i think that's important to be included in the record. let me recognize, yield to senator webb for five minutes. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. webb: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to say that i believe that the senator from colorado has a good point here, and i say that as someone who is a strong supporter of military commissions who in many, many cases has aligned myself with my good friend, the senator from south carolina and senator mccain as well on these issues. to me this is not a jurisdictional issue and it's not an issue about whether we should be holding people under military commissions under the right cases or under military detention under the right cases. my difficulty and the reason that i support what senator udall is doing is in the statutory language itself.

i say this as one who has spent a number of years drafting this kind of legislation as a committee council -- counsel. i have gone back over the last two days again and again reading these sections against each other, 1031, 1032 particularly, and i'm very concerned about how this language would be interpreted not in the here and now as we see the stability that we brought to our country since 9/11, but if something were to happen. and we would be under more of a sense of national emergency and this language would be interpreted for broader action. and the reason that i have this concern is twheer really -- that we're really talking here about the conditions under which our military would be sent into action inside our own borders.

and in that type of situation, we need to be very clear and we must very narrowly define how they would be used and quite frankly, if they should be used at all inside our borders. and i think that's the concern that we are hearing from people like the director of the f.b.i. and the secretary of defense. and i'm also very concerned about the notion of the protection of our own citizens and our legal residents from military action inside our own country. i think these protections should be very clearly stated and in this language there's a lot of vagueness. and what the senator from colorado is proposing is that we clarify these concepts, that we take this provision out, clarify the concepts, protections are in place in our country, we're not leaving our country vulnerable -- in fact,

i think we're going to make it a much more healthy legal system if we do clarify these provisions. so that is the reason i'm here on the floor to support what senator udall is saying and i know the emotion and the energy that senator levin has put into this and i respect him greatly. i just happen to believe that we should do a better job of clarifying our language. and i spent 16 years on and off writing in hollywood, and one of the things that came -- came to me when i was comparing this, this is kind of the danger that you get when you get the fourth or fifth screenwriter involved in a story. where you tend to want to fix one thing and you're not fixing the whole thing. i greatly respect the legitimacy of the effort that is put into this but when you read section

1031 against section 1032, there are questions about what would happen to american citizens under an emergency. let's take frins what happened in this country -- for instance what happened in this country after hurricane katrina. it's an direct parallel but you can see the extremes that people went to under a feeling of -- of emergency and vulnerability. we had people who were deputized as marshals in new orleans, you could see them on cnn, going into people's houses, making a decision that later was rescinded that they're going to take people's guns away from them. the vagueness in a lot of this language will not guarantee against these types of conduct on a larger scale if a situation were more difficult and dangerous than it is today.

section 1031, which senator levin mentioned, may be clear from the administration, it's not that clear to me when they talk about cooferred person. this isn't -- a covered person. this isn't simply al qaeda, depending on how you want to interpret it in time of national emergency, it says a person who is part of or substantially supported al qaeda, the taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the united states or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act. we might be able to agree what that means here on the senate floor today, but you don't know how that might be interpreted in a time of national emergency. i'm not being -- i'm not predicting that it will. i'm saying we should have the certainty that it will not. similar -- the speaker pro tempore: the senator has consumed five minutes. mr. webb: similar concerns also revolve around the definitions

in terms of the applicability of united states citizens and lawful residents, aliens, when you go to the word "requirement" does not extend, what about an option? these are the types of concerns i have. we should have language that very clearly makes everyone understand the conditions under which we would be using the united states military inside the borders of the united states. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan has four minutes. mr. levin: i'll yield and -- we'll do one of your folks. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent to yield two minutes to the senator from new hampshire,

followed by the time from senator levin for the senator from connecticut and then what time i have remaining for the senator from georgia. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. i first of all want to thank chairman levin and ranking member mccain and remind everyone that this particular amendment addressing the detainee provisions passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis from the armed services committee. and the reason that we addressed this issue was because we heard witness after witness in a series of months before the armed services committee from our department of defense tell us for example when i asked the commander of africa command saying he'd need lawyerly help on how to answer what to do with a member of al qaeda who was captured in africa. this is an area that cried out for clarification, and that's the genesis of this amendment which is a very, very important

amendment. just briefly, two issues: number one, on 1031, the arguments that have been raised about 1031, the statement of authority, this is a red herring. this provision was drafted as senator levin said very clearly, based upon what the administration wanted. and also really codifies existing law on what the statement of authority is in terms of -- of the fact that we are at war with al qaeda. and if people want to disagree with that, that's certainly a policy discussion that we can have. but we were attacked on our soil in 9/11 and this codifies the fact that we are at war with members of al qaeda. 1032 is the military custody provision. let's be clear on what it does and it doesn't do. number one, it's very clear on who it applies to. it only applies to members of

al qaeda or an associated force who are planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the united states or its coalition partners. it does not apply to american citizens. we're only saying that if you're a member of al qaeda and you want to attack the united states, we're going to hold you in military custody. why? i prosecuted cases in the criminal system. the presiding officer: the senator's two minutes have expired. ms. ayotte: i would say we don't want to tell a terrorist you have the right to remain silent. that's the issue here. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i yield three minutes to the senator from connecticut. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair and thank my friend, the chairman of the armed services committee. i rise respectfully to oppose

the amendment that the senator from colorado has offered, though in some measure i thank him because for -- for offering it because this has been an important and good debate. my own position stated briefly on this is that as senator levin has said we're a nation at war and as such --, we were attacked on 9/11/01. we adopted in this chamber the authorization for the use of military force. that's about as close to a declaration of war as we've done since the second world war and the comparison is not -- is exact because what happened to us on 9/11 was -- in some ways was even worse than what happened in december of 1941 when weer we were attacked at pearl harbor. a nation at war who seizes those who have declared themselves to be part of enemy forces and have attempted to attack the american people or america should be

treated as enemy combatants, as prisoners of war. according to the law of war. to me, that's just a matter of principle. regardless of what statistics one could cite about how well prosecutions have gone in article 3 courts, that's to me not ultimately the point. if we're at war, the people who are fighting against us all to be treated as prisoners of war. in fact, we are without a policy now as senator ayotte said, and one of the -- the main reason i oppose what senator udall is proposing here is he would remove the sections of the current bill that create a policy and send us back to where we are now where our forces in the field don't know what to do if they capture a member of al qaeda. mr. president, if i had my way, the provisions in this proposal on detainees would not have the waivers that the president has.

would simply say if you're apprehended, if you're a foreign member of al qaeda and you're captured planning or executing attacks against americans or our allies in this war, you are put in military custody and you're tried at a military tribunal. this is not the law of the jungle. this is according to american law, it's -- these are the same courts in which american soldiers are tried when charges are brought against them and of course we accept and abide by other provisions of the geneva convention. but that was not the will of the armed services committee. the armed services committee in a good, reasonable, bipartisan compromise, has created a system here where the full position, the initial position is to transfer these enemy combatants to military custody. it's a good compromise. it's the kind of compromise -- the speaker pro tempore: the senator's three minutes have expired. mr. lieberman: that doesn't happen around here enough. i didn't get everything i wanted

out of it but it's a lot better than the status quo and therefore i support the language in the bill and oppose the udall amendment. i thank the chair and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: i first ask unanimous consent that debbie shaw in senator coburn's office be granted floor privileges during the consideration of s. 1867. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. chambliss: i urge my colleagues to oppose the udall amendment which would eliminate the bipartisan detainee provision that the chairman, ranking member and committee members worked so hard to craft. these provisions are necessary to provide certainty for our professionals in how our government will handle terrorist detainees and how long detainees can be questioned for intelligence gathering purposes. we've heard quite a lot in the past few days from administration officials about how our intelligence and law enforcement professionals need flexibility. in fact, the director of national intelligence wrote to

the committee arguing for flexibility and stressing the need for a process that as he said, encourages intelligence collection through the preservation of all lawful avenues of detention and interrogation. with that, i agree wholeheartedly. the problem with the status quo, however, is that the administration refuses to use all of its lawful avenues of detention and interrogation available to it, choosing instead only to use one, and that's article 3 courts. for nearly three years members of congress have pressed the administration to establish an effective and unambiguous long-term detention policy but they have refused. the intent behind these bipartisan provisions is simple: we must hold detainees for as long as it takes to gather information our intelligence and law enforcement professionals need to take down terrorist

networks and stop attacks. frankly, the best place in my opinion for this is gauguin bay but when it comes to gitmo, the administration is no longer concerned about flexibility. instead we hear that gauguin is off the table. -- guantanamo is off the table. when i asked the current secretary of defense prior to the seal team take down of iewbl, if you -- iewbl iewbl, if --, ewe sama bin laden, and he said if we captured him, we'd send him to guantanamo. that would not have taken had we not taken him down. this is unfortunate because professionals including some at high levels in the administration acknowledged privately that hampers intelligence collection from detainees is the administration's unwillingness to take new detainees to guantanamo for questioning. when our operators overseas are unsure about where they will

hold captured detainees, it causes delay, sometimes missed opportunities and sometimes capture operation -- the presiding officer: the time has expired. mr. chambliss: mr. president, i urge a "no" vote on the udall amendment. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i'd like to thank all of my colleagues who have engaged in i think a very important debate. i would also like to say to my friend from michigan, the chairman, i have observed him for many years debate various issues on the floor of the senate and in the armed services committee. i have never seen him more eloquent than i have observed in his statements today and throughout this debate. i also appreciate the fact that there are many in his conference who do not agree with the position taken by the chairman and i especially am admiring of that. i think that where we are, i

would ask the chairman -- anyway, i yield. mr. levin: how much time is remaining, mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan has 45 seconds. the senator from colorado has one minute. mr. mccain: i ask the senator from colorado be allowed two minutes, at least. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: such time as he may need. mr. udall: i thank again, the ranking member, the chairman of the senate armed services committee for their hard work. i want to just close with a couple of points. i wanted to, in the interest of clarifying the record, point out on the heels of the chairman's comments about the statement of administration policy when it comes to section 1031, that the full statement there read, "because the authorities codified in this section already

exist, the administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk after a decade of settled jurisprudence on the 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." second, mr. president, there are questions that continue to be raised. i want to mention section 1033. the chairman said that it's only 1032 that really is the focus of our attention but there have been questions raised about 1033. there's language in 1033 that makes it clear that we -- we think it makes it clear that there's a provision that requires any receiving countries taking actions to ensure that the detainee cannot engage in any terrorist activity. this is if we're releasing or transferring somebody who's detain. i was in afghanistan recently, at baghram prison. we have 20,000 detainees there. there are some who believe that 1033 would restrict us from releasing those prisoners at baghram as we begin to draw down

our efforts in afghanistan. just one of the many questions that are asked. finally, i listened to the passion that my friend from south carolina, senator graham, exhibited on the floor. we are all in this together. we are going to prevail. the bad guys in the world are not going to win. we do have, however -- and this is what makes our country strong -- different points of view on how we prosecute this war, and i believe that the intent of what's being suggested in these provisions is well and good and at the highest level. but there are many people we strus -- we trust and respect, including the f.b.i. director, the secretary of defense, the secretary of homeland security, the f.b.i. director who believe that what will happen if you interpret the language will not actually reflect what our intent is. therefore, let's set this aside, pass the n.d.a., set it to the president -- send it to the president, take the next 90 days

to thoroughly vet what's in this senate provisions. i'll be the first person to come to the floor if all of those individuals and our own experts here tell us this is the right way to proceed, to say let's put this into the law. but let's not rush to take these steps. we've got something that's working. we have over 300 terrorists who've been prosecuted through our civil system who are in jail, many of them for life sentences, sentences that will outlast their life spans. let's not fix something that isn't broken until we really understand what the consequences are. and i thank, again, my colleagues on the senate armed services committee. this had been a helpful and important debate. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i also thank our friend from colorado for his contribution to the committee. he is a valuable member of our committee and he is no less valuable because he's offering an amendment which i happen to disagree with. two quick factual points. one is that the language that the senator mentioned from

section 1033 is exactly the same language as was in last year's bill and is in current law. the only difference is, we have given greater flexibility this year to the president by making it waivable. so our language is more flexible than the current law. finally, in terms of the hamdi case, the senator is correct. i believe it was senator udall who said that this was an american citizen who was captured in afghanistan and that is true, but the supreme court in hamdi relied on the curren case, which was an american citizen captured in rhode island and quoted that case with approval when saying nears bar to this nation -- there's no tboor this nation holding -- bar to this nation holding one of its american citizens as an enemy combatant, an american citizen captured in long island. if i have any time left, i will yield it. and i yield the floor.

mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, pending an amendment -- the pending amendment is the udall amendment, and am i correct, i ask the chairman, we would intend, depending on -- there's several things that have to be resolved -- but we would intend to have this vote around 2:15, if that -- if we -- if things work out; is that correct? mr. levin: the senator from colorado also heard that, and i think it is also our intention that we vote on this as soon as possible after 2:15. i yield the floor. mr. mccain: note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

scwoarquorum call:

mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i ask consent that the pending amendment -- mccain amendments 1230 and 1281 be modified with changes at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: and --

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m. >> so as you heard lawmakers are taking a break now to attend their party caucus lunches. an article on cq help shed like senators have undertake. mark udall would strike detainee provisions and require congress to hold hearings with pentagon and administration officials on the handling of terrorism suspects. senator udall along with other democrats and the obama administration is opposed to language in the defense bill that would require members of al-qaeda and its affiliates be held in military rather than civilian custody even though the bill allows the requirements to

be waived on national security grounds. a vote on that amendment is expected at 2:15 today when senators return from their lunches along with more work on the defense programs and policy bill. lawmakers hope to finish work on that measure this week. also we understand that republican leaders will brief reporters at about 2:00 pm eastern following their meeting. we plan to have that live for you here on c-span2 along with our continued coverage of the u.s. senate. >> let me be very clear. i will neither be a lobbyist nor a historian. i promise you on both. no, there is no way i would be a lobbyist. look, i will miss this job. and i'll have some twinges of

regret when the new congress is signed up, but i will tell you this -- you know, maybe you're going to laugh, but one of the advantages to me of not running for office is, i don't even have to pretend to try to be nice to people i don't like. [laughter] >> some of you may not think i've been good at it but i've been trying. and the notion of being a lobbyist and having to go and try to be nice to people i don't like, it would be ridiculous. no, i will not in any way be a lobbyist. i do not intend to practice law although i have a law degree but i may appear pro bono on a gay rights case but i want to do teaching and lecturing. >> after 16 terms in the house of representatives, massachusetts congressman barny frank will step down at the end of next year. watch his retirement announcement as well as more than 1,000 other appearances on the c-span network online at the c-span video library, archived and searchable.

it's washington's your way. >> the u.s. agency for international development unveiled a new global health strategy yesterday. the plan will aid the agency's implementation of president obama's global health initiative which aims to address major health challenges worldwide. the global health bureau assistant administrator says a key component of the strategy is producing efficient results even during times of fiscal challenges. the new strategy also refocuses attention on maternal health and child nutrition and mortality. this is about an hour, 15 minutes. >> good afternoon. i'm steve morrison from csis and welcome to this very nice event here this afternoon. happy holiday to everyone. and i'm sure you're happy to be back at work. we're thrilled today and honored to be able to host dr. pablos

mendez, from usaid the global health director at the bureau for the international agency for national development. he's come here today -- several months now into that post. the president nominated him back in march and he took up his duties in august. and he's been very busy since then. and from the early days when ariel began, we had hoped we could get him here to csis at the right moment to speak to this audience here and beyond. do the thinking and the direction thinking has been moving on usaid on the global health key issues before the bureau as it -- as it refines and strengthens its own capacities and its own leadership role in moving forward u.s. interests in global health and that's what ariel has agreed to do here today. and we're really honored and

thrilled that you've done that. ariel, thank you so much. and we're very pleased at the staff support that we've received from a.i.d. in pulling this event together. ariel comes from a very distinguished career of almost 13 years at the rockefeller foundation where he really became the dominant personality and leader there across a broad range of issues around research, public/private partnerships, partnerships in research and diseases of poverty. very instrumental, very integral in defining the foundation's approaches on aids care in africa. and, of course, the foundation became a global leader in taking on the health workforce issues, the joint learning initiative on home runs for health. he's an internist, professor -- has been a professor for many

years at columbia university, professor of clinical medicine and there's an epidemiology and with his arrival of a.i.d., the obama administration did very well in succeeding in enlisting ariel to come and take on this job at this particular moment in time. and we're all very fortunate. and so please join me in welcoming ariel pablos mendez. [applause] >> thank you. thank you all. and it is great to see so many friends and old colleagues and new colleagues to allow me to stand before you. i'm very pleased to be here to share my perspective in global health and in the context of just the emerging strategic

framework. i want to start by thanking csis and as steve pointed out we've been trying to find the time to do these and this is a good time for hosting this forum. and i want to thank you all for joining in as well. earlier this month, usaid celebrated its 50th anniversary. we were just sharing that with csis' 50 years anniversary so happy birthday, steven. president kennedy found the international agency for national development on the belief that all people could serve a decent way of life and the peace can be fostered through development. over the past 50 years, the world indeed has experienced a peaceful revolution of hope and human progress. this process has also contributed to our own nation's peace and prosperity. new democracy has come in to existence, the degree of evolution saved billions from

hunger. global poverty rates fell and global leadership grew by 60%. the rates of child mortality had declined binary 20% with more than 50 million lives saved in the last 20 years alone, children who otherwise would have died. and the hopelessness brought on by the has greatly diminished in a continent where there was an implosion of hope. future generations will look back at this period as a turning point in the history of public health. i want to say in the history of civilization. usaid's contribution has enjoyed partisan political support. the engagement of multiple u.s. government agencies and the participation of civil society and the private sector. the american people and their partners can and should feel very proud in the part they played in achieving this extraordinary accomplishment.

nevertheless, preventible disease and premature death continue to plague much of the developing world. particularly, affecting poor women and children. 7.5 million children died year. two-thirds of the dead were easily preventible. 1 of every 3 children in the developing world suffers from stunting due to chronic malnutrition which too often results in needless deaths. for those who do not perish mall nourish cripples opportunities and condemns young lives to learn and to earn much less than otherwise. women in developing countries are more than 100 times more likely to die from premature-related complications than women in the developing world and 2 million women have -- aids-related diseases continue to kill more people in africa than any other disease.

and neglected tropical diseases have affected 12 billion people worldwide. our job is far from done. and our budgets are indeed not growing. but for those of you who may doubt that we will see change on a revolutionary scale in our lifetimes, i challenge your wisdom. i believe there are indications that we are closer than ever before to narrowing the gap between our ideals and the reality of our time. today, i will introduce usaid's strategic framework for global health. the next chapter of usaid's effort in global health will build a strong foundation on prior success. the blueprint will ensure we are better able to adopt the challenging realities which are sure to present themselves in the years ahead. our strategic framework itself is not new. it is driven by the vision of president obama's global health initiative, the direction articulated by an administration

to the scientific community earlier this year and reflects our agency reforms efforts to grow usaid forward. i hope to share with you some of the highlights and engage your views actively. i will begin my presentation by touching on the u.s. context the way this strategy has been developed over the last two years. we are guided by a dynamic and complex set of national policies, directives, initiatives and other factors that have them into a cohesive approach to a strategic health approach. i will outline how our strategy feats with the ever changing global health landscape the world is changing. we must have an improved understanding of the forces that directly and indirectly influence our ability to fulfill our mission, our shared mission.

thirdly, i will discuss our priorities and the way forward. we are poised to make significant impacts on maternal health and child survival. we will march with conviction in what has been a long road for an aids-free generation. to do so we need to challenge the world and ourselves and we will need to adjust the way we work. u.s. efforts in global health are heavily influenced and our commits around the development goals, the declaration and the agenda for action. the structure of u.s. assistance is also guided by a number of national policies, president initiatives, principles and guidelines. in may, 2010, president obama issued a national security strategy that recognized development as a central pillar of our national security

capacity. in september of last year, the first presidential policy directive on global development, the president outlined high-level principles and called for a new approach to international development. further, and it's almost -- on its first anniversary, secretary of state hillary clinton introduced a quadrennial international developmental review and a joint review of the mandates and capabilities of the department of state and usaid to ensure these core elements of american civilian power work in tandem. usaid strategic vision is to inspire and align with the principles and goals of president obama's global health initiatives and the recently released usaid's policy framework 2011-2015 which is making operational usaid reforms in our agency. as our administrator has remarked. usaid is ushering a new era.

the procurement reform, talent management, better policy capacity and a focus on innovation and results, usaid is undergoing an ambitious transformation of the way we do business, something recognized this year by an independent oecd peer review. usaid strategic vision is guided by the principles and goals outlined in the gi. in may, 2009, significant progress has been made towards a more comprehensive global health strategy for america. after so many bumps in the road, they are fostering great interagency coordination, ownership and integration while aligning previous initiatives for greater efficiency namely the president of malaria initiative and the president's initiative for aids relief. for reviews on each of our priorities have opened up our thinking to external participation while gi

counter-strategies are either completed or in development and integrated usg programs across health to improve global health efficiencies. the principles which really bring to life the gi have now been operationalized and after some consultations will be systemically implemented by u.s. government teams on the ground. onto the changing landscape, many things are changing in our global health space. far beyond the beltway and our national borders. the rapidly evolving nation of our sector and its context will require a large degree of flexibility, innovation, and even greater collaboration in the global health community in the years ahead. usaid is prepared for those changes and is engaging proactively to meet those challenges. the transition of a product of our success to date is survival of family planning is a pandemic

of noncommunicatable diseases like cancer, and cardiopulmonary diseases. and even we can launch a whole new platform today but there are other more contextual developments and we all know that's to better health. i would like to take the opportunity to emphasize what i call the economic decision of health. despite the economics lowdown in oecd countries, developing countries are in the midst of an unprecedented economic expansion given by better governments globalization of technology and the demographic dividend is brought by family planning and economic success. where families and snags fewer children of women has a

significant savings while while it's a expansion of the working age segment by empowered women going into the workforce. these dividend adds 1 to 2 percentage points to the gdp growth of a country for a period of 30 years or more. we have seen this scenario in latin america and more recently asia. it is just beginning in africa and elsewhere. to date, the world's economy is 500% larger than it was when usaid started. that's more than twice the growth of the population. the gdp per came at that in the world has been growing in a presidential rate historically. chances who are recipients are major trading partners as well as principles in the new emerging state. for many countries, from romania to nigeria to the philippines to

uzbekistan, the cost of a basic health care package, represents 10% or less over the original per capita income is projected between 2009 and 2012. half of these developments affect health in those countries. how should we adjust to the shifting factors of economic growth. if experience elsewhere holds true, these countries proceeds from gois in health. there's a tight correlation between total health expenditure and gdp of countries. by the end of this decade, domestic health spending may double in many of usaid countries. yet, the growth is the expansion of unregulated private physicians and out-of-pocket patients which now counts for 50 to 80% of the total health expenditure in africa and in asia according to the national

health accounts. the fault leads to inequitable access and catastrophic expenditures across all health conditions, old and new. as noted in last year's report, every year 100 million people are pushed back into poverty by health bills because they lack -- [inaudible] >> this cannot be the future of health especially when growing economies should afford better health for all without families going bankrupt. how do we turn this challenge into an opportunity? at usaid we are exploring how we can support health financial report with their own money it can be spent better. where possible we will discuss how we can tap in local governments of governments and even private sector. unlike others, we are in

discussions with great countries as strategic partners and donors. this brings me to my final point, our five-year success will be measured by our contributions to saving lives among the poor and vulnerable. particularly mothers and children. strengthening health systems is innovation and by inclusive leadership in global health and international development. usaid spends many crucial areas for the health of poor people. for family planning. a core belief of the global health initiative reflected in the strategic health framework is that improving the health of mothers and children and an aids-free generation is an area for great potential of impact. earlier this month secretary clinton outlined a vision that accelerated patients by

maximizing preventive measures. as the number of infections falls below the number of deaths, the aids epidemic will enter a period of self-enforcing decline. these are programs that cost for most of the work in countries. usaid will contribute to this ambitious yet achievable goal working with the cdc and many other agencies and partners. the current budget environment will require us to do work with greater efficiency and lower costs while engaging new partnerships are forcing countries ownership and sustainability. as i said before, we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together. these challenge for collective action must be combating a single disease. child survival is a paramount priority for the u.s. government. it is at the heart of usaid's work and it's part of our

mentality from malaria control and immunization to the growing challenge around birth itself. for those of you who are mothers and fathers, i know at times you have put yourselves in the shoes for the people we have worked to help. as vice president biden put it at a usaid 50th anniversary celebration, imagine what it feels like to be stripped of your dignity because you can look your child in the eye and know that you will be able to provide for that child's needs. the world agrees that no child should die when it can be avoided. the very idea of a child die from an easily preventible cause is a foreign concept for most american families. i believe it's our duty to bring this reality home to every american. all the great achievements to date and the remaining challenge. it is to such an understanding that we will be able to maintain strong support for the work we all do.

the efforts and channel -- integration to acsell rate the decline of mortality. when differences between rich and poor countries will disappear and it's not far. the disputes we have 100 years ago have been pretty much replicated in the last 20 years around the world. we are close. a champion of this vision will share more of it on the administration on december 9th. dhi also challenges the world and ourselves to work in new ways. usaid's mission in global health aligned with gi's principles and usaid's policy framework focuses on the following. providing leadership in responding to global health challenges. partnering strategically with a wide range of actors.

accelerating the development and introduction of technologies is of gearing up locally based and health solutions, strengthening local health systems, promoting gender equality and working efficiently for the public trust. many of you are familiar with the press and curve those who are in public health. the plots -- they held outcomes against gross domestic product in all countries over several decades. that graph shows the richer countries did better than poorer ones. but also, the recent decades have delivered better health outcomes for the same level of income. these have been contributed to knowledge, science, technology, local capacity. while development roofs across along the gdp line, our work brought those curves up. as others have put it, it's not only about more money for health

but more health for the money. to support our mission, we are harnessing the technology of our staff in science. how do we adopt the scale

>> we cannot imagine deaths among children and mothers as well as an aids-free environment. and the present policy directive, the qddr, the usaid initiative and move forward with game changing innovations and better health systems as countries ride this economic transition of health. president kennedy once again the focus of poverty is as difficult if not more difficult than the conquest of outer space. his vision is to be realized. the feat that achievement says that humans are all together in the universe. i have to believe that if we can

develop the knowledge available to send man to orbit we can deliver better health. the fact is we only have a small planet and collectively that every man, woman and child has the chance to succeed. even the trajectory of recent decades, i'm optimistic we can realize the founding vision of president kennedy and complete in our lifetime a peaceful revolution of human progress and health for all. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, very much, ariel, for that eloquent presentation. we'll turn to our audience in a few minutes and request some quick comments and questions for ariel. we also have received a number

of questions from folks online and we're joined by a few hundred people who are able to watch this. and i'll turn to those -- some of those questions. there's quite a bit of commonality across some of the submissions. let me turn to some of the sort of tougher issues that are out there today for all agencies that are involved in contributing to development and global health, obviously, the budget uncertainty is acute. and last week we saw the outcome of the global fund board meeting. the admission that $2.2 billion shortfall in pledged contributions, a third of the funds that had been pledged and the inability really to make new commitments for the next two years. and hopefully reorder some of

those resources to keep sort of the emergency and the immediate life-sustaining commitments alive in their core countries. for us as a country here in terms of our bilateral budget, clearly, we're living still in the midst of considerable uncertainty and angst about what will happen in this period. but it's fair to say that the resource base, the foundational resource base is going to at best be flat and more than likely than not be dropping in this next phase. how badly is to be determined. ariel, in your view, as you look at this uncertainty and we know that developmental global health have been the subject of a lot of speech-making lately around the value and the achievements around those -- but i think also the pressures are going to built

inevitably upon all the agencies like yourselves. but pick your spots. and to protect your vital interests and pick your spots in this next period which makes for uncomfortable kind of decision-making. but it's one that the global fund was forced into doing just most recently in saying, okay, these are the things we can and cannot do. these are the things that are most vital in moving forward. given the span of things that you talked about just a moment ago in terms of the core agenda of a.i.d., how do you begin to prioritize and communicate to an american public about what the core vital pieces of those are. that as we head into the tough head winds of declining budgets, what -- how do you respond to that challenge which i think is

inevitable and going to be with us going into this next period? >> thank you, steve. it is the case that the economy has not been what we would like it to be. and budgets are being reviewed and we're working with our colleagues in the congress, with our colleagues in the administration. in general the people we would like to protect but we're sensitive to the fact that cuts are being discussed as we speak. so how do we go about making choices? and i think what i have stated here by the u.s. administration to the global health initiative is we are focusing on saving lives of mothers and children. there are many specific areas that accomplish that. we're looking at which contributions can achieve the best value for the money. we are committed to our work on aids. and that remains. and there's been a lot of success, a lot of efficiency gains as you all know and we

want to carry on that while maximizing prevention. we believe the future is to ensure prevention is maximize. it's part of the equation that the adversity and some decisions among others are paramount. those are the areas. but as but we want to change the way we work and for us that means not only a greater emphasis on technology, innovation but also of a greater emphasis on health systems strengthening and working different with partners in the private sector but also with the governments that we serve. those are the areas in which we are putting our emphasis. the goal of the entity that we all share concerns over recent developments at the global fund the ground strategy approach is evolving into a more flexible way to respond to country needs. and so the idea of having as

specified may not be around anymore. a manager has been added to the equation to make sure that the recent reviews will be implemented. we are working with pepfar and others to maintain our commitments to the fund. the fund is very important to align our work with and to leverage to other governments and other donors into the causes. >> it was about a year ago that the quadrennial and development and review the qddr was completed and the decision taken to call upon a.i.d. to take a larger role as a leader, a convening leader but also a technical and managerial leader with respect to global health initiatives and its ability to do more in those areas, look

forwa forward. can you talk a little bit about, you know, where we are in that process? because there's been -- there were some general benchmarks established. there was -- there were groups created to try and refine the indicators, but most importantly was really to sort of -- to begin to substantiate and prove the case that a.i.d. was moving forward in this respect in demonstrating its proven capacity and leadership and taking on more and more responsibility. can you talk a bit about what has happened and what lies ahead in just because i think that's very fundamental to the future, the outcome of that process is the liberation and it's very fundamental to the future of the bureau and of the agency's ability to carry forward on the mothers and children and the aids-free generation and the other pieces that you talk about. >> thanks, steve.

well, it is indeed very important issues. almost a year and usaid has been moving along. i want to recognize annie who's our senior director who has been driving a lot of the work in just benchmarking process over the last 12 months or so. and basically a lot of progress has been made. and while the exercises from the interagency reviews to the integrated countries to better communications. all of those pieces are coming along very well. it just happens to be the case that the secretary director of the gi is here and there are many things to pay attention to from the strategy, getting all align in the direction and the state department is only moving now on really validating the process we have put in place earlier this year.

and they are working with the state department and we expect to have an interim report to the secretary this january so that although the timeline that was specified by the qddr by september of 2012, we hope to have significant progress reports for the secretary whose decision will be made to decide when and how gi will be positioned. >> thank you. of the questions that came in from our folks online, there were at least four different questions that approached the issue of nutrition and there was another that -- another two that raised the question around water, sanitation and hygiene. and i think what prompted the questions that the realization, of course, that usaid plays a very important role in those areas. and as you lay out your health framework and your strategy, the question that's coming forward

is, can you explain how that will involve a.i.d.'s linkages and contributions in the nutrition, water and sanitation areas? >> thanks. as you know, nutrition has always been a very important pillar of the work of usaid. and when it comes to child survival we know it cuts across almost all of the conditions making kids vulnerable that end up killing them. for that reason we are very much devoted and there's been a great partnership process in the last year or so on nutrition and the scaling up of nutrition. our work with nutrition has lots to do with nutrition and so on is very much aligned with the president's future initiative that is also in usaid and there's more on the security and the production and the supply side but working quite closely with us to make sure that it's

in the first years of life would have appropriate nutrition for the reasons we said before. some others will actually add that providing food security and good nutrition for the first 1,000 days of life will then also preempt an adult risk of obesity and related conditions. so we believe it's a very important area for our work. sanitation and hygiene has always been a key point of action for usaid and like nutrition, it deals on the work that is done across the rest of the agency. there's a lot of heavier lifting on the provision on sanitation and access to communities and focus more on the hygiene and drinking water and again those organizations for the child survival goals that we have noted earlier. >> thank you. i want to invite some comments and questions from the audience. please -- what we'll do is we'll

bring some microphones over. we'll start here. what we'll do is take three or four quick -- please identify yourself. there's three hands up here. matt, if you could -- and we'll -- and if you could identify yourself and offer a quick comment or question, i apologize that the podium here blocks your view a bit. please. >> my name is michelle and i'm a professor of global health law at widener school of law in wilmington, delaware. and work in the field of health sector reform, anticorruption, pharmaceutical supply, citizens access, et cetera. one of my observations over the last 15 years that i've been in this field coming from a field of just practicing law to a field of combining my role as a lawyer with that of public health in the global arena is

that lawyers are not active participants in the work that you do. they're certainly in the corporate offices of usaid and the ankle and in the world health organization and in other development organizations. but they don't seem to be in the field. and from my observation and experience there are many times when the interventions that usaid and others tried to implement are limited by the lack of analysis and understanding of the wider legal infrastructure that may have relevance to your desired outcome. i mentor students and i run an internship program in global health and the law and i have to ask myself sometimes, where are these young bright minds going to go? whether they're u.s. students or foreign students, they come from all over the world. and i'd like to invite you, sir, to consider having the presentation we did last week at the world bank where we

demonstrated a variety of ways in which lawyers and law have been highly relevant to the outcome and that includes the world justice project, the rule of law index, very much connected to economic outcomes. if rule of law is important to economic outcomes then, therefore, it's important to health. i'd like to hear your thoughts on that and how we might bring in this extra army. >> thank you. and the row right behind matt. please identify yourself and offer a quick comment. thank you. >> congratulations for an excellent presentation. two things that i would like from you. you made a comment on partnerships and we are talking about global health. i would like your comments on how do you see a multilateral approach? for instance, how is w.h.o. and pathway of this vision in the world in the strategy? and my second matter is related

to how latin america and the caribbean show on the global map of usaid in your strategy? >> thank you. right here. if you could hand that microphone over, please. thank you, sir. >> bob hershey, i'm a consultant. you had mentioned the internet and your work and i wonder how it might be used to get together the communities you're working with and gather private funding and get transparency on some of these projects? >> thank you. do we have any other folks who would like to join in? there's a woman right here. right here. >> thank you. i'm with the new american thoracic society. i wonder if you could address usaid's goals for tuberculosis control, particularly, the need to scale up addressing multidrug-resistant t.b. thanks. >> thank you. why don't we come back to ariel. we've got these four questions on the table. and those of you who would like to join in for the next round,

please do. thank you. ariel? >> thank you. for michelle, as a polyhealth person i remember beginning to learn from business people and lawyers and economists, we need to engage all of those disciplines and the communities in our work. we have done a lot of that over the years in usaid and our work in the agency on the bureau of democracy and governance is paramount as you all knows. i made allusion to the fact that the law is crucial to provide clarity and guidance to governments and society. nigeria, for example, with legislation to allow the private sector to emerge with 40 hmo's in nigeria. so the legislation will be important none of health systems going forward is not just the committee work but especially as

those countries mature, the way for us to imprint a sustainable future. on government partnerships and multilaterals, of course, we are committed the u.s. government in so many ways with the multilateral space especially in leveraging many of the strengths that agents legislation in providing guidance, technical assistance. we are working in tannedom with ourselves. we are making sure that we support government for countries and help align the implementation. in america and the caribbean where -- i come from mexico where the economic transition has been taking place. and so where it's brazil or mexico or mexico or chili, you

have to see that the world is changing and the world has also evolve. we are still committed, of course, to the region in haiti is one special example more recently of our commitment to the region. the internet -- we don't have to say much. the internet is out there using it. sharing ideas, forming groups, getting resources. the number of possibilities are huge. elearning, and increasingly we are also leveraging other forums, making sure pregnancies are followed closely and childhood imitations and the i.t. space is all over. and usaid is doing a lot just on mobile health we have 70 projects just on a portfolio and those countries are engaging. we are not developing a strategy for health to bring a cohesive

intelligence as to why we do in a very important health and development. some of you may know i come from the tuberculosis community. that was my original work. i care a lot for these space. we have witnessed the period globally and so we know that in addition to the treating t.b. we must ensure good programs are in place to prevent which is a lot cheaper than t.b. so this is a very important area and in supporting the programs but it's an area that is vulnerable, no doubt, in terms of the opportunities on child survival that we have said before. yesterday t.b. to the hiv interactions we are trying to remain supportive in our work in

tuberculosis. >> thank you. we have a hand up right here. and two down in front. yes. pleas please. >> thank you for your representation. >> please speak up a bit. >> i'm with the u.n. foundation. i work on maternal and newborn health. if you look at the u.n. mdg's 4 and 5 with focus on maternal health, what is supposed to be the critical issue or how to achieve or address this issue. and what usaid will work to help children and mother. and so i wonder what kind of program do you have that actually address family planning and reproductive health.

thank you. >> thank you. yes. [inaudible] >> i'm the director of the air force international health specialist program. and as you know, when we work with partner nation militaries we have partnered with usaid in the past in areas like pandemic influenza preparedness and hiv prevention. and you mentioned health systems in your presentation. and our experience in working with other nations, in their health systems there's really no barriers between the military health system and the civilian health sector. and as it we go forth in terms of partners, i wonder what you see would be sort of the military medical role in assisting usaid? >> thank you. >> hi, my name is paul leemer. i was a career foreign service officer with usaid for many, many years, a health officer.

and i'm now working with a group based in the u.k. called hlsp which has done a lot of work with health systems. i just have a question. i'm very supportive of your comments about kind of going back again for a focus on maternal and child health. i will point out, though, in the mid-'80s, a.i.d. focused on a very important child survival program as well which then kind of dissolved out. and i'm just wondering now given the importance of the health systems stuff that you've talked about, and moving back toward a focus on child survival and maternal health, how are you going to make this transition between a disease-oriented approach which has been relatively successful with pepfar and pmi into a more horizontal kind of broader health systems approach focused on child survival and maternal health? >> thank you, paul. there's a hand right back here.

yes. just one second and we'll get a microphone over to you, ma'am. >> hello. barbara seligmann with dhi. my question is in view of your attention on focusing or capturing or harnessing the economic transition for health does that change the priorities of countries in which the dhi will be working or how to look at allocation of resources across countries? and secondly, with regard to health systems strengthening and some of the things that you suggested you might be doing differently, could you please maybe describe a few of the things you might see doing a little bit differently in that area than has been done before? thank you. >> thank you. here. just get you a microphone, please just hold one second. thank you. >> i thank you for those great remarks. my name is adora lewis lee. i'm with irl. you spoke a lot, doctor, about

the relationship between poverty and health and we all know that quite well. and i'm wondering if you would share your vision -- since you're still relatively new in washington, but your vision of how the global health initiative will incorporate economic strengthening and women's economic empowerment measures into your global health program. thank you. >> thank you. ariel, why don't we come back to you now. we've got five different angles. thank you. >> thank you very much. yes. in 4 and 5. the role of family planning, nutrition is central to child survival. the family planning is also central. about 20% of maternal deaths from unwanted pregnancies could be prevented. early planning is important and that is important also for women's empowerment which is a core principle of the dhi and

it's also important because it actually helps with the demographic dividend or economic success, although, that's not the reason why we actually drive it. the military has been important on so many ways. we worked closely with all the emergency response but across the works and your relationship with other militaries is also very important and at the pentagon where they were so important in helping prevent hiv taking off in that country so we look forward to continuing that relationship. there's so many to the collaboration that it's hard for me to pin it down but assistance might be an area where the ability of hospital services where they are nonexistent in relief and other situations. paul, thanks for your work all along in this space. yes, in the 1980s we had an emphasis on the child survival

revolution. many of you here was part of it. and the issue was sustainability. and how do we make sure all of the efforts we are making can achieve that sustainability so that indeed as wastes come and go we won't have to go back. my sense is we have reached a new level in many countries now around the world, many regions. and in that transition where we still need to be committed to many of those vertical problems but also countries are retiring a greater level of integration. so we are still built vertically. we're still accountable to the american people through specific areas and we will probably not change that immediately. but the global health initiative has already opened the door for us to look more -- but it means they are looking at all of their needs, their own priorities and so on, health systems

strengthening. all of these requires -- and the question asked by barbara what do with health systems and they have not had the same degree of science that other areas to and thing better the american people need to understand exactly what it does. how expanding coverage in ghana has safer pregnancies and lower infant mortality and it will be important because it will support the priorities that we have again vertically. but by supporting countries in a more integrated fashion. so we will do -- a lot of assistance will be important. the national health accounts the demographical service has been hugely important, flagship importance to allow us to understand not only ourselves but the rest of the countries where things are and where

things are going. with that there is evidence data for stewardship of systems. many governments are taking the private sector. two-thirds of the sector and how to engage constructively with the private sector is important going forward. and then finally on poverty and health, well, yes, we have noted that -- global health is one of the largest segments in usaid but usaid is involved very much to the development as a whole. ..

>> there's a couple of themes that came through that, quite powerfully, from that trip, from those visits that one in particular that i wanted to ask you to comment on, and that is that in homeless wealth, in a was upsurge of pressure from partner governments upon aig, cdc, leadership to reduce the number of implementing partners that are nongovernmental implementing partners, reduce them and streamline and consolidate them.

and move them towards, away from direct service delivery outsourced technical support to government and organization. and move towards a greater direct funding by usaid and others, partner and government institutions to and from the standpoint from the government of ethiopia, the government of south africa, this is what they understand as country ownership. is higher efficiencies, few are inflicting partners, not saying they don't remain very valuable. but it seems to be a core tension right now in a court managerial challenge because you have many, many, many different contracts out there with implementing partners. that can't just be ended overnight to manage managerial challenge. it's a political challenge in terms of whether you take a huge risk of a accountability, if you

begin direct funding of government agencies. and, of course, there's a lot of resistance from implementing partners, some of whom are losers in this process in terms of being basically asked to phase out their work. so these countries, i was struck by just how much turmoil and how much drama and debate is centering around that very issue and how much it really lies at the ids door as one of its key challenges. you can talk about that. >> thank you very much. in south africa, the change is more complex because south africa, in that transition, and, indeed, and now they are committed to their own programming to it is allowed to change the work of priorities. so there is a change in south africa in terms of our commitments as well as in botswana and other countries where success and engagement and economic development allow us to

do so. but your point is a big report, a point about the way in which we engage in what we call procurement. and procurement reform is indeed one of the key elements of usaid forward. as we got the way usaid operates, both global enterprises and culture-based enterprises, often there's a merging of the two that allow us to provide to provide services to scales, and we get that integration of multiple components, one very specific, successful platform is our supply change management, for example. so there's an issue, how can we change the way we do our business. to we also want to foster a country ownership, which would then mean that we should be willing to support, transparency

and capacity and so what. but also longer ngos. this is not an easy position in is not an overnight decision. but it is to get more of that capacity locally so that indeed our success stake in the long term, there's a change. the change will not be as dramatic, but also because the concern he may be speaking, to may not be as big because i mean, today maybe only 10 or 15% of our funding is being a local. and so even if we can go to 25 or 30%, the majority of our funding will still be in a similar way. but the other drop of a small part will be quite significant in many other countries to allow local ngos and local capacity

in this space. and so whether it is in the case of south africa or america, winterson positioning problem, what you see is indeed our funding boost from the direct service provision and into providing technical assistance, regional coordination, and that's the path. >> thank you. we have time for one more round of questions. we had a gentleman here in the front row. we have two hands here. we will take as many as we came here, so please be patient. yes, sir. >> nice to see you. spend you identify yourself? >> michael. just to ask you, and i don't know if you'll probably be able to answer this question, but one of, we are seeing challenges is a national community in haiti. this to question at the beginning about water and

sanitation. we see these problems about water, about earthquake and so on, i mean, and some ngos going into backs in it, you know, with numbers. good initiative but won't solve the problem. haiti has probably 50% of the population without lack of access to water. is there any discussion going on or anything that the global health initiative, global health bureau is doing with her counterparty? to improve access to water in haiti and work with a new government? thank you. >> thank you. >> there are two women right there. please. >> thank you. joan holloway with ipad. and i mentioned this because i know that this is an area where you've had a lot of experience country three, if human resources. and i am concerned with the broader rubric of health and strength in the area of human

resources, the health is getting lost at the private sector is taking up a real i think leadership in this with a front-line health work or coalition, the goal of a million new community health workers. but i think the government has to take a bigger role, too. and i would just like to hear where coming in, which are thoughts are, how usaid can really expand and foster this. >> right next to you. >> yes, government accountability office. earlier you mentioned the austria budget environment and you give an example, as an example action i think the moderator did, the global fund and how they have had to cut back on the future grand rounds. and you spoke about procurement reforms, and i'd like to know how the global health initiative

could work with the other large donor out there, the multilateral donor, the global fund, to leverage resources? thank you. >> thank you. there was a hand back your a moment ago. yes, right there. >> you mentioned health system strengthening many times, and it is a different as a key part of the world health initiative but we have seen a lot of very specific items of vision of usaid, so i'm wondering if you could speak a little bit to that. >> and then one other, right there, please. >> can you elaborate on usaid's strategy to address noncommunicable diseases around the world? thank you.

>> thank you. ariel, i think we will close on that. >> thank you. a great questions. clearly, it is paramount as also housing in many other priorities in haiti. there's been an incredible -- the state department has been coordinating a lot of the efforts. being the groundwork for the government was weak to begin with and half of it was almost destroyed by the earthquake him as you know there will. but indeed, it is a priority, and the ability at least to assure that what may be accessible, easy we've been working very much so in the last year, particular to ensure that that is the case. colorado is small-scale vaccine. it is an issue. the vaccine supplies limited, and if you're going to do it, you have to do the right. and i know there's an area with

cdc and ourselves i'm quite involved in. but i agree that you have have water and sanitation for the long haul. that is the priority. joy was worried about -- human resources are the health system. from line workers to the professionals that provide is, i would say the policymakers, they haven't also neglected. they are very important. it was a window i began to -- and the reason was the economics of h.r. only makes sense when you understand the larger portion of the health sector. so when prompted a poor country, it may not be proper for those countries are moving, while we all like to have a very good professional line of services in a poor saying it's a lot more

efficient. and i think the h.r. community has done a lot with others to be sure you have the workers in the poor areas or so. so it is paramount as the usaid come as you also know, has probably been the lead to the capacity project in leading this pace over the last almost year. how do we leverage other's? that's a we tried to do every day, and we believe that the time is right. in oecd countries, in europe, although the prints are quite courageous, the global fund is a platform. it's important for us to remain, to keep the viable platform for engagement, as well as many of the i've sector him in in a few work in private corporations. but more important is how do we get back in local public and private, in countries where the economics are not beginning to allow it.

[inaudible] next year is up for renewal. that would be -- the sign of a working health systems, and there will be guidance for that coming up. again can we do not have an office for stds. we are doing a few things. one is we already have a lot of demographic of health services their line as to understand the prevalence. so it's very low-cost. we're trying to get it. demographics have been so important building stores and monetary for success. so that's very important platform for us moving forward. second, we are, we know that in order, just to do things like

advising pregnant women to quit smoking. that's another thing we're doing. third, community platforms. quite often it's healthy lifestyles. user you, you have a lot of experience in modification, on the whole for healthy lifesdifin the whole for healthy lifestyle, exercise, nutrition and diet. all that is already quite well where we are present. i mentioned nutrition the first 1000 days of life as being probably way to prevent adult obesity and serious risk factors. so all of these other pieces we are doing today. we invest, i mean, america invest -- [inaudible] 30 billion, and the 50 or 60 billion is almost all in cd. quite often industries will be

on the table for many of these, so it will be very important in the future. and we are preparing for the future, not jumping to we measure our priorities are correct for the environment. >> thank you. let me just close with one last question for you, ariel, which has to do with looking forward to next year. we will have the international aids conference, the by angel global meeting will be here in washington in july, third week of july next year. the first time in 22 years at this conference has been back on u.s. soil. the obama administration lifted the immigrant than, on persons living with hiv, and became possible to do this, 20, 25,000 people will be here for a full week. can you talk a little bit about how you see the impact and the valley of all of this for an

american public that hasn't witnessed this directly on their soil for over two decades? and it's going to be coming in the middle of some budgetary tough times and a very heated presidential and congressional set of races. so getting the message right will be very important. there's been a lot of deliberations about how to get the very best outcomes from this very important and historic moment. if you could offer us your closing thoughts on that, please. >> thank you. we are coming out with priorities for the global health initiative, saving mothers, saving children, and the next generation. you're asking about the particular one of the aids conference, a major, major opportunity for this committee. i have to say that the u.s. community working with hiv all in all have been very strong participants in this country and abroad, so that -- i see shelley

and others who have been so involved in the work that we've done in the last few years. and so i think it's an important opportunity nonetheless because it will bring attention a lot of voices? stories, all of that will matter. and in the end the work that we do is the work at the very good people ask us to do. and to the extent -- saving mothers and children's lives, that should help the work that we do. so the aids conference, and opportunity, stay tuned for a others well. >> thank you very much. before we close, just a reminder, december 9 at the willard hotel from 9 a.m. until 2 p.m. we will be staging a major conference on the strategic power of vaccines that will have an all-star cast there. the administered of aig raj shot will be delivering an address.

tony couch will be toting an address and we have three very high level panels but i won't go into all the details but please join us either in person or online. i want to thank barbara bennet and her staff from a idea for helping make this event happen, and from our staff, many people worked very hard to pull this together. suzanne brundage, julia nagle, matt fisher, carolyn schroeder, a great thanks to all of you. ariel, it's been great to have you. i hope we will have you back soon come and i wish you the best fortune in moving this very ambitious agenda forward. please join me in thanking ariel. [applause] >> a live picture from capitol hill at the u.s. senate is in session today.

most of their work has been on defense programs and policy for fiscal year 2012. they are right now attending their legally -- weekly policy lunch. we expect them to be back on for about 2:15 eastern. we expect remarks at about 2 p.m. eastern and we were joined in life. much of the debate today is centered on a minute brought by colorado senator mark yudof related to the defense programs and policy legislation. his amendment will remove detainee provisions from the bill and require congressional hearings with pentagon officials and the administration on how to handle terrorism suspects. a vote is expected this afternoon shortly after senators return to the floor. an article in the hill today captured some of the action on the floor and exchanges between republican senators rand paul and john mccain. senators paul of kentucky and mccain of arizona battled on the senate floor today over a proposed amendment to the pending defense authorization bill that could allow american

citizens who are suspected of terrorism to be denied a civilian trial. senator paul argued the amendment which was cosponsored by mr. mccain puts everything american citizens at risk and suggest if the admin that passes the terrorists have won. should we care today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, and the terrorists have won, mr. paul argued detaining american citizens without a court trial is not america. you can read the rest of the article at the hill.com. while we wait for senators to return, here is a bit of the re- air of thata debate. objection. mr. paul: mr. president, james madison, the father of the constitution, warned the means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home. abraham lincoln had similar thoughts saying "america will never be destroyed from the outside if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because

we destroyed ourselves." during war, there has always been a struggle to preserve constitutional liberties. during the civil war, the right of habeas corpus was suspended. newspapers were closed down. fortunately, these rights were restored after the war. the discussion now is to suspend certain rights of due process is especially worrisome given that we are engaged in a war that appears to have no end. rights given up now cannot be expected to return. so we do well to contemplate the diminishment of due process, knowing that these rights that we give up now may never be restored. my well-intentioned colleagues' admonitions in defending provisions of this defense bill say that we should give up certain rights, the right to due process. their legislation would arm the military with the authority to detain indefinitely without due

process or trial people suspected of an association with terrorism. these would include american citizens apprehended on american soil. i want to repeat that. we are talking about people who are merely suspected of terrorism or suspected of committing a crime and have been judged by no court. we are talking about american citizens that could be taken from the united states and sent to a camp at guantanamo bay and held indefinitely. this should be alarming to everyone watching this proceeding today because it puts every single american citizen at risk. there is one thing and one thing only that is protecting american citizens, and that's our constitution. the checks we put on government power. should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well, then the terrorists have

won. detaining citizens without a court trial is not american. in fact, this is an alarming arbitrary power that is reminiscent of what egypt did with its permanent emergency law. this permanent emergency law allowed them to detain their own citizens without a court trial. egyptians became so alarmed at that in the last spring that they overthrew their government. recently justice scalia affirmed this idea in his dissent in the ham did i case our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or another crime. scalia concluded by saying the very core of liberty secured by our anglo-saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the executive. justice scalia was, as he often

does, following the wisdom of our founding fathers. as franklin wisely warned, those who give up their liberty for security may wind up with neither, and really, what security does this indefinite detention of americans give us? the first and flawed premise, both here and in the badly misnamed patriot act, is that our pre-9/11 police powers were insufficient to stop terrorism. this is simply not borne out by the facts. congress long ago made it a crime to provide or conspire to provide material assistance to al qaeda or other foreign terrorist organizations. material assistance includes virtually anything of value -- legal, political advice, education, books, newspapers, lodging or otherwise. the supreme court sustained the constitutionality of this sweeping prohibition. we have laws on the books that can prosecute terrorists before they commit acts of terrorism.

al qaeda adherence may be detained, prosecuted and convicted for conspiring to violate the material assistance prohibition. in fact, we have already done this. jose padilla, for instance, was convicted and sentenceed to 17 years in prison for conspiring to provide material assistance to al qaeda. the criminal law does require and can prevent crimes from occurring before they do occur. indeed, conspiracy laws and prosecutions in civilian courts have been routinely invoked after 9/11 to thwart embryonic international terrorism. in fact, from the bush administration, michael chertoff, then head of the justice department's criminal division and later secretary of the department of homeland security, testified shortly after 9/11, he underscored the history of this government in prosecuting terrorists in domestic courts has been one of unmitigated success and one in which the judges have done a superb job of managing the courtroom and not compromising

our concerns about security and our concern about classified information. we can prosecute terrorists in our courts and have done so. it's the wonderful thing about our country, is that even the most despicable criminal, murderer, rapist or terrorist, our court systems do work. we can have constitutional liberty and prosecute terrorists. there is no evidence that the criminal justice procedures have frustrated intelligence collection about international terrorism. suspected terrorists have repeatedly waived both the right to an attorney and the right to silence. additionally, miranda warnings are not required at all when the purpose of the interrogation is public safety. the authors of this biller antly maintain that the -- bill errantly maintain that the bill would not reverse people held indefinitely. i believe this is simply not the case. the current authorization for the use of military force combines the universe to persons

implicated in 9/11 or who harbored those who were. this new detainee provision will expand the universe to include any person said to be part of or substantially supportive of al qaeda or taliban. but remember, this is not someone who has been included at trial to be part of al qaeda. this is someone who is suspected. if you are suspect in our country, you are usually afforded due process. you go to court, you are not automatically guilty, you are accused of a crime. we are now saying someone accused of a crime could be taken from american soil, an american citizen accused of a crime, a suspect of a crime could be taken to guantanamo bay. these terms are dangerously vague. more than a decade after 9/11, the military has been unable to define the earmarks of membership in or affiliation to either al qaeda or other terrorist organizations. it's an accusation and sometimes

difficult to prove. some say that to prevent another 9/11 attack, we must fight terrorism with a war mentality and not treat potential attackers as criminals. for combatants captured on the battlefield, i agree, but these are people captured or detained in america, american citizens. 9/11 didn't succeed because we granted terrorists due process. in fact, 9/11 did not succeed because al qaeda was so formidable but because of human error. the defense department withheld intelligence from the f.b.i. no warrants were denied. the warrants weren't even requested. the f.b.i. failed to act on releaseed pleas from its field agents who were in possession of a laptop that may well have had information that might have prevented 9/11, but no judge ever turned down a warrant. our criminal system didn't fail. no one ever asked for a warrant to look at moussaoui's computer in august, a month before 9/11.

these are not failures of our laws. these are not failures of our constitution. these are not reasons we should scrap our constitution and simply send people accused of terrorism to guantanamo bay, american citizens. these are failures of imperfect men and women in bloated bureaucracies. no amount of liberty sacrificed at the altar of the state will ever change that. a full accounting of our human failures by the 9/11 commission has proven that enhanced cooperation between law enforcement and the intelligence community, not military action or not giving up our liberty at home, is the key to thwarting international terrorism. we should not have to sacrifice our liberty to be safe. we cannot allow the rules to change to fit the whims of those in power. the rules, the binding chains of the constitution were written so that it didn't matter who was in power. in fact, they were written to protect us and our rights from those who hold power with good

intentions. we are not governed by saints or ache -- angels. occasionally, we will elect people and there have been times in history when those who come into power are not angels. that's why we have laws and rules that restrain what the government can do. that's why we have laws that protect you and say you are innocent until proven guilty. that's why we have laws that say you should have a trial before a judge and a jury of your peers before you're sent off to some prison indefinitely. finally, the detainee provisions of the defense authorization bill do another grave harm to freedom. they imply perpetual war for the first time in the history of the united states. no benchmarks are established that would ever terminate the conflict with al qaeda, taliban or other foreign terrorist organizations. in fact, this bill explicitly says that no part of this bill is to imply any restriction on the authorization of force. when will the wars ever end? when will these provisions end?

no congressional view is allowed or imagined. no victory is defined. no peace is possible if victory is made impossible by definition. to disavow the idea that the exclusive congressional power to declare war somehow allows the president to continue war forever at whim, i will offer an amendment to this bill that will deauthorize the war in iraq. we're bringing the troops home in january. is there any reason why we should have an open-ended commitment to war in iraq when the war is ending? if we need to go to war in iraq again, we should debate on it and vote on it. it's an important enough matter that we should not have an open-ended commitment to war in iraq. the use of military force must begin in congress. our founding fathers separated those powers and said that congress has the power to declare war, and it's a precious and important power. we shouldn't give that up to the president, we shouldn't allow the president to unilaterally engage in war.

congress should not be ignored or an afterthought in these matters and must reclaim its constitutional duties. these are important points of fact. no good did -- know good and well that someday there could be a government in power that is shipping its citizens off for disagreements. there are laws on the books now that characterize who might be a terrorist. someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect, according to the department of justice. someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist. if you are suspected by these activities, do you want to have the government have the ability to send you to guantanamo bay for indefinite detention? a suspect. we're not talking about someone who has been tried and found guilty. we're talking about someone

suspected of activities. but some of the things that make you suspicious of terrorism are having food, having more than seven days of food, missing fingers on your hand, having ammunition, having weatherproofed ammunition, having several guns at your house. is that enough? are you willing to sacrifice your freedom for liberty? i would argue that we should strike these detainee provisions from this bill because we are giving up our liberty. we are giving up the constitutional right to have due process before we're sent to a prison. this is very important. i think this is a constitutional liberty we should not look at and blithely sign away to the executive power or to the military, so i would call for support of the amendment that will strike the provisions on keeping detainees indefinitely, particularly the fact that we could now for the first time send american citizens to prisons abroad. i think that is a grave danger

to our constitutional liberty, and i advise a vote to strike these provisions from the bill. thank you, mr. president. i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i listened to the discussion by senator rand paul and understand his theory. facts are stubborn things. 27% of those who have been released have been back in the fight. that's fact. that's fact. and some of them have assumed leadership positions of al qaeda. that's a fact. and if the senator from kentucky wants to have a situation prevail where people are released and go back in the fight and kill americans, that's his right, he is entitled to that opinion, but facts are stubborn things. the facts are 27% of detainees who are released went back into the fight to try to kill americans. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum.

mr. paul: mr. president, if i might have a moment to respond and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: does the senator withhold his quorum call? the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: with regard to releasing the prisoners, i'm not asking that we release them. i think there probably have been some mistakes of people who are let go. what i am asking for is only due process. we release some of those people without any kind of process in a flawed process, so we did make a mistake. due process doesn't mean and believing in the process doesn't mean necessarily that we would release these people. due process often convicts. jose padilla was given 17 years in prison with due process. so i don't think it necessarily follows that i'm arguing for releasing of prisoners. i'm just simply arguing that people, particularly american citizens in the united states, not be sent to a foreign prison without due process. mr. mccain: mr. president, in response to that, we're not asking they be sent to a foreign prison. what we're arguing is that they are designated as enemy

combatants. when they're enemy combatants, then they're subject to the rules and the laws of work. again, i point out the fact that there have been a number who have been released, who have reentered the fight. that kind of situation is not something that we want to prevail. so, i mean, as i said, facts are stubborn things. they are designated as enemy combatants and will be treated as such during the period -- mr. paul: will the senator yield for a question? mr. mccain: yes. mr. paul: my question would be under the provisions, would it be possible that an american citizen could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to guantanamo bay and detained indefinitely? mr. mccain: i think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the united states of america should not be allowed to

continue that threat. and i think that's the majority of american public opinion, especially in light of the facts that i continue to repeat to the senator from kentucky. 27% of detainees who were released got back in the fight and were responsible for the deaths of americans. we need to take every step necessary to prevent that from happening. that's for the safety and security of the men and women who are out there putting their lives on the line in our armed services. mr. president, i suggest the mr. president, i suggest the >> debate on the senate floor from earlier today. just a portion of what senators spent most the day on. will have more of that later on the c-span network. live picture from capitol hill where senate lawmakers are expected to brief reporters following their weekly party lunches. as we heard on the senate floor earlier today, the senators have been working on defense policy programs and policy for fiscal

year 2012 focusing most on the amendment by colorado democrat senator mark yudof and would remove detainee provisions from the bill and require congressional hearings with pentagon officials and administration on how to handle terrorism suspects. a vote is expected this afternoon shortly after senators return from their party lunches right around 2:15 eastern. we could see a vote on the defense program bill itself sometime tomorrow. a vote to limit debate and move forward on the bill requires 60 votes, 270 and amendments to that $652 billion measure has been filed so far. while we wait, the houses back from their thanksgiving break today. they gaveled in a short time ago. coming up at 4 p.m. we're expecting for bills debated earlier. bills to allow more skilled foreign workers into the u.s., bankruptcy protection, the national guard and reservists getting military priority in

getting through airport screenings and a number of changes to federal workers disability compensation. votes are set for 6:30 p.m. eastern. you can see live coverage of the house on a companion network, c-span. coming up later, steps to unionize a workplace in the presidential election campaign fund and a couple of bills aimed at reducing federal regulations especially on small businesses. you can see the house live right now on c-span. and, of course, the senate here on c-span2. they are expected to gaveled back in just a couple moments. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> while the wait for set lawmakers to appear on capitol hill, the hill is reporting that senate democrats are planning to move 1 trillion-dollar on the next month. an article by alexander bolton. offering that it is a strategy that will spark a backlash that tea party conservatives. majority leader harry reid and other democratic leaders would likely be forced to accept another long stop spending measure. the risk the government shut down when funding runs out december 17. during a conference call with

reporters yesterday, senator reid said there's not enough time to pass the spending bill individually or in smaller packages known as many buses. tea party affiliate conservatives say they will do everything they can to blow up the bill, even the gop leaders agreed in august to funding levels for fiscal 2012 and 2013. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we are waiting for senate

republican lawmakers to come to the microphone to make remarks followed their weekly party lunches. we will record of those remarks and bring them to you later here on the c-span networks. we are leaving the scene right now as the senate is about to gaveled back in following their party lunches. when they returned they will continue work on fiscal year 2012 defense programs. this is live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. in my capacity as senator from virginia, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings

under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent there be two minutes for debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the udall of colorado amendment 1107. that upon the use or yielding back of time, the senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment with no amendments in order prior to the vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. udall: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. amendment strikes theent, this ntroversial detainee provisions that have been inserted into the national defense authorization act and would require that our defense intelligence and law enforcement agencies report to congress with recommendations for any additional authorities they need in order to detain and prosecute terrorists. the amendment would then ask for hearings to be held so we can fully understands the opposition to these -- fully understand the opposition to these provisions by our national security experts, bipartisan opposition, i might add, and hopefully avoid a veto of the defense authorization bill. mr. president, in short, we're ignoring the advice and the input of the director of the

f.b.i., the director of our intelligence community, the director -- i should say the attorney general of the united states, the secretary of defense, and the white house, who are all saying there are significant concerns with these provisions, that we ought to move slowly. we've been successful in prosecuting over 300 terrorists through our civil justice syst system. let's not fix what isn't broken until we fully understand the ramifications. reserve the balance of my time. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i'll yield 30 seconds to senator graham. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: section 1031 is a congressional statement of authority of already existing law. it reaffirms the fact that this body believes al qaeda and affiliated groups are a military threat to the united states and they can be held under the law of war indefinitely to make sure we find out what they're up to and can be questioned in a humane manner consistent with law of war. 1032 says if you're captured on the homeland, you'll be held in

military custody so we can gather intelligence. that provision can be waived if it interferes with the investigation. these are needed changes. these are changes that re -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the senator from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: mr. president, the supreme court has recently ruled the following. that there is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. this is the supreme court speaking. "a citizen no less than an alien can be part of the supporting forces hostile to the united states. and such a citizen, if released, would pose the same threat of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict." that's the supreme court's statement. we can and must deal with an al qaeda threat. question do it properly -- we can do it properly. the administration helped to draft almost all of this bill. the provisions -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. levin: -- which would be

struck strike provisions which even the administration has helped to draft. and so i would hope that we would deal with the al qaeda threat in an appropriate way, in a bipartisan way. the committee voted overwhelmingly for this language and i yield the balance of my time. mr. udall: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. udall: how much time do i have remaining? the presiding officer: three seconds. mr. udall: the director of the f.b.i., the secretary of defense, it is attorney general and the director of our intelligence have all said let's go slow, pass the udall amendment. the presiding officer: all time has expired. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any members wishing to vote or change his or her vote?

there being none, the ayes are 37. the nays are 61. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. levin: move to reconsider that. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, senator mccain -- if i could have senator mccain's attention just for one second as well. what we're trying to do next is to move to two amendments if we can, both of which are on the pending list. they're next on the pending list. one is the paul amendment number 1064, repealing the authorization of military force against aircraft. the -- military force against iraq. the second one is not directly

after his but follows after two feinstein amendments. senator feinstein told me she couldn't be here this early afternoon, in any event. i told her if hers can be made part of a unanimous consent agreement that could be coming later. in any event, this afternoon we have other things we can do. the second amendment which would be on this list is another nongermane amendment, this one of senator landrieu, number 1115, i believe. it could be 3. is' the -- it's the s.b.i. -- it's 1115 relative to a small business research grant. what we're trying to do is work out a unanimous consent agreement. there will be 60-vote thresholds on those two amendments. neither one of them, i believe, are germane. and as part of that agreement, we would also next move to

approximately 40 cleared amendments which we would then ask that be passed as cleared. that would all be part of a unanimous consent agreement which we are currently drafting. so i want to alert our colleagues. mr. mccain: could i just add, also there is an agreement for the benefit of our colleagues, a half-hour time agreement on the paul amendment; he would agree to that. i'm sure that senator landrieu would agree to a short time agreement on her amendment. mr. levin: she told me that that would be okay. when we prepare our unanimous consent agreement, we'll double check that. so that is where we stand. we hope the next few minutes to be able to bring to the body a unanimous consent agreement. in the meantime, unless there is someone else who seeks recognition, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. president.

mr. president, over here. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: i have cleared with senator levin to be able to speak about a topic but not offer an amendment. i understand we're working on a unanimous consent. i do have an amendment that at the appropriate time hopefully will be brought up, but i want to discuss it now, and i think it's a -- it's a way for us to save $1.1 billion over the next five years in the defense department, give children of on-base military schools a better education, help the local

school districts through impact aid by $12,000 per student per year and actually do what we're intending to do in terms of the education. we have 64 schools right now on 18 military bases within the united states. there is 26,000 students taught by 2,300 teachers. that's one teacher for every 11 students. the average cost per student per year is $51,000 per year in a military school. $51,000. that's 250% higher than the highest cost district anywhere in the united states. two and a half times. and what this amendment does is say let's use local schools, let's help local schools for these military bases and let's give an exemption if we need to

if it's not available. if we were to do that, three positive things would happen. the first one is probably a better education, according to the teachers, conditions are so bad that some of the educators of base schools in the civilian schools off base which admittedly have their own challenges. some of the new schools in town make our school look like a prison, said david primer who uses a trailer as a classroom to teach students german at marine headquarters in quantico, virginia. in other words, what they are looking at, what they are doing and for the cost of it, the value can be higher. that's number one. the second thing it will do is help the local school districts because they will not only get impact aid but they will be given up to $12,000 per year per student off of a military base. and then finally, the third thing it will do, over the next five years, will save

$220 million out of the military's budget that they won't be spending. that's after the $12,000 and the impact aid. so it's a way to save $1.1 billion, give a better education with better facilities to the children of our military service basin in these 26,000 students, 16 military installations. it's a win-win-win, and my hope is that we will be able to call up this amendment and make it pending in the future. thank you, and i would yield the floor and notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: he

senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i had a number of amendments that i was just wanting to discuss, unless the -- the chairman is planning to -- mr. levin: mr. president, it would be fine to discuss the amendments without attempting to offer any amendment. mr. inhofe: that's not my intention. i just wanted to talk about some of these. mr. levin: if i could ask my friend about how long. mr. inhofe: until you're ready to talk. mr. levin: that sounds good. mr. inhofe: there are a number of amendments that probably will not come up but they should have. we talked about this some time ago, the federal aviation administration came up with a change for their sub s

nonscheduled carriers that is going to make them comply with certain of the wage and hour -- crew rest requirements. here's the problem that we have: about 95% of the passengers that go in -- this is our troops -- go into afghanistan today are carried by nonscheduled airlines as opposed to military. and about 40% of the cargo that's going in. now, the problem we have is with the 15-hour restrictions on crew rest they're unable to bring them in, leave them there and then go back to their point of origin someplace in germany without exceeding that 15-hour limitation. and the only other choice they'd have would be to leave them in afghanistan which they can't do because that's a war zone. so it's -- i want to have a way of working this thing out so that we can -- and we want to pursue this because the -- the

carriers understand what the problem is, and these are the nonscheduled carriers. so it's something that i think is very significant and we need to be addressing it. another issue is, the group that is the joint and improvised explosive device defeat organization, they've done great jobs in their technology and stopping the various technologies, the i.d.'s that have been killing and causing damage to our troops and to our allies. and the problem that we have is, it is set up just for the iraq and afghanistan. now, when everything is through in iraq and afghanistan, that might put them in a position where they would cease to exist yet the technology and what they're doing right now is useful here in the united states even though it's not designed by the legislature to do that. this is something that can be -- i believe can be

corrected. another area that needs to be addressed and i've got some ideas and this is one by like to get in the queue, it is not pending at this time so there is a little bit of a problem there, but it might be something that can be addressed in conference and that is the military bases should be able to benefit from production of domestic energy and resources on those bases. in the case of mcalister depot, they could vertically go -- horizontal think drill and come out come out with pretty good royalties that would otherwise go to the general fund or to the state of oklahoma. it's kind of divided in that way. the problem with this, there is a cost that's incurred by the military operation and we would need to have something that's going to allow them to receive the benefits of the -- of the production that takes place under the military installations through horizontal drilling.

i think everyone is for doing this but the problem is it could be scored in that if you took all of the be -- all of the existing production, that would be money that would not otherwise go to, to our general fund. what by propose is have this in the form of an amendment and then change it to say any operation that is -- from this point forward, that money, those royalties could go back to the -- back to the military base. because what we all agree on is we don't want our bases to have to foot the bill for these things that are taking place. the -- i had an amendment 1101 that would stop the transfer of the mc-12 i.s.r. aircraft from the air force to the army. it's something that is -- is pretty significant. we're talking about the -- the

reconnaissance, intelligence and reconnaissance and the mc-12-w is a c-12, and it's one that apparently the -- right now it's in the custody or under the jurisdiction of the air force, and this bill would change it from the air force to the army. well, neither the air force nor the army wants to make that change. and there ought to be a way to support -- to support that. the -- there are several other amendments that will be coming forward that will be offered, one i feel very strongly about is the sale of the f-16 c and d models to taiwan. and then lastly, i feel very strongly about this, back in 2007, we changed the --

the -- the commands to create africon. it was part of three commands, central command, pacific command and european command. well, it's such a significant in terms of the national security, in terms of our economy, and the activity that's going on there, on right now, for example ever since 9/11 we've been working with the africans to develop in africa or programs, our 1206 programs, our trainer equip programs and more recently we're involved in the l.r.a. issue in four countries in africa. well, there is an effort now to i think almost any member -- i guess i'd feel the same way -- to take that command, it's now in stuttgart, germany, and put it in texas or florida or someplace in the united states. and i think that that would be something that would be inure

maybe to the benefit of a member, a senator but on the other hand it would create certain problems. when the african command came into effect, and i think that's one of the few issues that i probably am more familiar with than most other members are, the obvious place would have been to have that command located in africa itself. and my choice at that time was ethiopia and i think there's a lot of justification for that. but they said because of the political problem, if you go back historically in africa and look at the colonialism, there is this thing embedded in the minds of people in africa thinking having a command, a united states command located in africa might revert back to some of the colonial days and that's the effort -- that's the concern that people had. so anyway, i thought it would have been better to have it in africa itself but because of this -- and, by the way, i've talked to many of the presidents

of countries over there. the president in tanzania, and the president in rwanda, and president kabila in congo. they say yeah, it would serve better to have that command located somewhere in africa but we have the political problem with the people who would think that's a move back toward colonialism. so it's a complicated problem. however i do believe that all of the generals pretty much feel that africon should stay where it is, at least stuttgart is in the same time zone, easier to transport equipment and people back and forth so i would oppose any amendments changing that situation. with that i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: llinois.

mr. kirk: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. kirk: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kirk: and unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kirk: mr. president, last week we celebrated thanksgiving, a time when we look back and give thanks for our blessings. we're all grateful for our family, our men and women in uniform, and those who also defend our nation in civilian life. i'm particularly thankful this year because one year ago today, i had the honor of my life to be sworn in as the newest junior senator for the state of illinois to complete senator oh balm ma's turn. -- senator obama's turn. and what a year it's been. come from the house of representatives, i had to adjust to the measured pace of the senate. while americans may have a dim view of what we do here, i remain an optimist. americans have always faced

tough challenges but then rose to the occasion more successfully than any other people in history. while i believe there is much more to do to reduce debt, repeal burdensome regulations and encourage job creation, i want to take >> few minutes to lay out what my team has accomplished -- take a few minutes to lay out what my team has accomplished for the state of illinois and the nation in one year. in my first 30 days in office, we moved three times, we hired a staff and then voted to prevent the largest tax increase in history. while congress extended tax relief for millions of americans in that legislation. we also worked to block the transfer of al qaeda terrorists from guantanamo bay to northwestern illinois. since then, congress enacted the budget control act mandating about $2 trillion in reduced federal borrowing over the next ten years, which, in my view, is only a first step in addressing washington's out-of-control spending.

no one here would say that we have come near to solving the problem, but i am heartened by the bipartisan and bicameral support of the gang of six proposal. and now with the probable support of 45 republican and democratic senators, i hope we will soon go big with their recommendations to find $4 trillion in savings. the congress approved three free trade agreements to boost u.s. exports to south korea, to colombia and panama, as both president obama and speaker boehner wanted. the action will open up markets for illinois farmers and boost exports from companies and employers like john deere in mow lean, caterpillar in peoria, a.d.m. in decatur, and navastar in suburban warrenville. congress repealed the onerous requirement mandated by the health care law that required small businesses to document all payments over a few hundred dollars. this absurd 1099 rule was the

first part of the health care law to be repealed. and it will soon be followed by the misnamed "class act" that even the obama administration appears to have canceled by executive action. additionally, congress reformed our patent system by moving to a first-to-file instead of a first-to-invent system. this signals to inventors that they should quickly file their inventions and allows us to innovate without endless and expensive litigation. along with that effort, the kirk amendment authorizing the patent office to have a small business fast lane became law. my office published a great lakes report card that gave our largest body of fresh water a "c" grade to draw attention to invasive species, to poor water quality and beach closures, demonstrating the need for our

legislation by myself and senator durbin to ban sewage dumping in the great lakes. to create more construction jobs in illinois, i introduced the lincoln legacy infrastructure development act which would unlock more than $100 billion in new revenue for roads, rail, transit and airports through more infrastructure funded by public-private partnerships. and i've since met with secretary lahood, chief of staff daly and house chairman mica as a way to advance this legislation to restart our economy. we've also had an active year in protecting our allies and america's interests overseas. on the floor, today we may consider the menendez-kirk amendment pending to the defense authorization act, which would impose crippling sanctions on the central bank of iran. this is a result of a collaborative effort involving 92 senators who signed the schumer-kirk letter calling for the u.s. to collapse iran's

terror sponsoring bank. in may, senator gillibrand and i introduced the iran human rights and democracy promotion act which establishes a special representative on human rights and democracy in iran, imposing sanctions on companies that sell or service products that enable the iranian regime to oppress its people. it would require a comprehensive strategy to promote internet freedom in iran and reauthorize the iran freedom support act. the bill is now part of the irairan, syria, and north korea sanctions consolidation act. in february, the senate passed a kirk resolution condemning human rights abuses in iran and we founded the iranian human righ rights -- the iranian dissident awareness program to make dissidents like hussein rinagi melaki, a blogger and human rights activist and nasran sutatai, a lawyer and human rights activist household names now in america. we also fought for strict assurances that data collected from our new x-band radar in

turkey would be shared with our allies in israel. in total, my office introduced 18 bills and resolutions and 11 amendments. we cosponsored 132 pieces of legislation. also, i'm a member of four committees that have held more than 130 hearings and markups. this year we worked on the reform of no child left behind and those reforms passed the committee with bipartisan support. we also worked on legislation regarding flood insurance and funding bills under the appropriations committee. now, most americans who watch cable news think that all democrats and all republicans may hate each other. while congress has grown more partisan, i'm particularly proud of the bipartisan partnership as that we've fostered in such a short time. i have continued a long-standing battle against the corrupt sugar program by working with senator shaheen of new hampshire on s. 25, the stop unfair giveaways

and restrictions act, the sugar act of 2011, which would eliminate sugar price supports and increase costs for consumers that destroy american manufacturing jobs. senator wyden and i introduced legislation targeting more than $60 billion in medicare fraud every year by issuing new identity theft-proof medical i.d. cards offering the same i.d. card protection that our troops have for our seniors. i also joined senator wyden on his effort to ensure your constitutional rights are protected with regard to your g.p.s. data and cell phone and other location information. senator casey and i worked together on antibullying legislation, to keep our kids safe at school. and i joined senator whitehouse in an effort to criminalize the pointing of lasers against civil aircraft to keep that industry safe. in my capacity as the top republican member of the military construction and

veterans affairs appropriations committee, we worked across the aisle with chairman tim johnson to pass the first stand-alone appropriations bill out of the senate since 2009. and since then, we broke the logjam on appropriations bills, and i hope to quickly complete that legislation. i'd especially like to recognize one of my best friends in the senate, senator joe manchin of west virginia, for our collaborative effort on many issues, the latest being a bipartisan resolution calling for the congress to go big on deficit reduction. when we first came to the senate together, we saw that there were few opportunities for republicans and democrats to interact outside the senate floor. it's why we began to have an open lunch together each thursday instead of the regularly scheduled partisan lunches to discuss ways to bridge the political divide in the senate and in washington. i'd also like to highlight the partnership that i developed with my senior senator from the state of illinois.

while we may not see eye to eye on many issues, senator durbin and i have worked closely on a whole host of issues for illinois. following in the footsteps of the late senator paul simon, senator durbin and i have now held more than 25 joint constituent coffees here in washington. it's like a town hall meeting, where we talk with illinois families about what is going on at home and in the congress. in march, senator durbin and i worked with secretary of transportation ray lahood to help the city of chicago, american and united airlines to come to agreement to keep the o'hare modernization program moving forward. this is the single greatest job creation program in northern illinois, and the agreement that we helped foster keeps thousands at work at o'hare. we've worked closely to bring high-speed rail to the state of illinois, and together introduced legislation to expand charter schools, to improve access to epi pens at school for

children with severe allergies, and to ensure military families in north chicago continue to receive their federal education assistance. we fought to open a new federal prison in thompson, illinois, but without al qaeda detainees to create jobs in northwestern illinois and address also flooding issues in southern illinois and levee rehabilitation in the metro east area. we have also successfully confirmed four new judges for central and northern illinois and have an additional two nominations -- one democrat, one republican -- pending. but legislation is not all that we do here. in my opinion, one of the most important things a member of congress can focus on is constituent service. we formed advisory boards for african-americans, latinos, small business, agriculture, health care, education, and students. since i first came to the house of representatives in 2001, i worked diligently as an advocate for illinois before the federal government.

in one year now, my staff has held more than 3,400 -- 3,440 meetings with constituents and other officials and dignitaries. to be as successful as possible, i have visited 50 out of illinois's 102 counties and held 20 town hall meetings throughout the state. this month, my successor in the house of representatives, congressman bob dole, and i held the first-ever live facebook town hall meeting and answered questions we received via the social networking site and twitter. my office has arranged 340 capitol and white house tours for approximately 2,800 constituents. we received more than 85,000 phone calls and responded to 66,000 letters and e-mails. we've helped more than 4,000 constituents with casework details before the government and written more than 200 letters in support of illinois towns, counties, and organizations for federal grants. i've convened eight constituent advisory boards and met a total of 18 times.

my office helped to process 122 passports and assisted 750 veterans in their concerns before the v.a. we've accomplished quite a bit this year and i remain optimistic about the long-term future of our nation. we can outinnovate and outproduce any nation on the planet if we create an environment that supports full job creation. but there's still a lot of work to do. the illinois unemployment rate stands at over 10%, and it seems like each day we hear of a new company thinking of leaving our state. the health care law threatens to -- threatens a further drag on our economy and we face a sovereign debt crisis in europe and fears of future credit deuations for the united states. the u.s. continues to pursue enemies of freedom from iraq and afghanistan and iran continues its effort to develop nuclear weapons. protests are continuing in egypt, civil unrest in syria and piracy remains a concern over

the coast of comallia. i will spend the next five years making sure that america remains the best place on earth for any individual to rise to their full potential, a place where your rights are protected against the government, whose main mission should be to defend us and to foster higher incomes for our families. in these battles i will advance the interests of the state of illinois, as the job engine at the center of the north american economy, the protecter of the lake michigan and mississippi ecosystems, and the special place that sent abraham lincoln and hopefully future link consequence for national leadership when america needs it most. of course my heart and soul will always be with the troops, their care, their mission, their spirit of defending a place that is the greatest force for human freedom and dignity ever designed. i'm truly grateful for the opportunity to serve my nation

twice in the navy and in the senate. i thank the people of illinois for the first year in the senate and for the even bigger things that we will do together over the years to come. with that, mr. president, i yield back and would 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 minnesota is recognized. mr. franken: yes, i would ask that the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: thank you, mr. president. i have offered two amendments -- i have filed two amendments i'd like t to offer at some time, bt i'd like to talk to them now. i am strongly opposed to the detention provisions in the defense bill before us, and i'm disappointed that senator udall's amendment did not pass. taken together, sections 1031 and 1032 would fundamentally alter how we investigate, arrest, and detain individuals

suspected of terrorism. when i say "senator udall," i mean the other senator udall, mr. president. before i get into the details of why i oppose these detainee provisions, i think it's important to recognize that september 11, irreis recognizably and unalterably, changed our lives. i was in minnesota that terrible day. a number of minnesotans died in the towers, in the air, and at the pentagon. in new york in the months following the attacks, i attend the funerals of those who sacrificed their lives to help rescue folks from the towers. i can't shake those images from my mind. i'm guessing, like many of you, i won't ever be able to erase the horrors of september 11 from my mind.

september 11 reminded us that we are vulnerable and that we are fighting an unusual enemy that forces us to reassess our approach to counterterrorism and has forced us to redouble our forts to track down people -- forced us to track down people aiming to do us harm. but it is exactly in these difficult moments in these periods of war when our country is under attack when we must be doubly vigilant about protecting what makes us americans. the founders who crafted our constitution and bill of rights would carefully craft a constitution of limited powers, one that would protect americans' freedoms and liberty at all times, both in war and in peace. today, as we contemplate fundamentally altering the criminal justice system our founders developed in order to create a military detention

system, a system that would permit the indefinite detention of u.s. citizens and lawful residents of the united states for acts committed here in the united states, i think -- i think it is important to pause and remember some of the mistakes that this country has made when we have been fearful of enemy attack. most notably, we made a grave and indefensible mistake during world war i i when president roosevelt ordered the incarceration of more than 110,000 people of japanese origin as well as as approximately 11,000 german-americans and 3,000 italian-americans. there is a memorial right across the street from the capitol that should remind us all of this terrible mistake. in 1971 president richard nixon

signed into law the nondetention act to make sure that the u.s. government would never subject any americans to the unnecessary and unjustifiable imprisonment that so many japanese-americans, german manufacture americans, and italian manufacture americans had to endure. it wasn't until 1988, 46 years after the internment, that president reagan signed the civil liberties act, that the government formally acknowledged and apologized for the grave i injustice -- the grave injustice that was done to citizens and permanent residents of japanese an ssesstory. -- ancestry. these were dark periods in american history and it is easy standing here today to tha think that that is all behind us, that it is a distant memory. but i fear that the detention provisions in this bill forget the lessons we learned from the mistakes we made when we

interned thousands of japanese, germans or italians or when we destroyed the lives of supposed communist sympathizers withary a shred of innocence or guilt. the justice department made extraordinary use of its powers to detained and arrest individuals. we arrested hundreds of people for alleged immigration violations and a dozen more under a material witness statute. none of these individuals were charged with a crime. and all of this happened without the military detention provision in this bill. this was l also a mistake and one that should not be repeated. but if we pass the defense authorization with section 1031, congress will, according to the arguments that were made on the floor last wreak, for the first time in 60 years authorize the indeavor knit detention of u.s. citizens without trial, without

charge and without trial. this would be the first time that congress has deviated from president nixon's nondetention act and what we are talking about here is that americans could be subjected to life imprisonment. think about that for just a moment. life imprisonment without ever being charged. -- or tried or convicted of a crime, without ever having an opportunity to prove your innocence to a judge or a jury of your peers and without the government ever having to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. life imprisonment. i think that denigrates the very foundation of this country, it denigrates ther bill of rights, it deny greats what our founders intended when they created a civilian nonmilitary justice system for trying and punishing

people for crimes committed on u.s. soil. our founders were fearful of the military and they purposely create add system of checks and balances to ensure that we did not become a country under military rule. and if this bill passes, the supreme court should find these detention provisions unconstitutional. but let's put that a. side for now and focus on what we are currently doing right to fight terrorism because we are doing a heck of a lot of great things when it comes to our national security. i think we actually need to remember that. and we need to remember that we are winning the fight against terrorists, without trampling on our constitutional rights. just last may, under the tremendous leadership of president obama and secretary panetta -- then head of the c.i.a. -- we hunted down and

killed osama bin laden. a few days ago "the washington post" reported that al qaeda -- the al qaeda corps has contracted and weakened since then, and it's leadership ranks have been reduced to two membe members. to be sure, that does not mean that al qaeda is no longer a threat. particularly coming from groups outside of its core. but it's a remarkable achievement nevertheless. our current counterterrorism strategy is not broken. indeed, just the opposite is true. we are winning the war against al qaeda. there is no indication -- none -- that we need to fundamentally alter our approach to locating terrorists here or overseas. under director mueller's leadership, the f.b.i. has turned itself inside out and over the last ten years since september 11, it has been an

intelligence-gathering counterterrorism machine. i can't say that i have always agreed 100% with 100% of the f.b.i.'s tactics and there are times when i worry that they may be overstepping. but, make no mistake, if our goal hunting down the bad guys, the f.b.i. knows what they're doing. there is no reason to think we need to change course and create an entirely new system that would completely supplant the resources and expertise of the f.b.i. for those who would argue that we need to shift these people out of our civilian criminal justice system and away from article 3 courts and into the military system, i just have to ask, why? where is the sign that we have a problem that needs fixing? there is no reason to think we

need to create an entirely different framework for a problem we have been dealing with for centuries. this enemy is not so different that we need to upend our criminal justice system. mr. president, i think this is a solution in search of a problem. there's no need to go down this path. we should focus on doing what is best for this nation and what is best for protecting americans. we should be working together on this, not coming up with additional ways to divide and polarize this country. that's why when the secretary of defense, the director of national intelligence and the director of the f.b.i. express serious concerns about these provisions, and when the president's top counterterrorism add advisor, john brennan,

complains these provisions will make it even harder for them to locate and detain terrorists in the united states and overseas, we should probably listen to them. section 1031 runs the risk of authorizing the indefinite detention without trial of americans. section 1032 is unnecessary and complicates our counterterrorism policy. they're bad policy. in short, these provisions should not be passed. they are not well-considered counterterrorism policy. and they would authorize poorly understood and deeply troubling policies. that's why i've put forward amendments that would strike each of these two sections. that's why i cosponsored senator mark udall's amendment, the presiding officer's cousin.

that's why i cosponsored his amendment and would be happy to cosponsor amendments from the presiding officer as well. but that's why i sponsored his, mark udall's amendment, that would have sent these matters back to the administration and the relevant committees of congress for the full consideration, discussion and the debate that they deserve. our national security and our freedom require nothing less. mr. president, i thank you, and i yield the floor and would 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 california is recognized. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, if i understand the procedure right now -- the senate -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. fine i ask the -- mrs. feinstein: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i would like to take the opportunity to speak about my two amendments at this time. i trust that's in order.

the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much. mr. president, i rise to express my continued opposition to the detention provisions in the defense authorization bill. mr. president, i was on the intelligence committee prior to 9/11, and i've watched the transition since that time, and i've watched america, to use a phrase, get its act together. and i am very proud of where this country stands at this time, with the procedures, the interrogation techniques, the custody issues and the prosecution issues that have been worked out in the last ten years. in my judgment, this country is safer than we have ever been before. before the recess, i laid out my views on why these provisions were detrimental to national

security, because they reduce the president's flexibility to make decisions, how best to detain and potentially interrogate and prosecute suspected terrorists. so today i'd like to speak to the two amendments i have filed, and i'll describe them in a moment. let me also put in the record two letters in opposition to the detention provisions in the underlying bill. one written to me from the director of national intelligence, james clapper. the second written yesterday to chairman levin from bob mueller, the director of the f.b.i. these letters are in addition to the statement of administration policy which includes a veto threat to the detention provisions and the letter from the secretary of defense, leon panetta, both of which are already in the record. so i note, mr. president, that the provisions in the bill we are considering are opposed by the white house, by the

secretary of defense, the director of national intelligence, and the director of the f.b.i. these top national security tperbls are all -- security officials are all concerned that the bill reduces the administration's flexibility to combat terrorism both at home and abroad, and i would agree with that. i will ask at the appropriate time for a vote on amendment number 1125, which will limit mandatory military custody to terrorists captured outside the united states. this is a very simple amendment that only adds one word, and that one word is abroad to section 1032 of the underlying bill. currently, this bill creates a presumption that members are parts of al qaeda or associated

forces will be held in the military detention system, and i disagree with that approach. i believe that the president should have the flexibility to hold captured terrorists in the military or the criminal justice systems, and the decision of which system to use should be made on individual facts and evidence in each case. putting aside that general view, i am very concerned that creating a presumption for military custody, which this bill does, and requiring a cumbersome waiver process will jeopardize counterterrorism cases and intelligence gathering. this concern is not only mine. it has been raised by the white house, by secretary panetta, and very directly by director mueller. so my amendment would clarify the situation and refuse the confusion and delay that this

bill, i believe, will cause. my amendment will make clear that under section 1032 of this bill, the united states armed forces are only required to hold a suspected terrorist in military custody when that individual is captured abroad. all that amendment does is add that one word abroad to make clear that the military will not be roaming our streets or looking for suspected terrorists. my amendment does not remove the president's ability to use the option of military detention or prosecution inside the united states. the amendment makes clear that inside the united states there is no presumption for military custody. inside the united states, a customs agent or local law enforcement officer could follow his or her standard process and

turn a suspected terrorist over to the f.b.i. for handling without having to worry about whether a waiver may apply or whether it is required. the f.b.i. has changed. there are 56 field offices, there is a national security branch, and it is staffed with 10,000 people. inside the united states, the f.b.i. is well equipped to handle a terrorist inside the united states. listen to what director mueller wrote. he notes, and i quote -- "the legislation introduces a substantial element of uncertainty as to what procedures are to be followed at perhaps the most critical time in the development of an investigation." now, i understand that the chairman and ranking member of the armed services committee have included a waiver and have

required that the administration issue procedures to lay out how the mandatory military custody provision will be carried out, but the administration is telling us with a unanimous voice from all its senior counterterrorism officials that this provision is harmful and unnecessary, but we say we know better. i don't believe we do know better, and i think not to listen to those who are really responsible to carry out these missions in what is a very difficult field today based on a careful assessment of intelligence is really a mistake. the administration has threatened to veto this bill and said, and i quote -- "it strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032." end quote, in its official

statement of administration policy, because it would, and i quote -- "tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals." so here are the experts saying don't do this, it will tie our hands, and here's the political branch saying we know better. now, if something had gone wrong, if there had been mistakes, if there hadn't been 300 cases tried successfully in civilian federal courts and six cases and a muffed history of military prosecution in these cases, i might agree, but the march is on. militarize this thing from stem to stern, and i really disagree with that. when something isn't broke, don't fix it, and now there are rapid reaction forces in terms

of h.i.g. numbers who can go to an event, who can rapidly take over a suspect, who can carry out proper and effective intirgation, and the -- interrogation, and the administration has an opportunity to say aha. well, the facts and the evidence really best suited for a civil federal prosecution, or the facts and the evidence really best suited for a military commission. that's what we're taking away from the administration. it was well practiced during the bush presidency, and it has been well practiced by the obama presidency and virtually every professional organization connected to the handling of terrorists and the intelligence thereof says to change it is a mistake. so the amendment i'm offering limiting mandatory military custody to detainees outside the

united states is, i believe, a major improvement in the underlying bill. it removes the uncertainty that will occur if military custody is required for detainees captured inside the united states. frankly, i would prefer that the provision be struck in its entirety as i don't believe we should be creating a presumption of military custody over the law enforcement route. that's not what this country is about. you know, there is posse comitatus, the military aren't supposed to be doing these things. but if there is going to be a provision, it should at least do no harm to our ability to detain, to interrogate and prosecute terrorists. so i ask for my colleagues' support on this amendment. while i'm on the floor, mr. president, i'd like to speak briefly to the second amendment i have filed and which i also --

in which i also seek a vote since the udall amendment has failed. that is amendment number 1126 which would prohibit the united states citizens from being held in indefinite detention without trial or charge. as members know, section 1031 of the underlying bill updates and restates the authorization for the use of military force that was passed on september 18, 2001, ten years ago, one week after the attacks of 9/11. the provision updates the authority to detain terrorists who seek to harm the united states, an authority that i believe is consistent with the laws of armed conflict. however, i strongly believe that the united states government should not have the ability to lock away its citizens for years

and perhaps decades without charging them and providing a heightened level of due process. we don't pick up citizens, we don't incarcerate them for ten or 15 or 20 years or until hostilities end and no one knows when they will end without giving them due process of law. so my amendment simply adds the following language to section 1031 of the underlying bill. we would add this language -- "the authority described in this section for the armed forces of the united states could detain a person does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the united states without trial until the end of who is tilts."

it's hard for me to understand any member of this body that knows and respects the constitution wouldn't vote for this, because without this amendment, congress is essentially authorizing the indefinite imprisonment of american citizens without charge or trial. as i said on the floor earlier, 40 years ago, congress passed the nondetention act of 1971 that expressed the will of congress and the president of america that america would never repeat the japanese-american internment experience, something that i witnessed as a child close up and personal, and would never subject any other american to indefinite detention without charge or trial. in the 40 years since president

richard nixon signed the nondetention act into law, congress has never made an exception to it. now, the issue here in this bill is this is the congress making an exception that has never been made before by the congress, and what we are saying is it is okay to detain an american citizen without trial ad infinitum. i don't think it is. i don't think that's what our constitution is all about. the provision in this bill threatens to do just that, and so i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a column published yesterday in the "san jose mercury news" of california from floyd morrie -- as a matter of fact, i know mr. morrie well.

he is the national executive director of the japanese-american citizens league, which is the oldest and largest asian american civil rights organization in the united states. the japanese-american citizens league or jacl, as we would say, has been an active voice on the wrongful internment of japanese americans during world war ii, and i believe it's worth listening to what they have observed from that painful history. the administration has threatened to veto this bill and said the following in its official statement of policy, and i quote -- "after a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, congress must be careful not to open a whole series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect this country." end quote. yet, by allowing the military to

detain united states citizens indefinitely, congress would be opening a great number of serious legal questions, in my judgment. this amendment would restore the language that was in an earlier version of this bill that would have established a similar ban on the indefinite detention of u.s. citizens. it is also consistent with the way we have conducted the war on terror in the past ten years. in cases where the united states has detained american citizens, including john walker lindh and jose padilla, they have eventually been transitioned from indefinite detention to the criminal justice system, and both have been convicted and are serving long prison sentences. john walker lindh pled guilty to terrorism charges and was given

a 20-year sentence, and jose padilla was convicted of terrorism conspiracy and sentenced to a 17-year prison sentence. so i believe this amendment is consistent with past practice and with traditional united states values of due process. we are not a nation that locks up its citizens without charge, prosecution and conviction. my amendment reflects that view. i believe in that view, and i hope this body does as well, so i urge its adoption. mr. president, in conclusion, i ask my colleagues' support on these amendments because i believe they will improve the legislation. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the secretary will call the roll.

quorum call: quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the secretary -- pardon me, the senator from montana.

mr. tester: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: it's good to see you in the chair. i'm going to rise to speak on amendment s. -- senate amendment s. 1145 and this amendment i cannot call up at this point in time but hopefully at some time during this debate we can deal with this issue of foreign base closures which is what senate amendment 1145 does. i've offered long with my colleague from texas, senator hutchison to establish an overseas base closing commission. we're joined by senators conrad, white and sanders. this commission would be charged with saving taxpayer money by identifying and re-evaluating our overseas military base structure and investments. it's not a new discussion, this has been done before, in washington colleagues from both sides of the aisle have long advocated for issues similar to this one.

in montana senator mike mansfield, a personal hero of mine and one of the trusted statesmen of this body had advocated fiercely throughout his public service for more commonsense approach to our overseas military commitment. senator mansfield's approach balanced our national security interests and decisions -- with decisions and investments that made sense fiscally. the time could not be more appropriate to renew this call, given our budget outlook, we have an a responsibility to exhaustively look for savings across our government. we need to be smart and we need to work together. it makes a lot of sense to me that cutting overseas military construction projects that have minimal negative impacts on our national security and military readiness is the right thing to do. mr. president, we know that there's a significant higher cost associated with minimumtaining facilities and forces overseas particularly in europe than here at home in the united states. we also know that we need a more

complete picture of the cost, the benefits, and the savings associated with overseas basing as we make tough budgetary decisions. given our military's advanced capabilities, it is time for some responsible decisions about how to best secure our country while saving american taxpayers every penny that we possibly can. as moment families examine their bottom line and as the country works to cut spending, it's passed time to give our outdated military bases and installations a closer look. an overseas basing commission would independently address these issues firsthand and ensure military construction spending and operation and maintenance spending match our capabilities and our national security strategy. as we move forward, i hope we will do so and working in the spirit of senator mansfield by working together and my making commonsense decisions that keep us both safe and spend our

taxpayer dollars more wisely. mr. president, as i said when i opened these remarks, i think this is a no-brainer. we need to take a step back, look at the money we're spending on overseas bases, make sure we're getting the bang for the buck, make sure it meets our national security needs and with a lot of these post-world war ii installations they can be shut down, we can save some money and it's a win-win situation for everybody. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and 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 michigan. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings of the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i was listening in the cloakroom to senator tester's comments and i want to tell you how right on point he is in focusing on overseas bases and the need to close some of those bases. we have got a -- another defense bill coming up fairly soon. if we can't get something done on this bill, and i hope we can, whether it's the sense of the senate or otherwise, to put our focus there because we need to reduce our presence, particularly in those bases, i believe in europe where we simply no longer need those bases and cannot afford to maintain them. but whether we can get a commission done is a different issue because that could actually slow down the process to the appoint a brac type

commission and i wanted to comment while he was still on the floor i believe he is right, he's focused on something which is critically important for not just the armed services committee but for this senate to look at which is to look at the large number, the huge number of overseas facilities we have and the fact that there are many we no longer need and we've got to look there for some significant savings. i just want to commend the senator from montana. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i would like to thank chairman levin for his comments. i think that as we -- as we look for opportunities to save moneys, as we look for opportunities to focus in on the war on terror, i think that our time has come to -- to take a hard look at our overseas basing, and do things that quite frankly will enhance our opportunities to fight the war on terror while saving the taxpayers dollars over the short

term and the long haul. i want to thank chairman levin for his comments and with that i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will suspend. the senator from georgia. a senator: i ask unanimous consent to address the senate for five minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. isakson, judge i come to address this administration's pursuit of change in labor laws that have served the nation for 70 years. one thing that causes me one more time. a few days before thanksgiving the national labor relations board posted a notice they would meet 10:00 a.m. wednesday morning to discuss passing a rule that will change a 75-year press tent in labor law, that will reduce the time period between filing and a vote to as

little as 10 days. historically in our country it has been 38 days from the filing of a petition to the vote whether or not to organize. for no cause or reason other than unleveling the playing field, nlrb has decided to rush this rule through in an ambush type event. but if you pull the facts back, it's simply easy to see what's trying to happen. greg becker, who is on the national labor relations board as a recess appointment of the united states was denied approval in the confirmation process in the united states senate. the president chose to appoint him in a recess appointment which expires at the end of this december. therefore in the waning hours of his service on the board at a time in which the majority has a 2-1 vote, they're going to rush through a change and amendment to the labor laws of the united states of america that have served us for 70 years. it's not right, it's not fair, and in a time of high unemployment and dis23res stress in our economy is waste thing is to change the rules of the game that have served the country so

well. i will fire a warning shot also. i think something else is probably going to happen before the end of the year. there will probably be a posting of a rule to make microunionization possible. it's already been discussed by the nlrb where you could take separate departments in the same company and let them unionize one at a time. a home depot or a kroger grocery store, let the butchers unionize and the detergent salesmen unionize and the janitors unionize and the shop having 15, 20, 25 different union organizations in the same store. that's never been able to be possible and it's not right. it should be across the board within the company. i just come to the floor today to let everybody know at nlrb that i know what's going to happen tomorrow morning and i know it's a rush to judgment and it's a bad judgment and it's a mistake. we have great labor laws in this country, in fact, if you take this petition change from -- down to ten days, you're not recognizing the fact that of all the elections that have taken place in the last couple years

the unions have won 67% of the time. there is no problem with the organization laws and there's no reason to compress the time from the filing of the petition to the vote. fair is fair. a company that has an organization petition filed against it ought to have a reasonable period of time to assess the grievances that are advertised against them rather than compressing the vote period and having a rush to judgment. so i hope tomorrow the nlrb will recognize their rush to judgment is wrong, it's not good goode for the country, not good for the economy or for the american people. i will oppose it and do oppose it today as i will oppose microunionization should they attempt to do the same thing before the year is out. i yield back my time and notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: