to move on. and, you know, i also want to 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 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. chairman, i yield the floor. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i thank, first of all, my friend and colleague from arizona, the ranking member, for his comments, for all of his work on the committee, and all of our colleagues on the committee have put in a lot of time. and i want to emphasize something that he said about the opportunity here for the debate, that we have a number of pending amendments, including the amendments on detainees. we're here to hear debate on those or any other amendment today and on monday. we were here yesterday, had a long debate. as the senator from arizona said, we had a lengthy debate on this and we were prepared to voavment the supporters were not.

that's fair enough. if they want additional debate to debate it, we should welcome that. but there is time. there's time today and there's 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, and i would hope -- the 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 an unanimous consent agreement -- i haven't had chance to talk this morning with the senator from arizona,

but we will try -- and he's just 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, to limit amendments to those that are filed by that time. we're going to try to get that done. and with a safety valu valve, wi suggested last night and i think is acceptable to the republican manager, my friend from arizona, twhais i,which is, in addition o whatever amendments are tiled by whatever time we put in for the unanimous consent proposal, that there be two additional amendments on either side which would be available to the managers, that would need to be relevant -- just relevant amendments to an amendment which is filed or relevant to the

bill. i think we 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. i mean it would take unanimous consent. but i think everyone realizes we've got to have a universe here that we can work with during the next week. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i don't want to talk too much longer. i see our dear friend from new mexico, who has been seriousness to come in this morning and debate and discuss his concerns about the bill and amendment. but i would ask the chairman, we have, as you mentioned, a large number of pending amendments, not just filed but pending. and one of them, of course, is the detainee issue. there is another paul amendment. there are several others that perhaps we could vote on on monday, as the chairman

mentioned, and if any of our colleagues feel that they haven't got time to amend it, they're welcome to come now and they're welcome to come on monday, and i understand it may cause them some small inconvenience in their schedule, but if they filed a pending amendment, then -- if there is an amendment pending, then 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're going to notify everybody, we're going to have votes on the following amendments on monday afternoon, after the vote on the judge, and if you are interested in debating it, we will be here to debate it and discuss it with you. we've got 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 coming over here today. i yield the floor. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: again, 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, that as i said, we will be here today and we will be here monday. so that we will have opportunity to debate -- in i'm sorry, a wek from monday. thank you. so that there will be opportunity, plenty of opportunity to debate these pending amendments or other amendments. and people need to know that we're going to be seeking votes on these pending amendments if we can't clear them or work them out. be opportunity

for debate before the votes. i will a little later this morning have a detailed statement addressing the detainee issue. it will address some of the statements which are incorrect and misleading which were in the administration's statement on this subject. and also some of the statements of our colleagues which need to be addressed and i believe corrected because this is a complex issue and it's important to know what is in the bill and what is not in the bill. if it's properly characterized and if it's properly stated, it's 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's complicated enough without obfuscation and confusion about what is in the bill on detention and other matters and what is not in the bill. so i would yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i appreciate the indulgence of my friend, senator udall. if it's okay with the chairman, i'd ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be considered pending on behalf of their sponsors. would that be agreeable? for senator cornyn amendment 1200, related to taiwan f-16's. for senator ayotte, amendment 1066 related to financial audits. for senator ayotte, amendment 1067, as revised, related to notification of congress to the initial custody of members of al qaeda. for senator ayotte, amendment 1068 related to the authorization of lawful interrogation methods.

senator brown amendment 1090 related to housing allowance rates. senator brown, amendment 1089 related to disclosures by schools participating in tuition assistance. for senator wicker, amendment 1056 related to military chaplains. and for senator wicker, amendment 1116 related to tr-bg licenses for -- related to truck licenses for transitioning members. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: 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 here at the cloakroom this morning, we can do the same thing for senators on our side, as the senator from arizona properly did. mr. mccain: could i say i hope members on both sides, if they have amendments, get them to us

this morning so that we can bring this part of the process to an end. mr. levin: if i may, mr. president, doing what the senator from arizona just did will also facilitate, hopefully the acceptance of the unanimous consent request that there then be a cutoff, as i described, at perhaps noon or 1:00 today so that we can know what the universe is and begin to whittle it down. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report by number the amendments called up by the senator from arizona. the clerk: the senator from arizona, mr. mccain, for other senators proposes en bloc amendments number 1200, 1066, 1067, 1068, 1119, 1090, 1089, 1056, and 1116.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. and let me first say before i offer 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, and i thought that 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. and i don't know how we get to the point where we have the kind of debate that you are having on this defense authorization bill, but i hope that we can do more of it. and i look forward to the, to returning after thanksgiving and having the opportunity to do that. so i compliment the two top members of that committee and the other senators that were here on that debate. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments in order to call up

amendments number 1153, 1154 and 1202 by number en bloc, and that once the amendments are reported the senate return to the regular order. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new mexico, mr. udall, for himself and others proposes en bloc amendments numbered 1153, 1154 and 1202. mr. udall: mr. president, i have remarks with me here on each of those amendments, and i ask unanimous consent that they be inserted in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: let me thank the senator from new mexico first for his remarks. i agree with him, it was a lively debate. i also agree with him that it is to be desired that that kind of debate occurs more often in the

u.s. senate. the senator from new mexico has been very active in the effort to have these kind of debates by rules changes which could make these kind of debates a lot more likely and by other mechanisms. i just would make an inquiry here. did the senator from new mexico restore the regular order to the levin-mccain amendment? i missed that. mr. udall: i did. mr. levin: i thank the senator. mr. udall: let me say to chairman levin, not only lively, robust, but very informative. i learned a lot in the process of listening to you and to senator mccain and senator durbin and the other senators that came down about the issue. and i think that's the way the senate works best, is to have the amendments and the various provisions of the defense authorization bill be a part of a hraoeufpl and informative

debate. and i thank you for that, and i yield the floor. mr. mccain: having watched the debate, 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: 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 you're correct, there could be trouble in udall valley here. there might be a split. we don't see that yet, but there's a possibility of it. mr. mccain: one thing i've learned about the senator from new mexico is that he does give all issues a fair and objective hearing, and he listens and he pays attention and he's informed in his decision. so thank you for taking part in

this one. mr. udall: and i also know that when the two of you, when the chairman and senator mccain, the ranking member, come together on a provision and you're able to persuade your committee to go with it, that says something to the senate itself to have that before the senate and. so i want to study it very carefully. i know senator graham was down here, who's been very, very active on this issue and has tremendous amount of experience. i look forward to the continuing debate, and i yield the floor. mr. levin: mr. president, i just want to thank the senator from new mexico again for the comments but also to tell him how very much impressed i have been right from the first day i heard him with his open-mindedness on subjects. that's very, 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 in the defense bill.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president, our staff are working on various amendments that we could get approved by both sides. we think there are a number of those that we can get agreement on to make progress today. while we are going through that process, i'd like to point out that the front page of this morning's "wall street journal," i'm sorry to note, may be a

harboring 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. air base in iraq: a tent standoff between local police and the iraqi army played out on thursday at the gate of the u.s. air base in the northern city of kirkuk, where a dispute over land and oil threatened national stability and unity as u.s. forces withdraw. territorial conflict between the central government and 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 curdish forces were heightened on thursday when the k*urd kurdish blocked senior army commanders from entering the base. army officials brought iraqi officials on 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 eager to project its power ahead of the u.s. pullout." what this is about, mr. president, is the volatile region, particularly in the area around kirkuk, which is also symptomatic of the entire northern iraq border between kurdistan, a semiautonomous

region of iraq, and the rest of iraq. the area is inhabited by different ethnic groups that range from turkeman to arab to other nationalities that all inhabit the area. and one of the reasons why some of us wanted to have a residual force remain in iraq -- 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 persmuga, the kurdish military, and the iraqi military were close to a shooting situation. and united states 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 air bases 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. and a lot of it has to do with oil. a lot of it has to do as to who's going to control the oil revenues in the area. other parts of it 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 and to the area: there's still enormous land disputes in the area as

well. suffice it to say, it's a place of great tension. i continue to be deeply worried about this kind of tensions which could lead to armed conflict, but also over time in the view of some, could lead to a breakup, an actual breakup of iraq into kurdish areas, sunni areas and even two different shia areas of iraq.so i'm sorry. i'm sorry that this is happening and that there are more people predicting greater tensions in the area. but i have to say, i am not surprised. i'm not surprised. and, you know, the sad thing about all this -- and i had a rather, shall i say, spirited

exchange with the 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 not an issue of whether or not we should have french fries served in school lunches. this is an issue that we have shed the blood of well over 4,400 young americans. and 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 that i disagreed with at that time. so, i hope that when prime

minister maliki comes to washington next month that some of these issues can be ironed out, that we can have greater cooperation, but i don't think that there's any doubt that right now up in the area of kirkuk there are paying much attention to the statements that may be made by the u.s. embassy in baghdad. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, i would request the dispensing with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, our eyes today --

i rise today to talk in support of the defense department act. all of my colleagues on the armed services committee have done a remarkable job and done it with great discipline and dedication and concern for the men and women of our armed forces and for the defense of the nation. this is the 50th consecutive defense authorization bill that the senate has considered, and i hope we'll soon be able to send it to the president for his signature. we owe this to our servicemen and women who are devoting themselves and indeed their families also to the protection of the united states. we've 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'm confident this bill

provides a budget that allows the department of defense to combat current threats, plan for future threats, provide for the welfare and protection of those men and women who serve and their families who serve this nation. i'm pleased at the start of this debate on this important measure we were able to take up and pass senator ayotte's amendment on strategic airlift. i was very impressed with senator ayotte's thorough understanding of this issue, her ability to, i think, seize son a point -- seize on a point and make sure that it was fully understood. we were able also to 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 and we owe a great deal to senator ayotte for her extraordinary performance in this regard. i'm also working on several other amendments that would, i think, provide additional

assistance not just to the over all defense department but also to our personnel. this deals with protecting our servicemen and women from exploitation by businesses and other financial entities. we've taken some steps going forward with the creation of this new consumer protection bureau of an office of service members reetles relations, but e to do more and i hope we will. there are many amendments that address the national policies. better coordination between mental health care and community providers particularly for the members of the national guard and their families. they often don't have the opportunity to be close it a major military installation and so coordination with local community-based sproirs so

critical to helping -- community-based providers is so critical to helping these members. let me highlight a few of the measures in the overall legislation that are very important. it authorizes a 1.6% across-the-board pay raise and authorizes pay raises. this is meeting the needs of our military personnel. it also authorizes the full funding of the ambush-protected veerks the mrap program, which provides for the procurement of mrap's and matv's to protect our troops on the ground. having returned about three weeks from afghanistan, these are critical weapon systems and my colleagues on the committee who also frequently travel into these war zones will attest to that fact also. i'm pleased that we included

this in the legislation. it also authorizes $11.2 billion for afghan security forces to train and equip the afghan police. this is a $1.6 billion reduction from the president's q the crentscom -- the centcome commander determined in this reduction could be made because of the efficiencies being achieved by the nato training mission in afghanistan, under the leadership of lieutenant general cald well. we have to be much more efficient going forward in terms of resources and we also have to plan with our international partners to support the security of the afghan national security forces. it recommends the most component long term of stabilizing afghanistan. they cannot do it alone. there has to be political will and capacity. but 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 that it's 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 alongside senator wicker, who i want to thank for his contribution to the legislation. the committee is focused on the needs of the navy, strategic mobile 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 -- required funding -- or requested funding for two virginia-class submarines, the aircraft carrier replacement program, the ddg-51 aegis

program, rhetorical combat ship program, the lhar amphibious assault ship, the mobile landing platform and the p-8 mare patrol aircraft. all of these weapon systems are important aspects of navy and marine projection of power throughout the world. and i'm particularly pleased obviously about the continued support for the virginia-class submarine program and the ddg-1000, which is an integral part of the military and the economy of new england. the department needs to restructure plans to replace a vehicle of the marine corps and complete analysis of the amphib bus vehicle combat alternatives before launching into an acquisition program. the marine corps is restiewgd their ability to move marines from ship to shore and then from

shore inland to exploit the beachhead. that study is careful before they make commitments for future programs for equipment. we also include language that would permit the navy to buy avionic systems for the navy's helicopters in the most efficient manner. let me conclude by once again thank senator wicker particularly for his help with respect to the sea power committee, and i'm thanking all of my colleagues. i hope we can improve the bill and look forward to sending such a bill to the president for his signature. with that, mr. president, i would -- mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: first let me thank the senator from rhode island, my dear friend, for all of the work he does on our committee and the other work h work he dor our senate. he is an invaluable member of

the armed services committee. i yield the floor. mr. levin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: ous consent that

further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: on behalf of senator corker, i ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment and call up the following amendments en bloc: levin 71, terrorist

activities in pakistan. levin 72, coalition supporting pakistan. and levin 73, sense of the senate regarding nato. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from arizona, mr. mccain, for mr. corker, proposes amendments en bloc numbered 1171, 1172 and 1173. mr. mccain: mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i would ask -- excuse me. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be temporarily laid aside, and i call up on behalf of senator bingaman, amendment number 1117 and on behalf of senator gillibrand amendments

number 1187 and 1211. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. mr. levin: before the clerk reports, i would also ask unanimous consent that senator gillibrand be add as cosponsor of senate bill 1092, the levin-mccain counterfeit parts amendment. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from michigan, mr. levin, for senators bingaman and gillibrand, proposes amendments en bloc numbered 1117, 1187 and 1211. mr. levin: mr. president, i would now ask for the regular order on the levin-mccain amendment. the presiding officer: is now the pending question. the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: quorum callquorum :

quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. ayotte: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated, please. officer without objection. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that dennis dezile, a defense fellow in my of course, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of senate bill 186. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. ayotte: i suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you,

mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to set aside the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that i call up en bloc 1239, 1256, 1257, and 1258. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from oregon, mr. merkley, proposes en bloc amendments 1239, 1256, 1257, and 1258. mr. merkley: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendments be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you. and i call for the regular order. the presiding officer: the amendment's now pending. mr. merkley: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call

mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i would ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, in a short while i hope that we will have and expect that we will have some amendments that have been cleared on both sides that we're going to be able to offer and hopefully adopt. and what i thought i would do now is make a fairly lengthy statement about the statements which have been made relative to the detainee provisions in senate bill 1867.

first, i want to comment on the statements that were made in the, statement of administration policy. this is the so-called s.a.p. so i'll be referring to s.a.p. during these comments. when i use that term, it's relative to the acronym means "statement of administration policy." first, on -- and i'm now going to first quote exactly from the administration "sap" and then i'm going tow comment and show why these statements that i am referring to are inaccurate. quote from the s.a.p., section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the authorization for use of military force, the so-called

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 qaeda and its associated forces and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals." close quote. well, mr. president, given how important the administration says these authorities are, it should be helpful to have them codified so that they can stand on the strongest possible footing. 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 and statute of expressed 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. now, it's also worth noting that the s.a.p. 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 s.a.p., acknowledges that the provision codifies existing law. now this is hardly surprising since the committee accepted all of the administration's proposed changes to section 1031. now, i'm continuing to read from the statement of administration policy quote. "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." close quote. well, mr. president, it's interesting that the s.a.p. states that the amendment would -- quote -- "appear to 'mandate' military custody." in fact, it does nonprofit 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." close quote. 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. exact words were "except to the extent authorized by the constitution." now, if it is appropriate to authorize military detention inside the united states under section 1031, it is not at all clear what -- quote -- "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 -- quote -- "patrol our streets." section 1032 applies by its very

terms only to a person -- quote -- "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." well, 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 incapacitateing, dangerous terrorists best serves our national security interests." well, mr. president, 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 s.a.p. -- "the waiver provision fails to address these concerns, particularly in time-sensitive operations in which law enforcement personnel have traditionally played the leading role." well, mr. president, it is not clear why the administration -- excuse me -- why the administration thinks that the

use of a waiver would be problematic in -- quote -- "time sensitive operations." the need for a rivera is not triggered until the executive branch determines that an individual is covered -- the need for a waiver is not triggered until the executive branch determines that 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 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.

next quote from the s.a.p. -- "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, contain and interrogate terrorism suspects and could disrupt the collection of vital intelligence about threats to the american people." well, the s.a.p. is wrong.

the section under 1032 is expressly limited for persons whom detention is authorized under criteria currently used by the executive branch and the courts. the -- quote -- "new and untested legislative criteria criteria" -- about which the s.a.p. expresses concern is language narrowly with the application of a small category for those for whom detention is already authorized. also, because the provision addresses only the question 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 -- quote -- "act swiftly and decisively to cap tour" close quote -- anybody.

also, because the provision expressly states that 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 -- quote -- "interrogate terrorism suspects suspects" -- close quote -- or disrupt -- quote -- "intelligence about vital threats to the american people." the next quote from the s.a.p. -- "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." well, mr. president, the administration reviewed the language directly of 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 -- quote -- "abroad. this difference does not constitute a myriad of problems which are complex or hard to understand.

mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent at this point in my remarks that the senator from vermont be recognized to call up a couple of amendments and that they not be interfering with my remarks in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: then i be recognized again. mr. leahy: mr. president, first i thank the senior senator from michigan for his usual courtesy. i would -- i ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside, amendment number

1087, the amendment be called up and then set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from vermont, mr. leahy, proposes amendment numbered 1087. mr. leahy: and then, mr. president, i ask consent to call up the leahy-grassley amendment 1186, fighting fraud to protect taxpayers act, that that be called up and then set aside. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from vermont, mr. leahy, for himself and mr. grassley proposes amendment numbered 1186. mr. leahy: and my statements be included in the record as though read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: thank you. again, i thank the distinguished senior senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, did we return to the regular order at

the end of his remarks? the presiding officer: the senate does return to regular order. mr. levin: mr. president, i now would ask unanimous consent that the senator from oregon be recognized for up to ten minutes for remarks, that they not be in interruption of my remarks in the record, and then i be recognized to return after his remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: thank you. i want to thank the chairman of the committee, senator levin as well. i very much appreciate his good work and his courtesy on this as well. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent for the spending amendment to be set aside and to call up amendment 1176 and amendment 1253 en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report.

the presidingthe clerk: the senm oregon, mr. wyden, proposes amendments en bloc numbered 1160

and 1253. mr. wyden: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i would also ask unanimous consent that joel garrison, a legislative defense fellow in our office be granted floor privileges for the duration of these amendments. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president, the 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 -- our communities. mr. president, when we have a problem or conflict in our state, we solve it the oregon way, by finding consensus and building common ground. that's why when it became apparent 20 years ago that the u.s. army's chemical depot in umatilla, oregon, 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 a million dollars in grants were made available to move the project along, and when the facility was listed in the 2005 bracc 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, and that was

in effect the time when at the last moment the pentagon changed the rules. after decades of planning and a million dollars was spent pulling together an extraordinary communitywide consensus, a lawyer at the pentagon decided to reinterpret the law and declared the 2005 bracc 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 bracc authority because the lack of the chemical weapons wouldn't be destroyed until after the six-year limit for completion of bracc actions. what this lawyer either didn't know or chose to ignore is this was precisely the intention of the bracc commission when they put the depot on the closure list. the bracc report discusses the fact the mission of destroying the chemical weapons wouldn't be completed until after deadline. on page 239 of the report, the

commission found that secretary rumsfeld's assertion that the chemical demille tarrization mission at umatilla would be complete by the second quarter of 2011 was optimistic. the commission wrote an examination of status information to the depot's mission completion and subsequent closure revealed the dates may slip beyond the six-year statutory period for completing bracc actions. therefore, the commission took the secretary of defense's recommendations, closed umatilla chemical demow and changed it to on completion of the chemical demille -- demille tarrization meeting. these facts make it clear that the commission did not as this pentagon lawyer claimed make a conditional recommendation the facility only be closed if the chemical demilitarization mission was completed by

september, 2011. rather, the commission acknowledged that the closure will have to happen when the closure of the demilitarization mission is complete even if that happened after december, 2011. it's also important to note, mr. president, 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 bracc so that the will of the community in the form of this local reuse authority and the will of congress and the bracc law will be taken into account. the pentagon has to implement the law as it is not, 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 bracc commission's report and close the umatilla depot under bracc. once again, mr. president, i'd

like to note that this has already passed the senate once. i'm very appreciative of chairman levin, senator mccain, all our colleagues who are involved, and i want to thank them. very briefly, mr. president, i appreciate the courtesy of chairman levin on this matter, i want to discuss my second amendment which i call the soft landing act and 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 the reserve than it has in the last ten years. more than 800,000 members of the guard and reserve have been called to active duty since 9/11, and as i indicated, they are serving repeated tours, repeated tours in iraq and afghanistan. and i feel very strongly that the period from when a guard

member is holding a rifle to the time when they're holding a child back at home in beautiful oregon, there's 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. and what we have is a very abrupt, you know, period where soldiers face the trauma of combat, comes right back to the community, and really doesn't get an adequate time to readjust. literally in a matter of days these guardsmen going from holding a gun in the chaos of a combat zone to holding their child in the serenity of their own home. it is a difficult transition, and i just want to make the point that it is a very different, you know, transition than most of our active duty,

you know, troops have. our active duty troops are in a position, many of them come back to communities that are close to facilities, close to bases, a variety of support services, and many of the guardsmen come back to communities that don't have the support of a large base. and it just 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 the reserve warrant our making it possible for them to have what i call a softer landing, getting back into their home communities. and i'm very appreciative of the fact that chairman levin has given me the opportunity to discuss this briefly. he and i and his staff have talked about this before, but i'll just 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 that they already face an unacceptably high unemployment problem. 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 guards members to come home and right now the reality can be pretty harsh. they go and serve their -- this country, their family is concerned about their 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. so what this legislation does, the soft landing for guard and

reserve members is allow returning guardsmen and reservists to take up to 45 days. it is not a long period of time, mr. president. to come back, get home, get their lives in order and still get paid. my view is this is part of the promise that 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. and i am very hopeful that the soft landing amendment, amendment 1253, will be included when this legislation passes here in the united states senate. mr. president, again let me express my appreciation to chairman levin. i know he's speaking on an important matter. i want to thank him for his courtesy and thank him for working with me on both of these amendments, the one involving the umatilla depot and the soft landing. i look forward to working with him on these matters. he is our authority on these

issues and i appreciate his courtesy. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: let me thank the senator from oregon, we're happy to work with him. he's very deeply into these issues and so many other issues. so his contribution is well known to all of us in the senate. we're happy to work with him on these matters. mr. president, again without interrupting my comments i would ask unanimous consent that the legislative fellow in the office of senator conrad, air force major jason generalson be granted floor privileges pour the duration of the debate on s. 1867. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, returning now to the comments that i'm making on the statement of the administration position, we're -- on section 1032 and finishing the statements, comments on that and my comments on their comments, this is the last comment that they make on

that section. quote, "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." mr. president, 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, quote, "the certification and waiver required by section 1033 before a detainee may be transferred

from guantanamo bay to a foreign country continue to behinder 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 annual gus provisions -- 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 the 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." close quote. well, mr. president, the provision is not only, quote,

intended to be somewhat less restrictive -- close quote -- than provisions that are included in previous authorization and appropriation 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. now, 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 of this issue, administration officials have

made a single priority request, that the provision be made a one-year limitation instead of a permanent limitation, and the committee agreed to that change. section 1034's ban -- and i'm now continuing to groat the s.a.p. -- "section 1034's ban 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" close quote. well, mr. president, this provision is the same as the provisions included in last year's authorization and appropriation acts, which were signed by the president. and in discussions of this

issue, administration officials made a single priority request, that the provision be made a one-year limitation instead of a permanent limitation. the committee agreed to that change. the next quote from the s.a.p., "section 1035 conflicts with the consensus-based interagency approach to detainee reviews required under executive order number 13-567, which establishes procedures to ensure that periodic review decisions are informed by the most comprehensive information and considered views of all relevant agencies" -- close quote. mr. president, 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. 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 states -- excuse me, 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. and in discussions with the administration, -- excuse me, yes, in discussions with the committee, administration officials did not even raise this provision as a priority issue. and finally, on the statement of administration policy, the s.a.p., quote, "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" -- close quote. mr. president, 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 openerrous 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. levin: mr. president, i now want to move to my comments on some of the statements of the senior senator from california yesterday.

the first comment of senator feinstein that i want to address is the one where she said -- quote -- "section 1031 needs to be reviewed to consider whether it is consistent with the september 18, 2001, authorization for use in military force." on this one, mr. president, the committee accepted all of the administration's language changes which were written to ensure that the provision is consistent with the aumf. the provision specifically states that it does not -- quote -- "limit or expand the authority of the president on the scope of the aumf." and the sapp on the provision states that -- quote -- "the authorities codified in this statement already exist under

the aumf." the next quote of the senator from california is the following, that section 1031 -- quote -- "would authorize the indefinite detention of american citizens without charge or tri 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?" mr. president, the committee accepted all 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 -- quote -- "affirms an authority that already exists." the supreme court held in the

hamdi case that existing law authorizes detention of american citizens under the law of war in the limited circumstances spelled out here, so this is nothing new." now, the initial bill reported by the committee included language expressing precluding -- quote -- "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 had asked that this language be removed from the bill. 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. now, the next quote of the senator from california is the following -- quote -- "under section 1032, any noncitizen, al qaeda 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." well, 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 activity -- all of the surveillance activity -- all of what the f.b.i. did would have to be transferred immediately to the military. then the government would have been forced to split up codefendants, even in cases where they otherwise could be prosecuted as part of the same

conspiracy, she said. zazi was a permanent legal resident. his coconspirators were both u.s. citizens. they could be -- 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, she said. well, mr. president, it is not accurate to say that everything the f.b.i. did in the zazi case would have had to be -- quote -- "transferred immediately to the military." first, it is not at all clear that zazi was covered by the provision because we don't know that he was al qaeda, and in any event, there is an exclusion because he's a lawful resident alien of the united states. second, until a -- 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. and, finally, even if zazi were somehow determined to be covered, the requirement could have been waived. zazi could have been kept in civilian custody in the discretion of the executive branch. and also, as to this statement that the executive branch would be forced to split up codefendants and there couldn't be a conspiracy case, the executive branch would not be forced to split up codefendants in the zazi case even if he were covered by the provision or in any other case. that's because the provision includes a waiver that would have allowed him to be held in civilian custody from the outset if an executive branch official 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. now, the next statement which the senator made was the following, that the department of justice has said that approximately one-third of the terrorists charged in federal court in 2010 would be subject to mandatory military detention absent a waiver from the secretary of defense. well, mr. president, taking the justice department at its word, there have been approximately 300 terrorist cases in federal court over the last ten 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 qaeda attacks on american soil have been highly publicized and received extensive scrutiny understandably in congress. we are not aware of more than half a dozen cases total over the last decade. the reason that the debate on this issue always seems to come back to the same handful of cases appears to be that there are -- that there only are a handful of cases that are covered by this provision potentially. now, the administration contends in her next quote that the mandatory military custody is unwise because our allies will not extradite terrorist suspects to the united states for interrogation and prosecution or even provide evidence that suspected terrorists about -- excuse me -- or even provide

evidence about suspected terrorists if they will be sent to a military brig or guantana guantanamo." mr. president, 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. now, the next quote of the senator from california is that section 1033 essentially establishes -- quote -- "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." well, mr. president, there is no limitation at all in the bill on the transfer 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 that i would address is the following, that -- quote -- "section 1033 requires the secretary of defense to make a series of certain fictions that are unreasonable and candidly unknowable before any detainee is transferred out of guantanamo." again, the quote continues, "an example: the administration proposed eliminating the requirement that the secretary of defense certify that the

foreign drt from whenc country e detainee will be sent is not facing a threat that is likely to substantially affect its ability to exercise its control over the individual." now, mr. president, the same language was included in last year's authorization, appropriation bills that were signed by the president. we added a waiver provision this year to make it easier to transfer detainees. and in discussion with the committee, the administration made a single priority request on this issue, that the provision be made a one-year limitation instead of a permanent limitation and the committee agreed to that change.

finally, mr. president, the last quote of the senator from california from yesterday that i'm going to address as the following. quote -- "in march, the president issued an executive order that laid out the process for reviewing each detainee's case to make sure indefinite detention continues to be an appropriate and preferred cour course. section 1035 essentially reverses the interagency process created by the president's ord order." mr. president, this was the same allegation made by the statement of administration policy. it is erroneous and i address the answer to that allegation in my remarks earlier today relative to the statement of administration policy, the soap- the s.a.p., so i'm not going to comment further, but i would direct everyone back to those comments on the statement of administration policy similar to the 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's essential that we understand that there are issues here that need to be debated and should be debated. but there is nothing but confusion created in an issue that is already complex when misstatements are made about what in the bill of the committee and what is not in the bill of the 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'll complete this debate on monday so that we can vote on these detention provisions and amendment relative thereto of senator udall hopefully on monday night.

and i yield the floor. ms. ayotte: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. i would just -- 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 would just certainly appreciate what thoughtful analysis that the chairman did, and i would say that his thoughtful and detailed analysis really addressed all of 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 that they have sought in making the best decisions on how to treat detainees, particularly those that come, members of al qaeda, to our country to commit an attack against our country, to make sure that we have the right provisions in place to protect americans and the flexibility so that executive branch officials are able to decide what is the best track to handle a particular case or member of al qaeda who comes to our country to unfortunately attack us. i would also like to remind -- 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, and in fact

the entire defense authorization act was voted out twice unanimously by the armed services committee, including monday of this week where we again voted out the entire provisions of this act unanimously. so this -- the particular provisions that the chairman just discussed were the result of extensive discussions, not only within the committee but also based upon testimony that we heard over months from military officials about concerns they had about the lack of clarity in our detention policy, and that's where we came to the provisions in 1031-1034. i would also like to remind this body that there were many of us who would have gone much further in terms of how we would handle members of al qaeda that 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 had brought forth an amendment on the c.j.s. appropriations minibus that would have prohibited funding altogether for civilian trials of this same category of terrorists in the united states. this amendment -- so i would have liked to have gone much further, but the amendment -- i respect the amendment that the committee voted out, that 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. and i would just again remind everyone what the problem we have here is, that the priority

when we are dealing with a member of al qaeda has to be -- who is seeking to attack our country has to be intelligence gathering. we have to make sure that we give our executive branch agencies the tools that they need to be able to gather information to know about future attacks and to protect our country. so what happens now is our civilian system, if someone is arrested here, they are in -- if they are in the civilian system, are given rights that are part of our constitutional system, which is miranda rights, for example. they're told they have -- if they are in custody and there is interrogation, they have to be told that they have the right to remain silent, that they have a right to a lawyer, that they have a right to a speedy presentment.

these types of rights are incredibly important to our civilian system when you have a terrorist who is a member of al qaeda who is a foreigner who comes to this country to attack our country, the first thing that they hear shouldn't be "you have the right to remain silent." we have to allow our executive branch officials the ability to make intelligence gathering the priority first, and this amendment allows that and gives the executive branch the ability to decide which system do they want to treat them in and to be able to prioritize intelligence gathering so that we can protect americans and make sure that if someone who is a member of al qaeda comes to our country to attack us, we can gather information without immediately having to tell them you have the right to remain silent. and that's what's so important with this amendment. it was a bipartisan compromise. as i said, there are members of

the senate, including myself, that would have liked to have gone much further, but we addressed so many of the administration's concerns that they came up with to make sure that they had with these provisions the ability not to have to interrupt an interrogation, to conduct the interrogation as they saw fit, to make sure that they could conduct ongoing surveillance, and to decide whether a military or civilian track was best based on our national security interests. i would just say 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's important that the standard that the committee came up with is in statute, and actually as the

chairman mentioned, the reason that the committee addressed this is actually our defense officials did raise some concerns about what the waiver provisions should be from guantanamo. well, this has been an area of interest of mine because of where we are right now with the guantanamo detainees. the reality is unfortunately 27% of those who have been released from guantanamo have gotten back into the fight and are back trying to kill us, our troops, our coalition partners, and this is an area that was very important to have clear standards where transfer would only be appropriate in the instances where we could ensure that there wouldn't be recidivism so that we could protect our troops and our partners from having to see the

very same individuals that we had already in custody at guantanamo. and so the provisions set 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 you think about some of the detainees who have gotten back into theater that we had in our custody at guantanamo, they are conducting suicide bombings, recruiting radicals, training them to kill americans and our allies. some of the former gitmo detainees -- and i think unfortunately it's a little bit of a badge of honor now to get back into theater and to be engaged in fighting us again. sayid al-shakiri and abdul shakir represent two examples of former guantanamo detainees who returned to the fight, assumed leadership positions in terrorist organizations that are

dedicated to killing americans and our allies. sayid al-shakiri has worked his way up to being the number two in the al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, and we had him in our custody and unfortunately he was released. abdul shakir now serves as a top taliban military commander and a senior leader in the taliban, again fighting us and our allies. and again, i'm concerned that in the world of terrorists, it's become a badge of honor to have served at guantanamo, to have been released by us and to be back in the fight. 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, why it's important that we have a standard that allows the department of defense under limited circumstances 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's why this provision is in here, and i'm very pleased that it was in here to make sure that we addressed this important issue to keep americans protected and our allies protected. i would just say that, again, this was a bipartisan compromise. the chairman very thoroughly this morning went through each of the issues raised in the statement of administration policy. also, in my view, thoroughly knocked down many of the red herrings that were raised about this provision on the floor yesterday by senators that are seeking to strike this provision

from the defense authorization act, and it is important that this body pass this defense authorization, not only these provisions but also so much of the provisions of this defense authorization that give our troops the tools that they need, that we tell them that we are there to support them, to make sure that we move forward with the defense authorization, including these important provisions that address how we handle detainees, and i again would just like to thank the chairman of the armed services committee for his leadership on this issue. i know that 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 here 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 needed clarity to make sure that our executive branch officials had the tools that they need to gather intelligence, to protect americans from the terrorist attacks that unfortunately those who are members of al qaeda still seek to kill us for what we believe in, not for anything that we have done, and we can't forget that. so i thank the chairman and i would also ask -- i would also ask, mr. president, unanimous consent on behalf of other republican senators to temporarily set aside the pending amendment and call up the following amendments en bloc .

-- amendments en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. that would be amendment 1179, amendment 1230, -- excuse me. amendment 1179 is on behalf of senator graham. amendment 1230 is on behalf of senator mccain. on behalf of senator heller, i would offer amendment 1137, related to the u.s. embassy in israel. also, for senator heller, amendment 1138, related to the repatriation of u.s. military remains from libya. for senator mccain, amendment 1247, related to further restrictions on the use of defense funds on guam. for senator mccain, amendment 1246, related to a commission for u.s. military force

structure in the pacific. for senator mccain, amendment 1229, related to a cybersecurity agreement between the department of defense and department of homeland security. for senator mccain, amendment 1230 as modified related to the annual adjustment in enrollment fees for tricare prime. for senator mccain, amendment 1249, related to cost-plus contracting. this is also an amendment that i'm cosponsoring. for senator mccain, amendment 1071, related to the oversight of the evolved, expandable launch vehicle. for senator mccain, amendment 1220, related to a g.a.o. report of alaskan native