tensions between taiwan and china and also creates jobs here in america by facilitating foreign military sales of things made here in america by americans that we are going to stole people in other countries, our friends in other countries, for cash and doesn't cost taxpayers a penny. my amendment 1200 is pending before the senate, and i was pleased in introducing this amendment to be joined by several of my colleagues on a bipartisan basis: senator menendez from new jersey, senator inhofe from oklahoma, senator lieberman from connecticut, senator wyden from oregon, and senator blumenthal from connecticut. this amendment is straightforward and simple. it would require the president to carry out the sale of 66 f-16

c and d aircraft to taiwan. these are american-made fighters, our democratic ally inify wasn't has been trying to purchase -- in taiwan has been trying to purchase since 2507. that is win-win amendment. it reflects the right national security policy. it is good for american -- for our american economy and jobs. and we know that taiwan's air force continues to deteriorate. but first let me just remind my colleagues what taiwan is looking at in terms of the disparity in the combat aircraft between communist china and democratic taiwan. communist china has roughly 2,300 operational combat aircraft. our ally and friend, democratic taiwan has 490 operational combat aircraft. obviously a growing imbalance in the taiwan strait. but that only tells part of the story, because as my colleagues

also know, as this chart indicates, the incredible shrinking taiwan air force, that much of taiwan's combat aircraft are f-5 aircraft, which america has previously sold to taiwan but which are now becoming older and more obsolete as time goes by, as well as french mirage 2000 aircraft. as this chart indicates, roughly over 20-close to 20/20, maybe more, these aircraft are becoming obsolete. it exacerbates the disparity between communist china and our democratic ally taiwan. this f-16 sale would be an export-driven job machine for our country at a time when unemployment is at 9% and when the number-one issue on america's agenda is job

creation. people without jobs can't pay their mortgage and they lose their home due to foreclosure. why in the world, when this sale would support jobs in 32 different states and the district of columbia, would anyone object to this amendment? and, indeed, as i indicated, i believe there is strong bipartisan support for it. this sale would support more than 60 job years of employment, generate some $8.7 billion of economic output, and you know what? it would also generate $768 million in taxes for the federal government. as i indicated, taiwan's air force is facing a looming fighter shortfall, and the fact of the matter is, this falls squarely in congress's wheelhouse. the taiwan relations act that i referred to earlier, 1979,

signed by president jimmy carter with bipartisan support, requires the united states government to provide taiwan, our friend and ally, with the defense articles necessary for them to defend itself against communist chinese aggression, and it instructs the president and the congress to determine the nature and quantity of such defense articles based on their judgment of the needs of taiwan. 47 democrats and republicans in the united states senate -- almost half -- have signed a letter to the president of the united states supporting this sale. in the house of representatives, 181 democrats and republicans have signed a letter to the president supporting this sale. the senate, as you'll recall, madam president, in september previously voted on an amendment like this in the trade adjustment authority assistance bill, which ended up in a 48-48

tie. although the bill had strong bipartisan support, some of my colleagues said they preferred not to offer that amendment on that particular legislative vehicle but said that if i came back on an appropriate legislative vehicle, they would support it. and if there's a more appropriate legislative vehicle than the defense authorization bill, i hope someone would point that out to me. this is the appropriate vehicle. this is the appropriate time. this is the right thing to do for job creation in america. it's the right thing to do in terms of our national security and stability in asia. and that's why i believe that this is an appropriate time for us to take up this amendment. i was advised, madam president, that -- by the parliamentarian postcloture that my original amendment as drafted would not be germane postcloture.

however, in consultation with the parliamentarian, we've come up with a technical modification which essentially would strike what i would call -- what are called the findings that would support the need for the legislation. but it would in essence strike the "a" section and the "b" section and leave only the "c" section remaining. this of course at this point in the proceedings would require unanimous consent, and in consultation with the -- with senator mccain, the ranking member of the senate armed services committee, i'm advised that our friends across the aisle will not grant unanimous consent for us to modify relately what is a technical modification for this amendment so we can get a vote on it. i realize at this point that we are in morning business, and it's not appropriate perhaps for me to ask unanimous consent, but i will ask unanimous consent at a later appropriate time.

and because i'd like to get an explanation from the distinguished chairman of the armed services committee why in the world -- why there would be an objection to a bill that enjoys such broad, bipartisan support on a clearly appropriate legislative vehicle. madam president, i do see the distinguished chairman on the floor, and so i would at this time, if it's -- if it's appropriate to ask unanimous consent to modify my pending amendment, to strike the findings under section "a" and under section "b" and to leave section "c" which is the state -- which states in full "sale of aircraft the president shall carry out the sale of no fewer than 66 multifighter aircraft to taiwan." we have been advised by the parliamentarian that that is indeed germane and would be eligible for a vote and with

that modification so i ask unanimous consent to so modify my amendment. mr. levin: madam president, reserving the right to object? the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president, this is objection en thi on thie and i will attempt to bring together senator cornyn with the objectors. but in my judgment, i object -- but, in the meantime, i object. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, i'm disappointmented but more than disappointed, i look forward 20 that explanation. i hope it will be -- there will be an opportunity to have a colloquy and a discussion here on the floor so the american people can see why when a piece of legislation that enjoys such broad bipartisan support can't even get a vote, when people watch what's happening in washington these day, i think they're tempted to avert their gaze because they ask the

question of me and i'm sure when, madam president, you're back in north carolina, people will say, why can't people get anything done? well, it's because, unfortunately, because of things like this. these are technical objections that are not based on the substance or the merits of the legislation. i respect the chairman of the armed services committee who says there is an objection on the democratic side and he is personally not making that objection but is on behalf of some unnamed other party. hypocrite that person will be -- i hope that person will be named. i hope they will come to the floor. i hope they will explain to the american people and to our democratic allies in taiwan why it is they object a vote on this amendment. i do believe that if we are able to get a vote on the defense authorization bill that this has a high likelihood of passage, and i think would send a strong message to our friends and allies around the twhoorld, yes, you can -- around the world

that, yes, you can count on your friend and ally, the united states of america. conversely, if we are thwarted in our amendment to try to get this amendment voted on and passed, then this will send a counterveiling message that you cannot depend on america, and it will embolden bullies around the world. mr. levin: madam president? the presiding officer: the sno senator from michigan. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of pending feinstein amendment number 1125, that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form. that upon the use or yielding back of tiernlg the senate proceed to vote in relation to the feinstein amendment with no amendments in order prior to the vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 1867, which the clerk will

report. the clerk: calendar number 230, s. 1867, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities for the department of defense, for military construction, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 30 minutes of debate under the feinstein amendment. the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, before we begin the debate, could i -- and would the senator from california -- and with the senator from california on the floor and the benefi for the ber colleagues and the chairman -- there are two pending feinstein amendments,cy and it. the senator has agreed to the half-hour, equally divided, as the chair just said. then, i understand the senator from california wants -- or would have agreed to the second amendment at 4:00 p.m. is that correct? so prior to that, i would ask my friend, the chairman, if we could have an hour starting at

3:00 of -- equally divided debate before the vote at 4:00 on the second feinstein amendment? mr. levin: reserving the right to object, i obviously don't intend to, i just want to -- i'm just wondering whether's whether or not the senator from california understands that the vote on the second feinstein amendment would be at 4:00 and that the debate would begin at 3:00 with that hour equally divided. mrs. feinstein: i do. i have a four corners meeting on the energy and waters appropriations bill. that's my problem. so the later it is, the better it is for me. mr. levin: so is a 4:00 vote after an hour of debate acceptable? mrs. feinstein: mind something that the house chairman only has -- my understanding is that the house chairman only has until 4:00, but i anticipate that we will take all that time. so i'll -- i can't change it now. mr. levin: is it agreeable

that there will be an hour of debate starting 359:00 with a vote scheduled at -- mrs. feinstein: yes, i'll do my best. mr. levin: i would also add to that there would be no second-degree amendments in order to the second feinstein amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, obviously we can call a vote at any particular time. so i would suggest again that we begin -- we try to dispose of other amendments after the vote on feinstein amendment and the - the first one -- and then we try to dispose of additional amendments between the disposition of the first feinstein raiment and the second. the disposition of the first feinstein amendment and the second one. with the time -- the hour of debate equally divided and senator feinstein --

mrs. feinstein: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much, madam president. i rise to ask my colleagues to support amendment number 1125

which will limit mandatory military custody to terrorists captured outside the united states. this amendment is cosponsored by senators reid, casey, shaheen, inouye -- excuse me, leahy, dur imine, udall, kirk, lee, harkin and webb. madam president, this is a very simple amendment. it adds only one word, the word "abroad," to section 1031 of the underlying bill. i strongly believe, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. and the ability to have maximum flexibility in the united states is very important, and i totally support the executive having that flexibility. this bill creates a presumption that members or parts of al qaeda or

associated forces will be held in the military system. and that's what concerns me, because the military system has not really produced very well over the last ten years. and i want to take a moment to contrast some cases. on this chart we have sentences, five of them, with military commissions, and five or six from federal courts. the federal courts have actually convicted over the last 10 or 11 years not 300 people but 400 people. military commissions are really limited to some six convictions. and let's take a look at what they are. a very sameous one was salim hamdan. he was bin laden's driver. he was acquitted of conspiracy,

only convicted of material support for terrorism and he received a five-month sentence by a military commission and was sent back to his home in yemen to serve time before being released in january of 2009. number two, david hicks entered into a plea on material support for terrorism, was given a nine-month sentence, mostly served back home in australia. omar khadr pled guilty in exchange for an eight-year sentence but he will likely be transferred to a canadian prison. ic a him ahmed mahmoud al-qosi pled guilty to conspiracy and material support to terrorism. his final sentence was two years pursuant to a plea deal. noor usman muhammad pled guilty to material support for terrorism. his final sentence will be less than three years pursuant to his plea agreement.

ali hamsa received a life sentence after he boycotted the entire commission process. on the other hand, you have sentences from the federal court. you have richard reid, the shoe bomber. life in prison. blind sheik omar abdel rahman, life in prison for the plot to bomb new york city. 20th hijacker zacarias moussaoui, life in prison. ramsey yousef, life in prison for the 1993 world trade center bombing and the manila air plot. umar farouk abdulmutallab, probably life in prison will be sentenced in january, 2012. and nazi bulla glazi who was going -- zazi who was going to

bomb the new york subway. there is definitive evidence that is irrefutable that the federal courts have done a much better job than the military commissions. why this constant press that if it's not broke, we're going to fix it anyway, i don't understand. why the constant push to put people in military custody rather than provide the flexibility so that evidence can be evaluated quickly, this person will get life in a federal court versus an inability or a problem in a military commission, or vice versa. i think the executive should have that. and i think the last ten years have clearly shown that this country is safer than it has ever been. terrorists are behind bars where they belong. and plots have been thwarted. so the system is working. this amendment would make clear that under section 1032, united

states armed forces are only required to hold a suspected terrorist in military custody when he is captured abroad. all that amendment does is add one word, and that's the word "abroad" to make clear that the military will not be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists. the amendment does not remove the president's ability to use the option of military detention or prosecution inside the united states. the administration has threatened to veto this bill, has said, and i quote, it strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, because it would tie the hands of intelligence and law enforcement professionals. perhaps most importantly, addressing the issue of this

amendment specifically on november 15, defense secretary leon panetta wrote this, and i quote -- "the failure of the revised text to clarify that section 1032 applies to individuals captured abroad may needlessly complicate efforts by front-line law enforcement professionals to collect critical intelligence concerning operations and activities within the united states. the director of national intelligence, jim clapper, also wrote a letter november 23 to say that he opposes the doirn provisions of this bill -- detainee provisions of this bill because they other could -- and i quote -- "restrict the ability of our nation's professionals to acquire valuable intelligence and prevent future attacks." the administration suggested this change to the armed services committee but it was rejected, and so the

administration has had to threaten a veto on the bill. i mean, who knows where they will? i certainly don't know. this amendment limiting mandatory military custody to detainees outside the united states is a major improvement to the bill. and i ask my colleagues to support it. i have a very hard time because i have watched detainees carefully as part of the senate intelligence committee, and we are doing a study on the detention and treatment of high-value detainees. this has been going on for two years now. it's going to be a 4,000-page document, and it's going to be classified, but it will document what was actually done with each of the high-value detainees and what was learned from them. and it shows some very

interesting things. but the upshot of all of this is that you -- we should keep military custody to people arrested abroad, and have the wide option in this country, which is this case now and not manned -- mandate, mandate, that military custody and military commission trial must be for everyone arrested in the united states. you will hear that anyone who comes to the united states, who carries out a criminal act, a terrorist act, under the laws of war really should be subject to military custody. the problem is, ten years of experience hasn't worked. how many years' experience do we

need? how many sentences -- six cases and this is all there is in ten years. i know the other side got question very upset when abdulmutallab was mirandized. the fact is every belief is abdulmutallab will do a life sentence, in a federal prison, put away in a place he cannot escape and where the treatment is very serious. i think -- i just have, again, a hard time knowing why if it's not broke, we need to fix it. and why we need to subject everybody that might be arrested in this country to a record that's like this. five-month sentence, nine-month sentence, eight-year sentence, two-year sentence, three years pursuant to a plea agreement, and one life sentence. when you have 400 cases that

have been disposed of in a prompt way in a federal court who are serving long sentences in federal prison. so i would like to hold the remainder of my time and have an opportunity to respond to the distinguished chairman and ranking member. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, i'd like to yield -- mr. levin: before the senator yields --. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i understand it is now preferable from our leader that the vote be at 2:00, not immediately following this half-hour of debate. mrs. feinstein: if that's possible, but it's what you want. okay, all right. mr. levin: so now if you would yield. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the vote which was previously scheduled at the end of the half-hour of debate on this amendment now be

reseld -- rescheduled for 2:00. the presiding officer: is there objection? seeing none, so ruled. mr. levin: relative to the time between that half-hour and 2:00, that time hopefully would be used, it will be by me for my remarks on this amendment, by the way, and -- because after the 30 minutes if it's used totally, i would want an opportunity to speak during that period of time as if necessary, in morning business. there are other amendments we believe can be voice voted during that period of time. i believe my friend from arizona would agree. so that time will be fruitfully used. but the time now is 2:00 for the vote on that first feinstein amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: the vote will be at 2:00. senators from new hampshire and south carolina would like to speak. i don't know if the chairman would like to be before or during that or in between.

but also, it does not change the agreement that we have which has not been agreed to but we have agreed we will attempt to have a vote on the second feinstein amendment at 4:00 still. is that correct? we will attempt to do that? mr. levin: that continues to be our intent. it was objected to before but we hope that objection will be removed. if not, if it's not removed, we just will have to have all these votes at the end of the day instead of during the day. mr. mccain: so beginning at 3:00 whether we have a unanimous consent agreement, because the feinstein amendment is very important. i would ask that informally if we do not have a unanimous consent agreement that we have an hour equally divided beginning at 3:00 so that we can debate the second feinstein amendment. in the meantime, as the chairman said, we will try to dispense with unanimous -- with voice votes and other agreed-upon amendments and

perhaps even a recorded vote if necessary on one of the amendments. i would just remind my colleagues that we run out of time at 6:00 this evening, and we'd we'd rather do it in a measured fashion, allowing debate before those recorded votes because those pending amendments will be voted on after 6:00 p.m. tonight. i hope that i didn't say anything the chairman doesn't agree with. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president, no, i agree with what the intent is here, we could hopefully could have an hour of debate starting at 3:00. we'll try to lock that in after giving folks notice. but if there is objection to votes before the time runs out, the 30-hour clock runs out, then we have to have all those votes after the 30-hour clock runs out and it doesn't make any sense to do that, but if there's going to be an objection, then that's the way it will have to be. what senator mccain is saying

and i totally agree with him, even if we put in that position and i hope we're not, at least we can use the time between now and then for debate on those amendments which we then have to vote on at a later time and i totally agree with my friend from arizona. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i yield seven minutes to the senator from new hampshire and sit minutes to the senator from south carolina. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you, madam president. i rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the senator from california, amendment 1125. and i would start with this: we've heard repeatedly not only from the senator from california but also from the senator from illinois about the number of cases in our civilian system where we've tried terrorists versus the number of military commissions. i think there's one thing that needs to be clarified up front here, that one of the first acts that the president took

when he came into office was to actually suspend all military commissions for about two years. so to compare the number of cases in our civilian system versus the number of military commission trials we've had is just a false comparison when we've suspended these trials for over two years. i just want to say that upfront that i think that the chart the senator shows actually misses the point of why we have this amendment before us and that is we need to gather intelligence. when we have captured a member of al qaeda who is planning an attack against the united states of america, the first goal has to be, obviously, getting that person away from where he can threaten us again, to kill americans, but also just as importantly, to gather intelligence to protect america.

the criminal justice system is set up to see that justice is served in a particular case not to see that we have the maximum tools in the hands of our intelligence officials to gather information, yet it seems to me that if you look in context of senator feinstein's amendment 1126 that we've already talked about on the floor, she wants to limit the administration. the case law of our supreme court that goes back to world war ii would take us before 9/11, and heaven forbid if we had an american citizen who was one of the participants in an incident like we had occur on our soil on 9/11, our military would not be permitted to hold that person and to question them to get the maximum amount of information and protect our country. and with respect to this amendment that she has pending before the committee -- excuse me, before the floor, 1125, i

just want to point out that the amendment would lead to a very, very absurd result. essentially, what it would say is if you are a member of al qaeda planning or committing an attack against the united states of america, a foreigner, and you make it to our soil, as the 9/11 conspirators did, who committed that horrible attack on our country, then you cannot be held in military custody, there's no mandatory military custody under those circumstances. yet we will hold you in mandatory military custody if you are found overseas. so in other words, please, their goal is, unfortunately, to come to the homeland, to come to our country to attack us here, and in our country, we need the authority to, in the first instance, the presumption should be to hold those individuals in military custody so that we

aren't reading them miranda rights. to tell a terrorist "you have the right to remain silent" is counter to what we need to do to protect americans and make sure that, for example, i will use the christmas day bomber as an example because it's been cited so many times here on this flo floor. that day when he was found on the plane, after 50 minutes of questioning, he was read his miranda rights and he invoked his miranda rights and remained silent. it was only five weeks later, after we tracked down his parents and convinced him to cooperate, that he actually provided more information. we are very fortunate that he was only involved in one event, that it wasn't a 9/11 type event where there were multiple events on american soil planned. but what if after that 50

minutes we waited five -- five weeks to get more information yet there had been more events coming that day? that is what is at issue here. and can you imagine that if we had caught -- let's bring ourselves back to september 11. what if we had caught one of those individuals who were on one of those planes before it took off on 9/11? and what if in that instance to say that we would not hold those members of al qaeda in military custody that instant to make sure that we could get the maximum amount of information from them to hopefully, god forbid, the lifting off of the other flights and what happened on that horrible day in our country's history. i have to believe that if we were standing here immediately after the events of 9/11, i do not think that we would be debating this amendment, deciding whether or not if you make it to our homeland, we will

not hold you in military custo custody, as the first instance, to find out how much information you have, to make sure that you are not part of multiple attacks on the united states of america. if the senator from california's amendment passes, what kind of message are we saying to members of al qaeda, foreigners who are planning attacks against the united states of america? we're -- we're laying out, unfortunately, in my view, a welcome mat to say, if you make it to america, you won't be held in military custody. but if you attack us overseas, then you will be held in military custody. why would we create a dual standard where we should be prioritizing protecting our homeland, protecting the united states of america? this leads to an absurd result, and i would hope that my colleagues would reject the senator's amendment to say that

only those members of al qaeda who don't make it to our homeland to attack us right here on our soil will be held in the first instance in mandatory military custody, because our goal has to be here to protect americans and to make sure that we don't create a dual standard where if you're lucky -- if you're captured over there, we're going to hold you in military custody, but if you're captured and you make it here, you're going to be getting greater rights, we'll treat you in the civilian system and we'll tell you, "you have the trite remain silent." we should not be telling terrorists they have the right to remain silent. we should be protecting americans. and if we were to pass this amendment, it would create an absurd standard, where you get greater rights when you are here on our soil. and i don't think that -- i think that makes us less safe and i would urge my colleagues to reject both of the senator's

amendments, both 1126 that would bring -- would deny the executive branch the authority to hold -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. ms. ayotte: i thank you, madam president. madam president, for this, and i would ask for 30 seconds just to wrap up, ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ayotte: thank you, madam president. i would ask my colleagues to reject 1126 as well, which would take us -- would take away the authority of the executive branch as allowed by our supreme court and would bring us back, would make us less safe in this country, as well as 1125. we have to protect america and make sure that we get the maximum information to prevent future attacks on this country. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mrs. feinstein: madam president, how much time -- the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: thank you. how much time do i have? the presiding officer: the senator has three minutes remaining of the original 30

minutes. mrs. feinstein: well, thank you, very much. mr. levin: would the senator withhold for one moment? mrs. feinstein: yes. well, not on my time on, your time. mr. levin: on my time. after the 30 minutes expires, because we're not going to have a vote now there, would be additional time should you need it after that 30-minute period. mrs. feinstein: thank you. i appreciate that. i may well use it. madam president, i really object to the statement just made that this will make the united states of america less safe. ten years of experience has seen this it has not. plot after plot after plot has been interrupted. i have served on the intelligence committee for 11 years now. we follow this closely. this country is much more safe because things have finally come together with a process that is working. the f.b.i. has a national security division with 10,000

people. there are 56 f.b.i. offices. military doesn't have offices to make arrests around this count country. and this constant push that everything has to be militarized. they were wrong on hamdi. they were wrong on homdon, and it is wrong. and i don't think that creates a good country. because we have values. and due process of law is one of those values. and so i object, i object to holding american citizens without trial. i do not believe that makes us more safe. and i object to saying that everything -- there's mandatory military commission and military custody if anyone from abrow commits a crime in this country. the administration has used th

the -- if anyone from abroad commits a crime in this country. the administration has used the flexibility in a way that they have won every single time. there have been no failures and that's unlike the bush administration as well, used the federal courts without failure. they have gotten convictions. the military commissions have failed essentially. six cases over 10, 11 years. and i -- i pointed out the sentences. so to say that what we're doing is to make this county less safe may be good for a 30-second sound bite but it is not the truth. i thank the chair. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: to my good friend from california, you are a patriot, you're here for all the right reasons. we just have a strong disagreement about where we stand as a nation.

nobody interrupted the christmas day blommer plo bomber plot. the people on the plane attacked the guy before he could blow it up. there was no f.b.i. agent there. there was no c.i.a. agent there. we were just lucky, thank god the passengers did it. so there's nothing to suggest that our intelligence community doesn't need as many tools as possible because the guy got through the system and we're just lucky as hell the bomb didn't go off. mrs. feinstein: would you yield for a question? mr. graham: please. the time's square bomber, nobody interrupted that plot. the guy didn't know how to set the bomb off. we're just lucky as hell the bomb didn't go off. so don't stand here and tell me that we have got it right because we have not. and here's the point. we never will always get it right. and i'm not saying that as criticism, because we're going to get hit again. we can't be right and lucky all

the time. and to those who are trying to defend us, the one thing i don't want to do is micromanage the war. now, here's the political dynamic. you've got people on the left who hate the idea of saying "the war on terror." if you left it up to them, they would never, ever use the military. they would always insist that the law enforcement model be used because they don't buy into the idea we're at war. so you got one part of the country, a minority, that wants to criminalize a war and if we ever go down that road, wo beyond to us. now, we've got people on my side -- senator feinstein, you're right about this -- they've gone the other way. if you left it up to people on my side, there would be a law passed tomorrow you could never, ever read a miranda right to a terrorist caught anywhere in the united states. i don't agree with that way of thinking.

to my fellow members of the united states military, you have not failed at guantanamo bay. you have not failed. because you sentence someone to nine months to me validates the fact that those who are taking up an oath to defend us when they're put in a position of passing judgment on people accused of trying to kill us a all, they will be fair. so when you say that a military commission tribunal at guantanamo bay gave a nine-month sentence and that's a failure, i say as a proud member of the military, i am proud of the fact that you can judge a case based on the facts and the law and not emotion. so i am very proud of the fact that military commissions can do their job just as well as a civilian court. and to our federal prosecutors and our federal juries and our federal judges, i am proud of

you, too. we should be using all of the above approach. there are times that federal courts are better than military commissions. there are times that military commissions are better than federal courts. the 1032 language has nothing to do with -- about what venue you choose. this provision is simple in its concept. it is a compromise between those on the left who say you must criminalize this war; we're really not at war. you're going to have to use the law enforcement model. you can never gather military intelligence, who don't really believe that the military has a role on the homeland to gather intelligence, which is an absurd concept never acknowledged before in any other war. when american citizens helped the nazis, collaborated with the nazis to engage in sabotage, not only were they held as enemy combatants during world war ii, they were tried by military commissions.

we no longer allow american citizens to be tried by military commissions and i think that is a reasoned decision. but what we don't want to do is prevent our intelligence community from holding a al qaeda affiliated member and gather intelligence if a -- if a american citizen went to pakistan and got radicalized in a madrassa and came back to the united states and landed at dulles airport and got a rifle and started shooting everybody on the mall, i believe it is in our national security interest to give our intelligence community the ability to hold that person and gather intelligence about is another guy coming, what did do you and what future threats do we face and not automatically measure ran dies him. but if they choose to mirandise him, they can. in this legislation, we presume military custody but it can be waived. that's the point i'm trying to make. senator levin and mccain have struck a balance between one group who thinks the military

can only be used and nobody else and another group that says you can never use the military. we've got that balance. and if you upset this balance, you're going to make us not only less safe, the congress is going to do things on our watch that we've never done in any other war. and a word of warning to my colleagues, if you had a bill on the floor of the united states senate saying we're not going to read miranda rights to terrorists who are trying to kill us all, 70% of the american public would say, heck yeah. i don't want that bill to come up. because i do believe the people who are best able to judge what to do is not any politician. it's the experts in the field fighting this war and we're saying, you can waive the presumption of military custody, you can write the rules to waive it but we believe you should start with that construct. let me read to you what the general counsel for the department of defense said today.

"top national security lawyers in the obama administration say u.s. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al qaeda. the government lawyers, steven preston and jeff johnson did not address the alaki case. u.s. citizens do not have immunity when they're at war with the united states." the president of the united states was right to target this u.s. citizen. so wouldn't it be absurd that you can kill him you about you can't detain him. and if he came here, you can't question him for military intellectual jns gathering. so this is a compromise between two forces that i think are well-intended but will take us into a bad policy position. the hard left who wants to say the military has no role in protecting us on the homeland and some people on my side who say that the law enforcement community can't be involved at

all. so senator levin and senator mccain, you have constructed a concept that provides maximum flexibility, gives guidance to our law enforcement community, starts with the presumption that i like but can be waived, and it will not impede any ongoing investigation. that's the part of the bill that was changed. so to my good friend from california, we have got the balance that we've been seeking for five years, and to me this is what we should be doing as a nation. creating legislation that allows those who are fighting the war the tools they need. so in this case, you start with the presumption of military custody because that alloy allou to gather intelligence. under domestic criminal law, you cannot hold someone and ask them about future attacks because you're investigating a crime. under military law, when somebody joins the enemy and

engages in an act of war against the nation, our military and intelligence community can hold that person as long as it takes to find out what they know about future attacks. so if the guy gets off the plane and starts killing people on the mall, when we grab that person, they say i want my lawyer, we'll say, you're not entitled to a lawyer. we're trying to gather intelligence. so at the end of the day, use military commission trials, use federal courts. at the end of the day, read miranda rights when you think it makes sense. but you don't have to because the law allows you to hold people under military custody who represent a military threat. the law allows you to kill american citizens whos who's jod al qaeda abroad. that's been the law for dksdzs. i hope in this compromise that carl levin and john mccain have crafted -- i have been in your shoes. when john and i have been on the floor talking about don't

waterboard people, gather intelligence but don't become like the enemy, a lot of americans believe that we should waterboard these people, whatever we need to do, because they're so vicious and hateful. john mccain knows better than anybody in this body what it's like to be tortured. i want to protect america without changing who we are. and it's always been the law that when an american citizen takes up arms and joins the enemy, that's not a criminal a act; that's an act of war. they can be held and interror debated about what they -- and interror debated about what they did and what they know. because that keeps us safe. if you take that off the table with hom homegrown terrorism the greatest threat we fairks we'll become something that other congress has done during war. the presiding officer: the original 0 minutes has expired. mr. graham: to senator mccain and senator levin,

thank you for drafting a compromise that i think speaks to the best of this country. to my colleagues, please don't upset this delicate balance because you're going to open up a pandora's box. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i would like to say to both senators on the floor, if it had not been for their invaluable effort, this legislation would not have come about, and i thank them for their incredibly important contributions, using the benefit of the experience that both members had. so i yield the floor. mrs. feinstein: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. fine foon i wonder if i might -- fine fiewn i wonder if i might take -- mrs. feinstein: i wonder if i might take a couple of palestinians to make an observation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i think we might now return to morning --

no objection at all. mrs. feinstein: thank you. i wanted to add that with respect to abdulmutallab, what was very new there was that an explosive had been invented that could go through a magnetometer without detection, and this was, to my knowledge, the first time anyone came into the united states, this young nigerian from a very prominent nigerian family, came in wearing a diaper that had enough of this ptn to blow up the plane. he missed in detonation and it caught on fire and the fire was put out. there have been other incidents of trying to smuggle this petn in cartridges of computers that you even have dogs going to the airport and they could not smell the explos i have inside of the

computer cartridge. and that was in dubai. it's a very dangerous explosive. it is new. it has been improved. and it's something we need to be very wary about. i also want to point out that there is a public safety exception to miranda. you do not have to mirandize someone or you can continue to question them if there is a public safety risk, a and so mirandizeing an individual really is not a point in this argument, in my view, you can continue the interrogation. what is a point in my argument is that the f.b.i. now has confidence. there is a group of special experts that can be flown to a place where someone is arrested and do initial interrogation.

they are specifically trained, under the besand to the best of, they are effective at interrogating. the system is working. we should keep it as it is. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: while senator graham is on the floor, i'd like to have a colloquy with him about this section 1032, which is the section at issue. mr. graham: yes. mr. levin: what senator graham said -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i very much appreciate his remarks. one of the things he said is that the provision provides for military custody as a beginning point, a starting point. i'm wondering whether he would agree that not only is it a beginning point, but it's only for a narrow group of people who are determined to be al qaeda or

their supporters. mr. graham: it is not hole a presumption that can be waived based on what the experts in the field think it necessary, the waiver provision is incredibly flexible. you do not have to stop an interrogation to get the waive. the executive branch can write the procedures. not only is it a presumption that can be waived, it also is limited to a very narrow class of people. it has nothing to do with somebody buying gold. i don't know about you, senator levin, but people have been calling me on the right saying, you going to let obama put hey in jail because i think he is a socialist. or you're going to be able to come and grab me because of my political views. and i just tell my staff, be respectful and read them the language. the only people that need to worry about this provision is a very narrow group of people that are affiliated with al qaeda,

engaged in hostile acts. mr. levin: and would the senator also agree with me that under the provision on page 360 -- and we're told that civilian trials are preferrable to military trials, are preferrable to th detention as an unlawful combatant. would the senator agree that every one of those options is open to the executive branch? there is no preference stated one way or the other for which approach is taken to people who are detained. mr. graham: not only would i agree that 1032, 1031, the compromise language about statement of authority to detain and military detention is a presumption, has absolutely nothing to do with the choice of venue. there are people on my side, would you agree, senator levin,

that are chomping at the bit for preventing civilian courts to be used in civilian cases. well, i am of the view that we are overly criminalizing the war, but i don't want to adopt that policy, so there is nothing in this language that has anything at all to do with how you try somebody and what have e you pick. i'm in the camp -- i think you are, too, senator levin -- of an all-the-above aproavment and i am proud of our civilian courts and i am proud of our military courts. you you and i are probably not o the best position to determine that. let's let the experts do it. mr. levin: that's exactly the point. this language when it is described as language which says somehow or other it works against the use of civilian courts, these are folks who haven't read our lafnlg the

language is explicit. page 360 of the bill, lines 3-14. the disposition of a person under the law of war may include the following:" and then they talk about detention under the law of war, trial under title 10, which is the military trial; transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent jurisdiction having -- a competent tribunal having jurisdiction, transfer of to a person's country of origin. and there's no preference stated to which of those venues would be selected by an executive branch. mr. graham: would the senator yield? is this a fair statement: that if it was your goal to prevent military commissions from ever being used, you didn't get your way in this legislation? if it was your goal to mandate that military commissions are the only venue to be used, you

didn't get your way in this legislation? because this legislation doesn't speak to that issue at all. mr. levin: that is absolutely true. now, senator graham brought to the floor something that just was stated this morning by our top lawyers from the obama administration, and i think everybody ought to listen to this. there's been so much confusion about what's in this bill and what isn't. right now there is authority to detain u.s. citizens. -- as enemy combatants. that authority exists right now. that is not me saying it. that's the supreme court that has said it. -- as recently as hamdi, when they said, and i'm quoting, "there is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant." there is no bar.

that's current law. that's the supreme court saying that. and then the supreme court also said in hamdi that they see no reason for drawing a line because a citizen no less than an alien can be part of supporting forces hostile to the united states or coalition partners. and engaged in an armed conflict against the united states. the top lawyers for the president this morning acknowledged it. i wish every one of our colleagues could hear what senator graham brought to the floor. top national security lawyers in the obama administration say u.s. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al qaeda. now, are we then going to adopt an amendment which says to al qaeda if you attack us overseas, you're subject to military detention, but if you come here and attack us, you're

not subject to military detention? that's what the first feinstein amendment says. mr. grefns senator levin, if i may just add, not only is that the effect, that would be a change in the law because do you agree with me that in other conflicts prior to the one we're in today american citizens unfortunately have been involved in aiding the enemy? mr. levin: i'm sorry, i was distracted. mr. graham: do you agree with me in prior wars american citizens have been involved in aiding the enemy of their time? mr. levin: they have and they've been held accountable. mr. graham: and in the in re qiewren case followed a fact pattern as follows, you had german saboteurs, one or two may have been an american american citizen that landed on our shores with a plot to blow

up different parts of america and during the course of their efforts, americans -- citizens aided the nazis and the supreme court said that when an american citizen chose to help the nazis here at home on our homeland, they were considered to be an enemy belligerent regardless of their citizenship and we could detain one of our own when they side with the enemy. mr. levin: there was a naturalized citizen involved in querin, was arrested as i understand it on long island who was charged with crimes involved in aiding and supporting the enemy. mr. graham: let's talk about the world we live in today. mr. levin: and military detention. mr. graham: tried by military commission. mr. levin: and executed. mr. graham: we said that military commissions cannot be

used to try american citizens and our military wanted to deal with combatants when it comes to military commission trials but our military, c.i.a. and f.b.i. have all understood that their power to detain for intelligence gathering purpose is an important power. it's not an exclusive power. so let's talk about today's threat. the likelihood of homegrown terrorism is growing. do you agree with that? homegrown terrorists is becoming a bigger problem. mr. levin: it is an issue absolutely. mr. graham: in a situation where an american citizen goes to pakistan and gets radicalized, gets on a plane, flies back to dulles airport, gets off the plane and takes up arms against his own fellow citizens, goes to the mall and starts randomly shooting people, that the law that we're trying to preserve is current law, which would say if

the experts decide it's in the nation's best interest, they can hold that american citizen like they were able to hold the american citizen helping the nazis and gather intelligence. that's a right already given and senator feinstein's amendment even though i don't think it's well written, could possibly take that away. that's 1031. what we're saying is that we want to preserve the ability of the intelligence community to hold that person under the law of war and find out is there anybody else coming, are you the only one coming, what do you know, what madrasa did you go to, how did you get over, how did you get back? we want to preserve the ability to hold that person under the law of war for interrogation but we also concede if they think it's better to give them their miranda rights, they can. that's what this legislation does that we've created. do you agree with that?

mr. levin: i do. and the top lawyers of the administration acknowledge as much this morning when they say u.s. citizens are a legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al qaeda. a provision that we're talking about in section 1032, which senator feinstein would modify, so that it's only al qaeda abroad that would be subject to this military detention but al qaeda here that come here -- and, by the way, american citizens are not even covered under 103 . but the foreign al qaeda fight horse come here to attack us are not going to be subject to that presumption of military detention which, again, could be waived. nothing to do with what venue their tried in. the executive has total choice on that. it just is whether or not we're going to start with an assumption that if you're determined to be al qaeda, if

you're a foreign al qaeda person, you sure as heck ought to be subject to that same assumption whether you attack us here or whether you attack us overseas. mr. graham: senator levin, wouldn't it be hard to explain to your constituents that our top lawyers in the pentagon and sciempletted -- criemplet a. said today that you can be killed if a drone attack and the congress says okay, but you can't be detained? mr. levin: i wouldn't want to --. mr. graham: here at home. mr. levin: i wouldn't want to hold that position. mr. graham: do you believe that america is part of the battlefield in the global war on terror? mr. levin: without doubt. on september 11 the war was brought here by al qaeda and to suggest that the foreign al qaeda member should not be subject to an assumption to

begin with, if they're determined to be al qaeda, that they are going to be detained, that we should not start with that assumption. subject to procedures which the administration adopts, it's totally in their hands, it cannot interfere with civilian interrogation, it cannot interfere with civilian intelligence, we're very specific about it. the procedures are written by the executive branch. they can try them anywhere they want. but you bring a war here, you bring a war here, we are going to create an assumption that you can be subject and are going to be subject to military detention. mr. graham: ,well, my belief is most americans would want our military being able to combat al qaeda at home as much as they would abroad. i think most americans would be very upset to hear that the military has no really role in combating al qaeda on our own shores, but you can do anything

you want to them overseas. so what you and i have tried to do, quite frankly, there are people on our side, very good people who want to mandate that the military has custody and no one else so you never have to read miranda rights. and quite frankly, there's people on the left and libertarians, well-meaning people who want to prevent the idea of a person being held under military custody here on the homeland because they don't think we're at war and this is really not the battlefield. what we've done is started with the presumption that focuses on intelligence gathering because you and i are more worried about what they know about future attacks than how you're going to prosecute them and under domestic criminal law you can't hold somebody indefinitely. the public safety exception, i'll talk about that in a bit. the public safety exception was a very temporary ability to secure a crime scene. it was not written regarding terrorism. so our law enforcement officials cannot use the public safety

exception to hold an al qaeda operative for days and question them. the only way you can do that legally is under the law of war and every other war you've had that right and we're about to change that. by just say to my colleagues -- mr. levin: and that right abroad against members of al qaeda. but under this approach would not be able to assume that military deengs here at home. subject to waiver, subject to all the other protections we have in there. mr. graham: let's keep talking about it. the more you talk about it, the more interesting the concept becomes. the last time i look there are no really civilian jails overseas so when you capture a terrorist overseas, the only place you can detain them is in military custody. if they make it here at home, to say the military can't hold a person and interrogate under the law of war, the only way you

can interrogate a member of al qaeda is under the law enforcement model, this is not dragnet. we're trying to make sure both systems are preserved starting with the presumption of intelligence gathering. here's the key distinction. to my colleagues who worry about how you prosecute someone, that's the least of my concerns. i'm worried about intelligence gathering. i have confidence in our civilian system, i have confidence in our military system but aren't you concerned most of all, senator levin, that when we capture one of these operatives on our shores or abroad that we hold them in a humane fashion but a fashion to gather intelligence so that we may find out -- imagine if we got one of the 9/11 hijackers. wouldn't it have been nice to be able to find out if there's another plane coming and hold them as long as necessary to get that information humanely? and to say that you can't do that really makes us a lot less

safe. mr. levin: you could do that if you captured him in afghanistan but here you're going to be treating them differently. it ought to be probably the the reverse. it seems the people who bring the war here ought to be the same rules of interrogation if they were captured and part of al qaeda in afghanistan. i don't understand the theory behind this. as a matter of fact, when we adopted the authorization for use of military force, when we adopted that, it would seem to me that the first people that we would want to apply the authority of that authorization would be al qaeda members who attacked this country. mr. graham: and that's the only group subject to this provision, right? mr. levin: the only group protected. mr. graham: but this provision we wrote only deals with that. mr. levin: exactly. mr. graham: you're not going to be put in jail because you

disagree with lindsey graham or barrack obama. we are trying to fight a war here. being from south carolina, a conservative state, great people, to be able to go home and say i supported legislation to make sure that these terrorists are trying to come here and kill us, they never hear the words you have the right to remain silent and most people would cheer. it is in my interest to go back and say you know what? the worst -- i wish the worst thing that could happen to our guys caught by these thugs and bar barons is that they would -- barbarians is they get water boarded. they get their heads cut off and you got these people worried about how we treat them trying to protect the country. it would be in my political interest and would probably be in your political interest. at the end of the day the thing i wanted to say about you and senator mccain is one is a warrior who has experienced worse than waterboarding and doesn't want than to be part of

his country's way of doing business. the other is someone who is a very progressive, solid,the left of center senator for years. i am a military lawyer who comes from a very conservative state. i want to fight this war. i don't believe we're fighting a crime, but i want to fight it in a way that doesn't come back to haunt us. i don't want to create a system on our watch that could come back and haunt our own people. i don't want to say that every enemy prisoner in this war has to go to trial because what if one of our guys are captured in a future war? do we want them to be considered a war criminal just because they were fighting for the united states? so what we're trying to do here is create policy that's as flicks as possible but understands the difference between fighting a war and fighting a crime.

mr. levin: now, mr. president, i understand there are other senators who may be coming over to speak and i'll be happy to yield the floor whenever that happens. this is the time which is not structured before the -- scheduled a vote at 2:00. if i would continue then until another senator comes to the floor, i want to just expand on one point which has been made here and that has to do with whether or not there is something in this section of ours that would allow our military to patrol our streets. we've heard that. well, we have a posse comitatus law in this country and what that law says, it embodies a very fundamental principle that our military does not patrol our streets. there is nothing in section 1032 or anywhere else in this bill that would permit our military to patrol our streets. and i think senator graham is

probably more familiar with what i'm going to say perhaps than any of our colleagues. we have a posse comitatus statute in this country. it makes it a crime -- a crime -- for the military to execute law enforcement functions inside the united states. that is unchanged. that law is unchanged by anything in this bill. mr. graham: does the senator know why that law was created? mr. levin: i think we had a fear a couple hundred years ago that might happen. mr. graham: one of the things you learn in military law school is the posse comitatus act. because if a military unit is asked to assist in a law enforcement function that's prohibited in this country. why is that? we don't want to become a military state. we have civilian law enforcement that are answerable to an independent judiciary. the posse comitatus act came about after reconstruction, because during the reconstruction era, the union army occupied the south. they were the judge, jury, the

law enforcement, they did it all because there was no civilian law enforcement. after the south was reconstructed, a lot of people felt that that is not a good model to use in the future, that we don't want to give the military law enforcement power. they're here to protect us against threats, foreign and domestic. law enforcement activities are completely different. now, we have national guard members on the border. that's not a law enforcement function. that's a national security function. but i've been receiving calls that says that our legislation overturns the posse comitatus act. here's why that is completely wrong. surveilling an al qaeda member, capturing and interrogating an al qaeda member is not a law enforcement function, it is a military function. for the posse comitatus act to apply, you would have to assume that a member of al qaeda is a common criminal and our military

has no legal authority here at home to engage the enemy if they get here. you talk about perverse. you would be saying as a congress that an al qaeda member who made it to america could not be engaged by our military? what a perverse reading of the posse comitatus act. the reason al qaeda is a military threat and not a common criminal threat is because the congress in 2001 so designated. i think most americans feel comfortable with the idea that the american military should be involved in fighting al qaeda at home and that's not a law enforcement function. mr. levin: that's why we have very carefully narrowed this provision, 1032, to a very narrow group of people, people who are determined to be members of or associated with al qaeda.

then the question comes, well, how's that determination made? what are the procedures for that? the answer is, they are left up to the executive branch to determine those procedures. can there be any interference with the civilian law enforcement folks who are interrogating people that they arrest? someone tries to blow up time's square and they're being interrogated by the f.b.i., is there any interference with that interrogation? none. we explicitly say that there is no such interference. what about people that are seeking to observe illegal conduct, is there any interference with that? there is none. we specifically say those procedures shall not interfere with that kind of observation, looking at them, seeking intelligence. we're not interfering with the civilian prosecution, with the civilian law enforcement at all. the rules whether or not -- to determine whether or not someone is a member of al qaeda are rules which the executive branch are going to write. they can't say, well, this thing

authorizes the interference with civilian interrogation when, as a matter of fact, it specifically says it won't and the procedures to determine whether somebody is governed by this assumption are going to be written by the f.b.i. and the justice department and the executive branch. and on top of that, there's a waiver. mr. graham: may i add something. i want to respond to one of my good friends, senator paul, who said, well, that's all good but sometime in democracies you have very bad people. and i don't want to give the power to the executive branch this broad that could result in political persecution. i will tell you, senator levin -- you may find this hard to believe -- but there are people on my side who really don't trust president obama, his administration. some of them don't think he's an american. some of them believe that if we

pass this law, that you're going to give the obama administration the power to come on and pick them up because they go to a rally somewhere. all i can say to senator paul and others, i share the concern about unlimited executive power. i support the posse comitatus act. i don't support the idea the military can't fight al qaeda when they come here. we're not talking about law enforcement functions. but here's what happens. if someone is picked up as a suspected enemy combatant under this narrow window, not only does the executive branch get to determine how best to do that, do you agree with me that in this war, that every person picked up as an enemy combatant, citizen or not, here in the united states goes before a federal judge? and the government has to prove to an independent judiciary outside the executive branch by a preponderance of evidence that you are who we say you are and that you fit in this narrow

window? that if you're worried about some abuse of this, we've got a check and balance where the judiciary, under the law that we've created, has a independent review obligation to determine whether or not the executive branch has abused their power and that decision can be appealed all the way to the supreme court. mr. levin: that guarantee is called habeas corpus. it's been in our law. it's untouched by anything in this bill. quite the opposite. we actually enhance the procedures here. and the senator from south carolina has been very much a part of the effort here. mr. graham: much to my detriment. [laughter] mr. levin: of all the risks that are being entailed of being misunderstood and all the rest. that is something that the senator from south carolina has engaged in, to try to see if we can put down what the detention rules are -- by the way, are --

because, as the administration itself said in its statement of administration policy, that the "authorities codified in this section" -- authorities codified in section 1031, they're referring to -- those authorities already exist. mr. graham: and -- and, senator levin, so in this case if somebody's worried about being picked up by a rogue executive branch because they went to the wrong political rally, they don't have to worry very long because our federal courts have the right and the obligation to make sure the government prove their case that you're a member of al qaeda and didn't go to a political rally. that's never happened in any other war. that's a check and balance here in this war. and let me tell you why it's necessary. this is a war without end. there will never be a surrender ceremony signing on the u.s.s. missouri. so what we've done, knowing that enemy combatant determination

could be a de facto life sentence, is we require the courts to look over the military's shoulder to create checks and balances. and, quite frankly, i think that is a good accommodation. mr. levin: and not only is what the senator said accurate, but we've done something else in this bill. there is an executive order that was issued some years ago that said there should be a periodic review process for folks who are being detained under the law of war just because it's so unclear as to when this war ends. there's real concern about that. what do we do about that? and so in this bill, what we require the executive branch to do is to -- and i'm now quoting from section 1035 -- is to "adopt procedures for implementing a periodic review process." those procedures don't exist now. they're not formalized and so we want to formalize them for the very reason that the senator from south carolina just

addressed, because we want to make sure that since we don't know when this particular war is going to end -- it's kind of hard to define it and everyone's concerned about that -- you've got to have review procedures. the greatest review procedure of all is habeas corpus. but there are also requirements in executive order for a periodic review process of whether or not somebody is still a threat or not a threat, for instance. the war may still be going on but the person ma n may no longe a threat. stlud be an opportunity for the person to say that -- should there be an opportunity for the person to say that? well, there should be, surely should be. regular review process. the senator from south carolina has been very much involved in this kind of due process. but what we put into our bill, which is now there, which would have been eliminated, by the way, if the udall amendment had been adopted yesterday, is a requirement that this executive order's procedures be adopted because so far we haven't seen that.

mr. graham: nor did i want to do that. i want to be able to say, not o my political advantage, but i want to be able to tell people post-abu ghraib, post early guantanamo bay, we've cleaned up our act, we're trying to get the balance we didn't have originally. i want to be able to tell peop people, we no longer torture in america. that's why you and i wrote the detainee treatment act with senator mccain, the war powers act, that clearly bans waterboarding. i want to be able to tell anybody who's interested that no person in an american prison, civilian or military, held as a suspected member of al qaeda will be held without independent judicial review. we're not allowing the executive branch to make that decision unchecked. for the first time in the history of american warfare, every enemy combatant held by the executive branch will have their day in federal court and the government has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence you are, in fact, part of the enemy force and we did not stop there. because this could be a war

without end, we require an annual review process where each year the individual's case is evaluated as to whether or not they still maintain a threat, they have intelligence that could be gathered by longer confinement. so what i would say to my -- to -- to our colleagues, that we have tried to strike that balance. there are a lot of people who don't like the idea you give these terrorists federal hearings and lawyers and all that other stuff. there are a lot of people who don't like the fact that we do have now humane interrogation techniques. but i like that because i want to win this war on our terms, not theirs. so i couldn't be more proud of this bill. and to my colleagues on the right who want to mandate military custody all the time, you never can read miranda rights, i'm sorry, i can't go there. to our friends on the left who want to say, the military news role in this war at -- the military has no role in this war

at home, sorry, i can't go there. military commissions make sense sometimes. sometimes federal courts make sense. and, senator levin, i would just end with this note, that this compromise that we have come up with i think will stand the test of time. unfortunately, most likely, radical islam as we know it today is not going to be defeated in our lifetime, and i hope to have created on my watch as a united states senator a legal system that has robust due process, that adheres to our values but also recognizes we're at threat like any other time in recent memory and allows us to protect ourselves within the values of being an american. and i cannot tell you how much i appreciate working with you and senator mccain and i think we've accomplished that after ten years of trying.

mr. levin: i yield the floor. there are senators here who i understand want to speak in morning business. is that correct? and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: mr. president, i want to speak on these very strange days in washington in this congress and this esteemed body's approval rating is at 9%, and i'm having a hard time finding the 9%. but it seems to me that the only thing that we're working hard on is whether we can get the approval rating to zero, and i think we seem to be going in that direction. we fight over political solutions that can't pass and, more importantly, won't solve this nation's great problems. we fight for political points and mistakenly believe that the american people care who is up and down -- up or down, but they really don't. i didn't come to washington for the purpose of playing games, taking names, or keeping score. that's not what i was sent here

to do. that's not what the people of west virginia want me to do. i came here to fix things and to be a part of the solution. i did not come here to worry about my next election or whether republican or democrats are up or down. i came they're do what i could to improve the life of the next generation. i, for one, am willing to sacrifice my next election so that the next generation can w win. and if that means losing, so be it. and so, mr. president, i rise today to speak about the next chapter of this sad state of affairs which the american people are forced to witness, whether or not we should extend and expand the payroll tax cut that will cost more than $240 billion in one year. now, many accusations are being thrown back and forth to debate over the so-called tax cuts or tax increases, depending on which side of the fence you're on. there's one very basic fact

that's missing from all of this very important conversation. americans pay for one thing with our payroll tax -- one -- social security. social security isn't just another government program. it was established in 1935 to provide economic security for our nation's seniors who work hard and earned their retirement benefits. they worked their whole lives to provide our generation and those that will follow with a better and greater america. yet at a time when our nation faces a death spiral of debt, when we should be talking about how we can come together to fix a nightmare that will fix the very programs we like, like secretary, instead we're talking about undermining our longest-standing retirement program. right now social security is son a collision course. by 2037 if we don't do anything,

benefits for everyone will have to be cut by 22%. and yet we're digging a deeper hole by destabilizing its funding with this recommendation. all in return for what? a temporary measure that has already cost nearly $120 billion and has, at best, created few, if any, jobs. in the real world when policy doesn't work, you stop and try something else. apparently in washington you double-down. mr. president, why would we do this? why would we double-down on a policy that didn't work? the answer is simple: for the sake after short-term political gain, leaders of both parties and the president are willing to fight over how we should pay for a failed program that jeopardizes the fundamental way that we fay for our retirement security -- we pay for our retirement dismiewrt this country. that disfn make any stones me and it doesn't make any sense to the good people in west virginia. i know that in the coming days you're going to hear a lot of

political talk about extending the payroll tax and what they're saying sure sounds good. more money in our pocket. in fact, politicians will offer assurances that social security won't be hurt at all. my good friend that'll be speaking also on this, senator kirk from illinois, is going to show you a graph that basically shows that to be different. what you won't hear them say, though, is that reducing payroll taxes even temporarily would take more than $240 billion out of social security's funding stream if we approve the president's proposal. and you certainly won't hear them say that the way they would repay those hundreds of billions of dollars is through our general revenue fund. and if we extend the cuts this year, what about the next year and the year after? when does it stop? when do we have the political will to finally say that we better start paying again for social security? mr. president, our approval rating is at 9% and we're rapidly losing the support of

our family members. just how many americans really believe that congress will make sure our general fund is solid enough to live up to the responsibility of funding social security? if the payroll tax cut is extended as it stands this year, the average family in west virginia will pay $14 less per week. for a lot of people that's a lot of money. but the few west virginians who even realize they're getting help say that they would gladly give that up in return for reliable social security safety net. or for a real tax reform that utacuts rates across the board d ensures that every american, especially the wealthy, will start paying their fair share. they would gladly do that. as a country, we can expect that social security will remain secure if we keep tell americans that we don't have to pay for t and that is exactly the conclusion that people will reach if we keep reducing their contributions.

social security is one of ash highest priorities as a country. and we shouldn't let the federal government undermine social security by convincing americans that they don't really stro pay for it. then again there are some in washington who want you to believe that the very act of reducing our contributions to social security will spur job creation. unfortunately, the reality is very different. we tried the payroll tax cut last yeerd and i supported it. but i will not double-down on the failed policy, especially one that jeopardizes the future of social security. truth be told, over the last year i traveled more than 18,000 miles in my state. i have yet to find very many different west virginians who even though they're even getting a discount, let alone business owners who say they will hire anybody if you give them discount for one year. what business owners do tell me is what they want more than anything is some certainty and dmfd this economy that we will do the right thing and stablize this economy. instead, the president

leadership in both parties are trying to give them more of the same failed policies, taking steps that will worsen our debt crisis and jeopardize hundreds of billions from social security's regular funding stream, all without the reality that it will create any jobs. and with this great nation now more than $15 trillion in debt, going to $21 trillion by 2021, the enormity of this problem is just servicing the debt by 2021 will be greater than what we spend on our department of defense to secure this great nation. we can't afford to continue to double-down on failed policies. as for taxes, don't get me wrong. i don't want to see americans paying higher tasmtion. no way. i simply want a commonsense tax system that assures everyone pays their fair sharks especially the wealthy who have benefited the most from these failed tax system that we have right now.

tax reform that will lower tax rates for everyone as we close loopholes, credits and offsets and allow corporations and some americans to avoid paying their fair share. it is time to stop awful that. some will say it is impossible that it can't be done. i think they're wrong. it requires leadership from the white house to every corner of congress, and it requires each and every one of us to be willing to sacrifice our political futures for the nation's future. i, for one, mr. president, am willing to do just that. this is our moment. at this critical moment in our history, we must get our financial house in order. and letting americans believe that we don't have to pay for social security is wrong. it is dead wrong. it is the wrong policy. it is wrong for our seniors. it is wrong for our future. and i will not vote for it, periods, under any condition. for the sake of the next generation, we must get our fiscal house in order and we can do that if we are willing to make difficult decisions.

so, mada mr. president, i will t vote for either of these proposals to extend the payroll tax cuts. looking forward for the savings our nation, i hope that we will begin to work on a proposal that makes the hard decisions while also protecting the programs and commitments we value is as a nation. for myself and i believe many of my colleagues, and there is bipartisan path forward that can help save this nation -- and i have nigh good colleague, the republican from illinois, who is going to speak on it also -- the best path forward, i believe, is based on the framework and recommendations outlined in the bowles-simpson proposal. when those recommendations were laid out a year ago today -- this is the anniversary today -- i had been a u.s. senator for less than a month, brand-new, less than a month. but what i saw in that report gave me great hope t gave me hope that we could identify our problems, we w which we did, and tackle them together. coifs son a high for that one -- so i was on a high for that one

short period. as a brand-new member, i was so encouraged that sufficient a responsible, bipartisan group of people put together by the president offered a no-holds-barred report on our fiscal situation and some pathways to fix it. then the proverbial air came out. not only did the president and his administration walk away from these bipartisan proposals, but leadership in both chambers of congress failed to pick up this report and run with it. here we are a year later and if anything our problems are worse. we're going to be forced to make deeper cuts than we wanted to, all because of our leadership -- all because our leadership wouldn't confront the enormous problems we face with a comprehensive long-term solution. but the bowles-simpson plan is still the only proposal that enjoys strong, bipartisan support. it started sought as a bipartisan commission. it grew in numbers and is still growing. and it has a responsible manner to balance this problem that we have. and it's not perfected.

no plan is. i do not agree with everything it proposes. but no plan can be everything to everyone. so with today b being the one-yr proposal of that proposal, i am urging our president and the leadership of both chambers to support any and all efforts not toll pick up this report but also to put their resources behind drafting and passing this legislation into law. i ask that we all remember the great opportunity we have before us to what is right. i don't want to be part of the first generation, mr. president. i know that you don't want to be part, and my good friend from illinois doesn't want to be part -- the first generation that leaves this nation in worse shape for the next generation. i don't think that any member of this congress or our president wants to fail the next generation either. i would like to turn over my time to my colleague and friend -- mr. kirk: if i could engage the gentleman in a colloquy. this is a dhart that shows the

legislation that we're considering today and what it does is it shows a tremendous hit to the tax that supports social security. this is the old-age survivors disability afnlgt it is a $240 billion hit to the funding to support social security. we bodge are going to vote "no" on pieces of legislation today because we don't think that seniors should take this level of hit. in the casey-reid legislation -- this is be with the show of called millionaires tax comes in -- it only refunds what social security needs to the level of 7% in 2013. in fact according to one analysis, we may trigger the end of the debt limit before the election if we pass this, because of the $246 billion you will have to borrow temporarily until the long stretch of this revenue comes in. now, we're about to do a chart with the republican alternative. and it has the same long payout

there and tremendous hit to social security. and in this time of all these political bills, i think senator man chon and i are -- manchin and i are saying let's not do the same thing again. wthis is revenue that supports the benefits that social security recipients depend on, and we cannot continue to try to run this program without that revenue. and so i think that this holiday should end. think #eu that this revenue should not be foregone. i don't think seniors should be based on a trust-us policy that will pay you back. and i would actually say even the political vote is to vote against this so that you're for social security and for making sure that this payment is continued. i commend the gentleman. i think we should exactly follow this policy of "no" on both of these because if you vote "no"

you are supporting social security. one other thing: i would ask oar t aarp to speake clearly on this issue. aarp currently told my sthaf that they are neutral on this. i would urge aarp members to contact aarp and say, defend social security revenue. make sure that there is enough in the kitty for our benefits. we know that 10,000 americans a day are now qualifying for social security. we know that this is an age of no free lunch. and so we want to make sure that the revenues are there not just today but tomorrow because seniors absolutely depend on it. with that, i yield back to my colleague. the presiding officer: the senator's sought recognition, unanimous consent to proceed to a colloquy and did so without objection. mr. kirk: thank you. mr. manchin: what he says is absolutely correct. we have so many people who are depending, especially in west virginia and illinois, who depend on social security. and in fact in west virginia, 62% of the people that receive

social security, it's their major funding mechanism. it is how they live. day to day. and they've told me, don't touch our social security program, our core values of social security, what it does for us. if we pass this, not only do we touch it, we jeopardize it's solvency in the long term. and if you believe that we're going to be responsible enough to pay for this in the ten years outgoing, then we've got some beachfront property in west virginia we'd love to interest you in. mr. kirk: i would just say this this is a very long payout. both under the majority and minority pieces of legislation, i'm hoping that enough members say "no" to both pieces of legislation so that we defend social security. and i commend the gentleman. mr. manchin: we're very, very strong in support of the bowles-simpson -- basically the template that's been laid out. the only one that's been bipartisan. it stayed bipartisan with both the senator and i and it will remain bipartisan. it has a tax reform that

everyone pays her to fair shaimple the very wealthy who have escaped paying because of the tax -- failed tax policies would now start paying if we had real tax reform, not increased rates but just a fair share. that's what we ask. mr. kirk: and with that, mr. president, i will yield back and just commend the gentleman. we're hoping for two "no" votes because we think that those are the votes that support social security and it's continued revenue. mr. manchin: i want to thank the bowles-simpson committee and mr. bowles and mr. simpson for what they've done a year ago bringing to our attention, a pathway of fixing the financial problems that we're dealing with and we are concerned about the next generation more so than our next election. that's what we were sent here to do. with that, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: senator mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i rise to urge my colleagues to pass amendment 1867 that i've offered with my distinguished colleague from illinois, senator kirk, to strengthen sanctions against iran that go to the heart of the regime's ability to finance its nuclear ambitions. this is a broad based effort, a bipartisan effort, and one that needs the senate's attention and passage. in my view, we have to follow the money, and this amendment does exactly that. if we are serious about limiting iran's ability to finance its nuclear ambitions, this amendment is essential to that effort. it is a serious intent to sanction the central bank of iran, which is known to be complicit in iran's nuclear efforts. if we fail to close loopholes and sanction funding mechanisms for iran's nuclear develop programs, we would be like a

rancher who left the barn open and wonders why the horses are gone. to not pass this amendment is leaving the door open to iran's runaway nuclear ambitions. we cannot and we must not let that happen. now, i know the administration has expressed their concerns with this amendment, an amendment which, by the way, has come about as a result of the administration asking us to work with it and in a bipartisan effort has achieved a narrower, more defined, taylored effort -- tailored effort to bring the maximum sanctions on iran, the minimum consequences to both the united states and our allies across the globe. but in the absence of congressional action over the last 15 years, it was starting with the iran-libya sanctions act, i have to wonder what we would be doing to stop iran's

drive to obtain nuclear weapons if it wasn't for the congress' intercession and actions. now, i recognize that this administration has done more than any prior administration in terms of using those tools that the congress has given them, but in my view, we haven't done enough. in a letter from secretary geithner today, the administration recognizes -- quote -- "that iran's greatest economic reroars is its ex -- resource is export of oil. sales of crude oil line the pockets, sustain human rights abuses and feed its nuclear ambitions like no other sector of the iranian economy." that's what secretary geithner had to say in his letter. that's compelling why this amendment needs to pass. that's why i'm worked with senator kirk to offer this important amendment and now urge our colleagues to pass it. no hose who have raised concerns about the impact of the

amendment on our allies and our multilateral growns a efforts, i would note the european nations and the french in particular are already considering their own iranian oil embargo. this is not, by the way, an oil embargo but they're considering something that's more significant, their own oilering. they've recognized that the iranian nuclear program has a short fuse. accomplished reports report it may be as short as one year and the time to act is now. they recognize the shahab missile could not only hit the state of israel but also a european nation. and a european nation that would be obviously a nato ally. for other countries i'm frankly not concerned with how the chinese feel about our amendment given that they are currently one of the greatest violators of our current sanctions sanctions already. the evidence is clear. i've been made away that several

energy traders continue to make prohibited sales of refined petroleum to iran but our response is to sanction the front companies around the figures behind these sales. china continues to be an iranian trading partner, agreements with iran with nearly $40 billion to develop iranian oil fields. china has reportedly directed the china national off-shore oil company and the national petroleum company to slow their work in iran, presumably to allow them to make the argument to washington to hold on on sanctions. we must ask why has the administration been reluctant to sanction chinese companies when there is ample evidence that they are violating our own existing laws and there is precedent for us sanctioning chinese companies for nuclear and weapons proliferation outcomes? a senator: would the senator yield for a question? mr. menendez: i'd be happy to

yield. mr. mccain: is it the senator's impression for to us expect action in the united nations security council is pretty dim given the stated positions of russia and china on this issue? mr. menendez: the senator -- my view, is right, considering they both have a veto power at the security council. it seems to me that they are not likely allies in helping us pursue this course. mr. mccain: so then it really makes a more compelling argument to those who may be wavering on this amendment that there is a clear record on the part of china and russia in the u.n. security council that we can expect a security council vote but perhaps we could expect other nations to follow suit once the united states leads on this issue. mr. menendez: i believe the senator is right. mr. mccain: i thank the senator. mr. menendez: the november 8 iaea report underscores that there is a military component to iran's nuclear program, that

iran has not suspended its uranium conversion facilities and is seeking to develop as many as ten new enrichment facilities, that they are undisclosed nuclear facilities in iran, that iran is seeking back channels to acquire dual use, is testing detonators and ignition systems critical to creating a nuclear weapon, that iran may be working on an indigenous design for a nuclear weapon including klug a payload able to fit on their missile, a missile capable of reaching israel. these public revelations have led to an increase of multilateral sanctions on the iranian regime which i applaud but given what appears to be a shortening time line until iran has a potential nuclear weapon, it would seem that we are not doing enough fast enough. iran has adapted to soda,

adapted to constraints on its financial transactions and its ability to require requisite materials and knowledge to advance its clandestine program. this amendment will prevent those work nders, impose sanctions on those international financial institutions that engage in business activities with the central bank of iran particularly in the pursuit of petroleum products with the exception of medicine and medical devices. it follows the administration's decision last week designating the entire iranian banking sector as a primary money landering concern and a threat to governmental institutions. noting iran's illicit activities including its pursuit of nuclear weapons, its support of terrorism, its efforts to deceive responsible financial institutions and evade sanctions. in fact the crimes enforcement network of the department of the treasury wrote -- quote -- "the central bank of iran which regulates iranian banks has

assisted designated iranian banks which transferring billions of dollars to those banks in 2011. in making these transfers the c.b.i. attempted to evade sanctions by minimizing the direct involvement of large international banks with both c.b.i. and designated iranian banks. and the under secretary of the treasury for financial intelligence david cohen wrote "treasury is calling out the intiern iranian banking system including the central bank of iran has proliferation financing, money landering risk for the global financial system." mr. president, i don't know how much more compelling even the administration's own arguments are. as i have said on this floor, iran's conduct threatens the national security of the united states and its allies. the complicit action of the central bank of iran based on facilitation of the evasion of multilateral sanctions against the government of iran,

engagement in deceptive transactions and most importantly its provision of financial services in support of iran's effort to acquire the knowledge, materials, and facilities to enrich uranium and to ultimately develop weapons of mass destruction threaten regional peace and global security. this amendment will starve the beast. it requires the president to prohibit transactions of iranian financial institutions that touch u.s. financial institutions. and to ensure that we don't spook the oil markets, transactions with iran's central bank of petroleum and petroleum products would only being sanctioned if the president makes a determination that petroleum-producing countries other than iran can provide sufficient alternative resources for the country's purchasing from iran and if the country declines to make decreases in purchase of iranian oil. this bipartisan amendment has been carefully crafted to ensure

the maximum impact on iran's financial infrastructure and ability to finance terrorist activities and minimize the impact on global economy. it has the best chance of helping us achieve a peaceful solution to this threat. and with that, mr. president, -- mr. mccain: would the gentleman yield for an additional question? mr. menendez: i know we have a vote in five minutes. i want the senator from illinois to have the opportunity. mr. mccain: either you or the senator from illinois. one, is it true in this legislation there is a national security waiver the president can waive the proigs of this bill if he feels it's in the national interest? two, how do you respond to the argument put forward this would destroy the world's financial system if this legislation were put into effect? mr. menendez: yes, there is a national security waiver, and no, we do not believe that the world's financial system would be destroyed. the fact is as my colleague from

illinois has said it's a choice between a $300 billion economy in iraq and a $14 trillion economy in the united states. i think that chies will be very clear for countries as they choose to do so and the europeans are already on a march on their own because they understand the risk to them. with that i yield the floor and hope to hear from my dear colleague cleeg from illinois. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. kirk: i want to compliment the senator the senator from new jersey for an outstanding performance in the senate foreign relations committee today in which he called for our government to move quicker on this. we saw the radicals of iran overrun the embassy of our allies in the united kingdom. we saw the british prime minister just announce he was removing all iranian diplomats from the united kingdom. we saw the government of italy announcing that they were suspending some diplomatic activities. we have seen a whole number of actions by the e.u. now to join

with us on the sanctions. i will just say with regard to this amendment, it has now been cosponsored formally by 46 senators, menendez, barrasso, blunt, boozman, brown of massachusetts, brown of ohio, cardin, casey, collins, coons, crapo, feinstein, franken, jill bran --, gillibrand, klobuchar, lautenberg, lee, manchin, mikulski, moran, murkowski, nelson of florida, nelson of nebraska, portman, pryor, risch, roberts, snowe, stabenow, tester, thune, whitehouse and wyden. these 46 members are on the shoulders of the 92 members that signed the letter -- the circumstance-schumer letter in august. when this these partisan stiemstimes do we have all but eight senators agreeing on a policy? i will note as senator menendez and senator mccain pointed out, the administration is

somewhat poird about this amendment but senator menendez correctly provided flexibility to the administration by saying number one if the energy information agency says oil markets are tight and issues a report on the effective oil markets these sanctions could be suspended for a time. on top of that one waiver, there's a second waiver for the national security of the united states that the president could have that kind of flexibility. and so with flexibility, with bipartisan support, with outrageous activity by iran in the face of the iaea report moving towards a nuclear weapon, with the danger we see from that government, hezbollah and hamas against our allies in lebanon and israel, with the plot announced by the attorney general of the united states to blow up a georgetown restaurant in an effort to kill the saudi arabian ambassador, with the

plight of 300,000 baha'is, and the lawyer for the nobel prize laureate, her lawyer was thrown in jail just for representing that client. for all these reasons this is the right amendment at the right time sending the right message in the face of a very irresponsible regime. with that i yield back and thank the gentleman for offering this well-timed amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: on behalf of senator inhofe i ask to withdraw amendment number 1093. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president, very briefly i'd like to congratulate both senators for their leadership on this issue. there is a threat to the security of the world posed by the islamic nation of iran. this is much-needed legislation. i think it's important to note as they did that there is a national security waiver given to the president of the united states and also we cannot expect

a lot of help, considering the membership of the united nations security council and russia and china's unwillingness to work on behalf of reining in this inexorable path that iran is on to the acquisition and the possibility or the capability of the use of nuclear weapons. i congratulate both the sponsors of the amendment and hope we can get a recorded vote. i'm sure that's what they want, others possible. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: i know a vote is imminent. i wanted to rise at this time in support of the feinstein amendment, 1125 which would modify the requirement that the armed forces detain suspected terrorists by adding the word "abroad" to ensure that we are not disrupting domestic counterterrorism efforts. i'd l -- i'd like to correct the record because some opponents have stated that by inserting the word "abroad" we would

prevent the military from detaining terrorists on u.s. soil and that's simply not true. the president knows and my colleagues know that i'm not comfortable with the detention provisions in this bill because i think they're going to undermine our fight against terrorism, but this would be a important change, a narrowly focused change in the provisions that have already been put on the floor. so i -- i think the -- mr. president, is the vote imminent, die need to conclude? if -- do i need to income and if i would, i would ask unanimous consent my entire statement be included in the record. i implore my colleagues to keep faith with the directors of the fib fishing the d.n.a., the secretary of defense -- the f.b.i., the d.n.i., the secretary of defense who say these provisions could create unwanted complications in our terrorist provisions. let's adopt the feinstein amendment t. will help us win the war against terror. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will now proceed to a vote on feinstein amendment number 1125.

a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the ayes are 45, the nays are 55. the amendment does not carry. without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call being lifted. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. hurricane katrina thank you. mr. president, i rise today in support of the 2012 national defense authorization act. the critical piece of legislation that we're now working on that will strengthen our national security, provide four our troops and their -- for our troops and their families and provide oversight of american taxpayer dollars. over the last half strirks the senate has -- over the last half strirks the as soon as has successfully passed a defense authorization bill without fail every year. this strong tradition of bipartisanship continues today under the joint leer leadershipf senators levin and mcdeign i

want to thank the chairman and ranking member as well as the majority and minority staff for their dedicated and tireless effort as we work to bring this important legislation to the floor. throughout this year-long process, our committee takes on extremely difficult and contentious security issues, and at times we have our differences. however, we take on these agreements in a respect and open-minded fashion driven by a strong commitment to cooperation and compromise. bipartisanship has never been easy, but it works as the armed services committee has proven year in and year out. i hope that all of our committees in the senate can work in this kind of cooperative fashion, especially these days when budget constraints are so difficult. no department of the federal government is immune from the severe fiscal challenges facing our nation. that includes our department of

defense. we're cutting $27 billion from the president's budget request in this bill, nearly $43 billion from the last year's authorization. we need to find ways to maximize our investments in defense by aggressively eliminating unneeded and underperforming programs, and we need to streamline our business practices and invest strategically in future technologies. the bill before us helps ensure that our troops, especially the 96,000 serving in afghanistan, as well as their families continue to receive the care and support they deserve. it provides hard-earned pay raises for all uniformed military personnel, funding for critical equipment and training required for our men and women to succeed on the battlefield. the defense authorization bill before us makes important investments in defense, science and technology. mr. president, as i know you agree, we need to do more to

prepare the next generation of scientists and engineers who will be so important to maintaining our nation's superior technological edge. the current bill makes a small down payment on this important effort, and i intend to continue to fight for more investment as we move forward. the bill also includes a number of provisions that will enable the defense department to lead in the creation of a more secure energy future for our military and for our country. as the single-largest consumer of energy in the world today, the u.s. military has taken some initial steps on energy efficiency, energy mitigation -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: -- and the use of renewable and clean energy alternatives. but we still have a very long way to go. i look forward to continuing to work with the department of defense to take advantage of more energy savings opportunities in the future.

this year's defense authorization bill also includes significant resources to fight nontraditional threats, including the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the growing challenge posed by cyberwarfare. in addition, i'm pleased that a number of provisions i've been working on are currently included in the bill. first, we're extending the small business innovation research program for the next eight years. this is critical to keep our defense manufacturing base and our small business innovators strong and competitive. this is a provision that i worked on, and i want to commend senators landrieu and snowe for their leadership in the small business committee for working on this effort and for working so hard to get this extension, a long-term extension into the defense authorization bill. the bill also includes a version of the national guard citizen-soldier support act,

which will go far in providing our national guard members with the unique services and support they need when they return home from the fight. we also have a navy shipyard modernization provision that's been introduced by senators snowe and collins and senator ayotte and i from new hampshire. and it also includes a $400 million cut to an unnecessary and underperforming weapons program that i've worked closely with senator mccain and begich to include. i was pleased to cosponsor senator leahy's national empowerment act which gives a strong voice to our citizen-soldiers in our national guard. now, though we have a good bill before us, i believe it could be better, and i've introduced several additional amendments, two of which are designed to provide the nearly 214,000 women serving in our armed forces with the reproductive health care

they are currently denied under the law. unfortunately we were not able to get a vote on these amendments, but i hope to continue to work closely with the chairman and ranking member to address these important concerns. in addition, i've worked closely with senators collins and casey on an amendment to address unsecured and looted stockpiles of tens of thousands of shoulder-fire missiles in libya. if these weapons fall into the wrong hands, they pose a serious threat to civil aviation worldwide and to our deployed forces abroad. i want to thank the committee for including this provision in the legislation. i also want to address briefly some of the concerns that have been raised with respect to the detainee provisions in the bill. the underlying legislation which i supported is an attempt to provide a statutory basis for dealing with detained members of al qaeda and its terrorist

affiliates. in committee, we made some difficult choices on this extremely complex issue, but we did that in order to strike a bipartisan agreement to both protect our values and our security. i understand, like all of the members of this body, the concerns that have been raised on both sides of these issues. as a general principle, i believe our national security officials should have the flexibility tkphaoed needed to deal with the constantly evolving threat but i also believe clear rules of procedure are a bedrock principal of our constitutional system. i believe the military detention language in this bill includes a significant amount of flexibility for the executive branch, including a national security waiver and broad authorities on implementation. though i support the goals of the chairman and ranking members underlying legislation, i also believe we can improve those

provisions and i supported senator feinstein's amendment which we just voted on, which would restrict required military custody to only those terrorist suspects captured abroad. i hope, mr. president, that despite the disagreements, we will continue to chart a bipartisan path forward with respect to these detainee provisions in the years ahead. we need to give our national security officials at home and abroad a kphraoerl defined but -- clearly defined but yet flexible system which protects our constitutional rights and our national security. in conclusion, i believe the 2012 defense authorization bill before us will strengthen our national security, maintain our military power, keep our defense businesses competitive, help he cancel and roll back wasteful spending, and support the men and women who defend our nation every day. i hope the full senate will quickly come to an agreement on

the pending amendments and pass this important piece of legislation so it can go to the president's desk as soon as possible. thank you very much, mr. president. mrs. boxer: mr. president? mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i have seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet today during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, i know that senator boxer is here to be recognized along with senator grassley, but i call for the regular order with respect to the merkley amendment number 1174. the presiding officer: the senator has that right and that amendment is now the regular order and is pending. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: is it necessary to lay aside the pending amendment so that i can engage in a colloquy? the presiding officer: there is no need to do that. mrs. boxer: thank you.

senator levin and senator mccain, i want to thank you very much. before we engage in a colloquy, i simply want to show one chart. it tells the story as to why senator grassley and i are so pleased that you are willing to accept this by voice vote. senator levin, if i could ask you, senator -- senator, senator levin -- just to take a peek at this because i think this tells the story. this is what the military leadership makes, about $200,000. this is what the president of the united states, who is the commander in chief, makes every year. this is what we have limited, and that was a reform, the top five defense contractors to almost $700,000. but all the rest of the contract employees have absolutely no limit and can make $1 million a year. this is from the taxpayers. and senator grassley and i feel particularly in these times, but just as a matter of equity, we can fix it.

and we're very grateful to the two of you for your willingness. i would like to enter into this colloquy with chairman levin and, of course, through him ranking member mccain. i greatly appreciate your willingness to accept the boxer-grassley amendment 1206 that limits contractor employees' salaries to no more than the salary of the commander in chief, who is of course the president of the united states. mr. levin: the senator from california is correct. we're willing to accept the boxer-grassley amendment by voice vote. about. mrs. boxer: senator grassley. mr. grassley: mr. president and members of the senate, there currently is is no cap at all on the amount that taxpayers will reimburse contractor employees for compensation except for just a handful of executives, and that limit is already too high at $693,951. and that's far above what the

chief executive of the united states government gets paid at $400,000 a year. so that's why we would cap it at no more than what the president can get. and i presume that the senator from michigan is aware of that and willing to help us on that process by adopting this amendment. mr. levin: the senator from california -- mr. mccain: the senator from california yield for pa question. where would the congressional salaries and staff salaries fit on that? mrs. boxer: that's a good question. we would be well below, well below. we'd be about here. mr. mccain: thank you. mr. levin: i am very much aware of what he referred to, senator grassley's question. mrs. boxer: senator, just in conclusion, do the senator from iowa and i have the word from the senator from michigan that during conference negotiations with the house of representatives regarding the defense authorization bill, he

will work to ensure the contractor employees are covered by a reasonable limit so that taxpayers are not on the hook for excessive salary reimbursements? mr. levin: you do indeed. mrs. boxer: thank you very much, mr. chairman. and senator grassley, i think, wants to thank you as well. mr. grassley: i say thank you to the managers of the bill for helping us with this very important amendment. mr. levin: i thank the senator from iowa for your effort in this area. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: mr. president, first, i want to start by thanking chairman levin and senator mccain for their continued dialogue on the matter of overseas base and priorities. i very much appreciate their efforts to work to get at least the first steps in place for a thorough review of our overseas basing needs and finally getting some answers on the costs of these bases.

i also want to especially thank my colleague from texas, senator hutchison, for her continued leadership on this issue and for joining me on senate amendment 1145, a bipartisan effort to establish an overseas basing commission. i realize that there are concerns, and this is not the right time to establish such a commission. however, i think it is a perfect time. so let me reiterate one point that i mentioned yesterday. the commission would be charged with saving taxpayers money by identifying potential savings from reevaluating and potentially realigning our overseas military base structure and investments. it is time we take some commonsense steps to identify and cut overseas military facilities and construction projects that have minimal negative impacts on our national security and military readiness. there is no better time than the president to begin this work. so in a spirit of compromise and understanding to establish a

commission is not currently acceptable to some, i worked with my colleagues to include an independent assessment of our overseas basing in this legislation. now, mr. president, i'd like to speak now as if in morning business for five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: what i'd like to speak now is regarding the payroll tax votes we're going to be taking later today or possibly even this evening. i want to tell you exactly why i'm going to vote against both these proposals. i believe they're gimmicks designed more for political posturing than what congress really ought to be doing right now and that is working together to rate jobs on a long-term basis, to create long-term certainty for businesses throughout this country -- montana included -- while we work to cut our deficit. the democrats' proposal is the same included in the president's american jobs act which i voted against several weeks ago. my reason for voting against that proposal haven't changed. it would temporarily extend the social security payroll tax

holiday through 2012 paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy. although i support making sure that millionaires and corporations pay their fair share in taxes, i do not believe this particular proposal will create jobs or give our economy the boost that it needs right now. a -- a small, one-year temporary tax cut will not give main street businesses the long-term southeasternity they need to grow and hire. the proposal by the republicans also temporarily extends the payroll tax holiday, but only by cutting certain medicare benefits and cutting jobs and extending the current pay freeze for our folks that serve in public service. neither of these proposals is right for montana, and neither will earn my vote. i want to take you back a few weeks -- a few weeks ago to november where congress unanimously passed my veterans jobs bill called the vow to hire heroes act. the president already signed it into law, and i believe congress has the responsibility to spend

more time passing legislation like that, real solutions to create real jobs across this country, not political theater. and i know we can do it. it was appropriate for us to work for the veterans. it is also appropriate for us to work together to create jobs for all americans. with that, i want to thank you, mr. president, suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: senator: mr. presi.

the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: a quorum call. mr. chambliss: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with and be allowed to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. chambliss: mr. president, i want to rise in opposition to the second feinstein amendment which is number 1126, i believe. i have the privilege of serving as vice chairman on the intelligence committee with chairman feinstein, and we have a very good working relationship, agree on most every issue that comes before the committee, and i know the diligence and seriousness with

which she takes every issue, but particularly this issue because we have had a number of discussions about the fact that we have a lack of a detainee and interrogation policy in this country now, and i know she is concerned about that and i know she is trying to make the situation we are, -- situation better, and i remain committed to working with her on a solution. unfortunately, i am going to have to oppose her amendment today because of my concerns about the limitation it imposes on the authority to detain americans who have chosen to wage war against america. my first concern is that it appears from the debate yesterday that there is confusion among some members about what this amendment does. for example, my colleague and friend from illinois, senator kirk, argued that he is in favor of robust and flexible u.s. military action overseas, including against american citizens like anwar awlaki.

senator kirk said he supports the feinstein amendment, however, because he believes in a zone of protection for citizens inside the united states, but the feinstein amendment does not apply to only those american citizens who commit belligerent acts inside the united states. it would also prohibit the long-term military detention of american terrorists like anwar awlaki who commit terrorist acts outside the united states. as a result, this amendment would have the perverse effect of allowing american belligerence overseas to be targeted in lethal strikes but not held in u.s. military detention until the end of hostilities. that just makes no sense whatsoever. i'm also concerned about the ambiguity in the amendment's language and the uncertainty it will cause for our operators, especially our operators overseas. the amendment exempts american citizens from detention without trial until the end of

hostilities, but short of the end of hostilities, the amendment appears to allow detention without trial. is it the senator's intent to allow for some long-term detention of americans without trial? this ambiguity is troubling because we don't know how it will be interpred by our operators or the courts who will hear evidence inable habeas challenges. would they be allowed to hold a captured american for a month, a two month or a few years as long as it was not until the end of hostilities or would the military interpret it as a blanket prehicks against detaining americans for any period of time? if they were to round up a group of americans, terrorists, would they have to let these americans go because the military would not be permitted

to detain them? and would more american belligerents be killed in strikes if capture and detain operations were perceived to be unlawful? i just don't believe we can leave our operators without this -- with this kind of uncertainty. finally, we should all remember that the provisions in the national defense authorization act do not provide for a new authority to hold u.s. citizens in military detention. american citizens can be held in american taxpayer detention under current law and contrary to some claims that were made yesterday and made on this floor, these americans would be given ample due process through their ability to bray habeas corpus challenges to their detention in federal court. the supreme court has held in the hamdi case that the detention of enemy combatants without the prospect of criminal charges or trial until the end of hostilities is proper under

the aumf and the constitution. hamdi is a u.s. citizen. this is not a new concept. and in reaching its decision the hamdi court cited the world war ii case ex parte quirin in which the supreme court held " displip this the united states as an enemy bilge representative does not relieve him of the consequences of a belligerency. in conclusion i understand senator feinstein's motivation but i don't believe this amendment does what she wants it to do and there could be unintended consequences that could seriously hamper overseas capture operations. i urge my colleagues to oppose the feinstein amendment and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i would ask -- i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. grassley: for assassin nin interested how long it might be, maybe roughly ten minutes. mr. president, for nearly a year i've been investigating the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms and explosives on the operation known as fast and furious. i have followed up on questions from that investigation as the senate judiciary committee held oversight hearings over the past few weeks with both secretary janet napolitano and attorney general eric holder. each of them testified about the aftermath of the shooting of border patrol agent brian terry and i have sought to clarify what facts some of the half truths that were said during these meetings. each claimed that they were ignorant of the connection between agent terry's death and operation fast and furious until

my letters with whistle-blower allegations brought the connection to light. however, documents that have come to light in my investigation draw those claims into question. i'd like to address a couple of those discrepancies. secretary napolitano went to arizona a few days after agent terry's death. she said that she met at that time with the f.b.i. agents and the assistant attorney general -- u.s. attorneys looking for the shooters. she also said that at that point in time nobody knew about fast and furious. yet documents show that many people knew about fast and furious on december 15, the day that agent terry died. secretary napolitano referenced

the f.b.i. agents looking for the shooters. the head of the f.b.i. field division was present at the december 15 press conference about agent terry's murder. at that very press conference, the f.b.i. heard -- or the f.b.i. head told a chief assistant u.s. attorney about the connection to an ongoing a.t.f. investigation. that same night u.s. attorney dennis burke confirmed that the guns tied back to operation fast and furious. these connections were made days before secretary napolitano's visit to that -- at that time. the very purpose of her visit was to find out more about the investigation. so a very important question comes up: the department of homeland security oversees the

border patrol. why wouldn't the phoenix f.b.i. head have told secretary napolitano that the only guns found at the scene of agent terry's murder were tied to an ongoing a.t.f. investigation? and let's not forget the u.s. attorney's office. secretary napolitano said that she met with the assistant u.s. attorneys looking for the shooters. the chief assistant u.s. attorney for the tucson office, which coordinated the terry investigation, found out about the a.t.f. connection directly from our federal bureau of investigation. so a very important question comes up that needs to be answered: why would they conceal the fast and furious connection from secretary napolitano days

later? the tucson office is overseen by the u.s. attorney for the district of arizona, dennis burke, who confirmed to tucson that guns came from operation fast and furious. when mrs. napalitano was governor of arizona, mr. burke served as her chief of staff for five years. secretary napolitano acknowledges that she had conversations with him about the murder of agent terry. so a very important question comes up: why would mr. burke conceal the fast and furious connection from secretary napolitano? even before secretary napolitano came to arizona, emails indicate mr. burke spoke on december 15 with attorney general holder's deputy chief of staff, monty wilkinson.

so a very important question is unanswered. before finding out about agent terry, mr. burke emailed mr. wilkinson that he wanted to -- quote -- "explain in detail about fast and furious when they talked." on that phone call -- this is a very important question. on that phone call did u.s. attorney burke tell mr. wilkinson about the case connection to a border patrol agent's death that very day? the next day deputy director at a.t.f. made sure briefing papers were prepared about operation fast and furious' connection to agent terry's death. he sent them to individuals here in washington, d.c. in the deputy attorney general's office at the justice department. within 24 hours, they were

forwarded to the deputy attorney general. they were accompanied by personal emails from one of the deputy attorneys general assistant -- attorney general's assistants explaining the situation. two weeks layers that deputy attorney general, gary grinningler, was named the attorney general holder's chief of staff. yet a month and a half after agent terry's death, attorney general holder was allegedly ignorant of operation fast and furious' connection to the murder of agent terry. so a very important question is unanswered: why wouldn't mr. grindler bring these serious problems with attorney general holder either as his deputy attorney general or as his chief of staff? it's clear that multiple

high-placed officials in multiple agencies knew almost immediately of the connection between operation fast and furious and agent terry's death. the department of justice and the department of homeland security have failed to adequately explain why attorney general holder and secretary napolitano allegedly remained ignorant of that connection. whether it's the attorney general or the secretary, or members of their staff, somebody wasn't doing their job. somebody wasn't serving their higher--ups as they should as proper staff people. in the case of secretary napolitano, either she was not entirely candid with me and others or this was a gross breach on the part of those who kept her in the dark. the border patrol and the

department of homeland security lost a man, agent terry, being murdered. it was their right to know the full circumstances surrounding that from people who served under them. no one likes the unpleasant business of having to fess up, but the f.b.i., a.t.f. and u.s. attorney's office owed it to agent brian terry and his family to fully inform the leadership of the department of homeland security. this was the death of a federal agent involving weapons allowed to walk free by another agency in his own government. let me explain walking guns. the federal government operates under the rule of law just like all of us have to live under that rule of law. there are licensed federal gun

dealers. federal gun dealers were encouraged to sell guns illegally to straw buyers and supposedly follow those guns across the border to somehow arrest people that were involved with drug trafficking and other illegal things. and two of these guns showed up at the murder scene of agent terry. so it's a very serious situation that we need to get to the bottom of. if that's not what i just described of all these unanswered questions, if that's not enough to brief up to the top of the department, then i don't know what is. in other words, staff people ought to be doing their job or if staff people were doing their job, then the congress and our constitutional job of oversight is being misled. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island.

mr. reed: request permission to speak for 10 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: i rise to favor spending the payroll tax cut and full extension of unemployment insurance. they are our best tools in strengthening our economic recovery. we must work without letup to pass this legislation before year's end. democrats are doing everything they can to create jobs and solve our unemployment crisis. millions of americans are still out of work, however, and looking for a job in the toughest economy since the great depression. and jobless benefits which have been essential to millions of americans as they search for a job are set to expire at the end of this year. congress has never failed to extend benefits when unemployment is this high. unfortunately, right now

republicans are refusing to fully extend unemployment insurance despite our nation's 9% unemployment rate. and in extending benefits we should not do any less for the recently unemployed than we did for those who were unemployed in the last year or two. that is why i introduced the emergency unemployment compensation extension act of 2011, which fully extends federal support for unemployment insurance through 2012. extending benefits doesn't just make sense for a person who has been laid off, it makes sense for the economy as a whole. in fact, during today's hearing at the senate banking committee a business owner recognized that failing to extend unemployment insurance would have a negative impact on their business. hard to quantify, but the sense they have from operating a very dispersed convenience store

operation throughout the country is they are likely to see impacts and those will be magnified and multiplied throughout our economy. it will ironically cause not just those without jobs to lose benefits, it will probably lose -- lead to further reductions in jobs. as demand falls off and the need for employees, particularly in retail establishments might lessen. that's why if congress truly wishes to help strengthen our economy, we need to extend unemployment insurance now. the reason we must fully extend unemployment insurance is simple: if people don't have jobs, they can't spend money. if people can't spend money, businesses go under, if businesses fail, more people lose their jobs, and the downward spiral continues. extending unemployment insurance is not just the right thing to do, it's a wise investment with a strong rate of return that will provide a much-needed

economic boost to every state across the country. this is a national phenomenon, regrettably, of unemployment. this program will address a nationwide problem and it will do it in an extraordinarily cost-effective way. representatives of the c.b.o. have calculated that this is probably the -- the best return for the dollar that we can generate because it's quite simple. people who are receiving unemployment benefits need that money to pay for groceries, put some gas in the car, to take care of those immediate expenses. so as the economists would say, they are marginal propensity to consume; ie., their willingness to take the dollar in and spend it out is very, very high. and as a result, this program not only helps families who are struggling, it immediately

injects dollars and demand into the economy. they have a real benefit, these programs. we understand that what we have to d do, but the great challenge is to grow the economy and that means to create jobs. again, this program will help stimulate demand, will help keep people at work and perhaps even and we hope put more people to work. when it comes to, as i said before, the efficacy of this program, the bang for the buck, it is among the most effective. i referred to some economists in specific terms. allen blinder and mark zandi have said that every dollar we spend on growing the economy, the economy brings in $1.61. the economic policy institute has said that fail to extend benefits could result in the lost of $72 billion in economic

activity for 2012. that translates to 560,000 jobs lost across the country if this activity -- or no are not gainef they are not extended. so this country cannot afford this hit. we cannot afford to miss the opportunity to maintain or create almost 500,000 johns. we cannot -- opportunity to main toin or create almost 500,000 jobs. we cannot ignore the fact that in this very critical budget situation, this is one of the most cost-effective ways to continue to stimulate demand and grow jobs in our country. and we also have to understand that we are dealing with a situation that is getting to be critical because we're running out of time. these benefits will expire at the end of the year and we must move forward. i think we can also do something else and that is to improve this

program, and one way to improve it is to adopt a program that is very effective. in my state of rhode island and several other states across the country. it's a work-share program. it's a voluntary program that prevents layoffs, it keeps people on the job, it helps employers retain skilled workers and it strengthens the unemployment insurance system. over 20 states are utilize this go program. they estimate they've saved 100,000 jobs in 2010 alone. essentially what it does, it allows an employer to keep people on the job for three out of five days of the week and the other two days are compensated for by the unemployment insurance fund. the fund saves money, the employer keeps these people in the workplace with all their skills, all their contribution to the firm. it is a win-win and it's something that 20 states across this country have embraced and i think it should be national and we have provisions in our

legislation that would help extend it nationally. again, we cannot delay and i urge all of my colleagues to join me and others in taking the needed steps for our economic recovery, for extending our unemployment compensation insurance program before the end of this year. and with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. quorua senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i rise to speak to several amendments of the defense authorization bill. first in regard to the nuclear triad and the important role it plays in defense of our nation and security in the world and also in regard to the global hawk unmanned aerial systems program and the important role that it has for our forces, both today in our efforts around the world and what it means to us in the future. first in regard to amendment 1279 and the nuclear triad.

madam president, this amendment is cosponsored by senators tester, senator enzi, senator blunt, senator vitter and also i would like to ask unanimous consent that my colleague from north dakota, senator conrad, be included as a cosponsor of the amendment, as well as senator baucus of montana. the amendment declares that the united states should maintain a triad of strategic nuclear delivery systems which includes missiles, bombers and submarines. it also declares that the the sense of the senate that the president should budget for the modernization of those systems and the weapons that they deliver. over the past couple of years, numerous statements have been made in support of the triad. the 2010 nuclear posture review concluded that the united states

needs the nuclear triad. the senate in its resolution of ratification for the new start treaty declared that the united states needs the nuclear triad. and president obama last february certified that he intends to modernize the nuclear triad. however, the administration is now currently conducting a further review of the role of the nuclear -- that nuclear weapons play in defending u.s. national. a nunn tour nuclear pos -- a miniature nuclear posture review, and it's important that the senate reaffirm its commitment to the nuclear triad once again. i'm particularly concerned by statements that we can reduce our nuclear arsenal significantly below the requirements laid out in the new start treaty. given the threats that we face and the responsibility that we have to the american people and to our allies, i believe we must retain the nuclear triad. the reasons are clear and

compelling. we need missiles to protect -- to provide a persistent, dispersed and cost-effective deterrent. we need submarines to provide an invisible, mobile and survivable deterrent. and we need bombers to provide a visible long-range, recallable deterrent. the bottom line is that the triad provides us with a safe, credible, reliable nuclear deterrent that renders any effort to eliminate or sidestep our retaliatory capabilities completely meaningless. and those benefits accrue not only to the united states but to our allies as well. the congressional strategic posture commission, the resolution of the ratification to the new start agreement, and the 2010 nuclear posture review all concluded that the united states needs to maintain the triad. now, the triad was developed out of a need to countered an

immense -- counter an immense threat from the soviet union. but it now gives us the flexibility to adopt to an ever-changing international security environment. and supporting a triad means supporting a program to maintain and enhance the weapons and to leverage a system that make up the triad. it is very important to point out, and particularly given our fiscal situation, that the costs of updating and maintaining the weapons in the triad will not take up a very big percentage of the defense budget, particularly relative to the tremendous security advantages it provides. in fact, general kieler, the head of strategic command, recently indicated his strong support for efforts to preserve the triad and modernize each the associated delivery systems. now, it's tempting to assume that because the cold war is over, we don't need the nuclear arsenal anymore. in fact, people who defend the nuclear arsenal are often accused of being stuck in a cold

war mind-set. truth is just the opposite. only in a cold war mind-set would we assume russia is the sole reason we preserve our nuclear arsenal. today our nuclear deterrent counters a variety of threats that did not even exist during the cold war. and it hedges against the emergence of new nuclear threa threats. the decades following the end of the cold war have made nuclear deterrence far more complicated than the old superpower confrontation of the last century. we must now counter nuclear threats from multiple actors around the world. first, consider china. china's military modernization program's built on a foundation of a large and growing nuclear arsenal. intelligence estimates suggest that the number of warheads atop chinese icbm's capability of reaching the united states could more than double within the next 15 years.

recent reports indicate china is fielding four different new nuclear-ready ballistic missiles. china is prioritizing the development of mobile land-based icbm's and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. china's nuclear posture is also troubling. china has not defined what it would consider a minimum nuclear deterrent, making it difficult to understand the motivations behind china's nuclear force expansion and their modernization efforts. second, new nuclear powers like north korea and pakistan further complicate how we calculate our need for deterrence. north korea has pursued nuclear weapons using both plutonium and uranium and continues to develop long-range ballistic missiles that can threaten the united states. north korea's nuclear arsenal forces our allies in east asia, especially south korea and

japan, to put a premium on the u.s. nuclear deterrent. pakistan's nuclear weapons greatly complicate the security situation in central asia and create a serious risk of nuclear proliferation. and the emergence of these two nuclear powers is a cautionary tale about the unpredictable ripple effects of new players in the nuclear game and a strong reason why reductions to u.s. strategic forces should only be made with the greatest caution. third, nuclear proliferation will remain one of our foremost security challenges in the wor world. the iaea throorts iran has been researching -- throorts iran has been researching and developing nuclear weapons and expressed serious concerns about the military dimensions of iran's nuclear program. syria was so serious about developing a nuclear weapon, probably with the help of north

korea and iran, that in 2007 israel had to destroy a syrian nuclear site. terrorist groups and other rogue actors also seek the development or the acquisition of nuclear arms. and, ofand of course fourth we t yet forget about russia. your honor the provisions of the new start agreement, russia can expand its nuclear force rather than pursue reductions. russia tends to build a heavy new icbm be available by 2018. russia expects to build eight new nuclear submarines, and it also plans on designing and building a new nuclear bomber. we cannot afford to let our nuclear deterrent atrophy in light of so many nuclear threats. once we lose nuclear capabilities, it will be extremely hard to reconstitute them. we need a reliable and credible nuclear arsenal. we need it to dissuade new

nations from acquiring nuclear weapons. we need it to deter nuclear powers from using their weapons, and we need it to hold enemy arsenals at risk. people may not always stop and think about the demands placed on america's nuclear deterrent, but they are real and they are extensive. we have nuclear weapons as a guarantee tear of the security -- as a guaranteer of the security. the investments made over the last several deduct deducts cono pay dividends. make no mistake, without a large nuclear arsenal, other nations would move plans to strike the united states from the category of "unthinkable" to "possibly thinkable." the united states nuclear

deterrent replaces the need for our allies to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, keeping the peace in critical regions around the world. east asia is a particularly good example. the status of u.s. nuclear posture is a major concern in japan. despite assurances from the united states that our nuclear umbrella will continue to protect japan, tokyo is worried that even the most -- about even the most subtle changes in u.s. policy. during his most recent trip, secretary panetta reiterated the u.s. commitment to protect south korea and our nuclear umbrella. and our nuclear deterrent is likely the only reason why south korea has not developed a nuclear capability in response to north korea's nuclear program. i'll conclude on the triad. our nuclear deterrent has been the foundation of u.s. national security since world war ii.

the nuclear triad provides an incredible return on our investment. i urge the administration to send a strong support for the nuclear triad as laid out in amendment 1279. madam president, if i may very briefly also address the importance of the global hawk with a brief overview of amendment 1358. this amendment simple snraits that it is the sense of congress that the secretary of air force should continue to abide by the guidelines set forgot in the aquiization -- set forth in the acquisition. that memorandum on global hawk, the rq-4 global hawk found that it is essential -- essential -- to national security and that there is no other program that can provide the benefits to the war fighter that the global hawk can provide. the global hawk is a vital

intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance asset. the global hawk flies at high altitude, it can fly at extended ranges and for long periods of time, and it can carry a wide array of sensors simultaneously. we have invested a lot of time and a lot of money in this platform, and it is paying fast dividends. the global hawk is flown in a wide variety of missions for humanitarian relief efforts in japan and haiti and extensively for operations in libya. for these reasons and many more, my amendment stresses that the air force must continue to heed the conclusions of the june 14, 2011, acquisition decision memorandum on the rq-4 program, the rq-4 program, which is global hawk remains essential to

the united states national security and is irreplaceable. the bottom line is america needs to support and continue the global hawk. our commanders require as much information about the battlefield as they can get. the rq-4 represents a new generation of aircraft unprecedented -- unprecedented -- capabilities and finally, we must invest in this essential capacity precisely because budgets are tight. and as the pentagon concluded in june, the global hawk represents the most cost-effective way to meet the requirements of our war fighters now and in the future. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: madam president, i would like to address my amendment number 1274, which would clarify, i believe,

existing law that the president has authority to continue to detain an enemy combatant under the laws of war following a trial before a military commission or an article 3 court and regardless of the outcome of that trial. let me explain what i mean. as i said yesterday, although under the law of war the president has the authority to detain an enemy combatant, a prisoner of war, a captured enemy soldier, belligerent, he can detain them through the duration of the hostilities. the president is not required -- the commander in chief is not required to release an individual whose sworn duty it is to return to his military outfit and commence hostilities again against the united states. that individual could be killed on the battlefield. but if they're captured, you're not required, under all laws of

war that i'm aware of -- and certainly the geneva conventio s you can maintain that individual in custody to prevent them from attacking you. but you can also try an individual who has been captured if that individual violated the rules of war. for example, a decent soldier from germany -- many of them were held in my state of alabama; they behaved well, they drew paintings of american citizens; they did a lot of things and did not cause at that lot of trouble, and they were in uniform and they complied with the rules of war, and they were not tried as illegal enemy combatants. but many of the terrorists today don't wear uniforms, deliberately target innocent men, women, and children, deliberately violate multiple rules of war. those individuals are subject,

in addition to being held as a combatant, an an unlawful combatant, they can be prosecuted. and they should be prosecuted. in world war ii, a number of nazi saboteurs in the ex parte quirin case were let out of a submarine off of i think long island, they came into the country with plans to sabotage the united states. they were captured and tried which military commissions. several were american citizens, and a number of them -- most of them, frankly, after being tried an convicted were executed. the supreme court of the united states approved that procedure. but, recent cases demonstrate the potential problem we have today. one guantanamo bay detainee has already raised the question that i have discussed before the military commission, where he's being tried.

the alleged mastermind of the united states cole bombing was arraigned before a military commission on november 9. he was held not only as an al qaeda or a belligerent against the united states, but he was charged with violation of the rules of war. this was the group that sneaked into the harbor pretending to be innocent people and ran their boat in against the cole and killing a number of united states sailors. i remember being at a christening of one of the navy ships at another foal being not long after this -- at another folk and i heard one of the sailors cry out. "remember the cole." and the hair still stands up on my neck when i hear it. we have an obligation to defend our men and women in uniform,

there out on the high seas. they're in a neutral port. they are expected to be treated according to the laws of war, and then they are murdered by an individual like this. but this individual's lawyers filed a motion asking the military judge to clarify the effect of an acquittal, should the commission acquit him. he argued that the members of the commission had a right to know what would happen if he were acquitted. because they might object taking part in what he called a show trial, that he would continue to be detained at guantanamo bay. there is another case in which the administration was almost confronted with the problem a year ago, in the case of a former guantanamo detainee, an al qaeda member named ahmed ghailani, who was responsible for the 1998 embassy bombings in kenya and tanzania. most of us remember those early

al qaeda bombings against our embassies in africa. after the justice department chose to prosecutes ghailani in an article 3 civilian court and directed the united states attorney not to seek the death penalty, which i'm not sure why that ever happened -- we don't know -- but the jury acquitted him on 284 out of 285 counts. luckily he received a life sentence on the single count of conspiracy for which he was convicted. but if he hadn't been convicted? what if there was insufficient evidence to prove he committed a crime but not insufficient evidence to prove he was an unlawful -- a combatant against the united states? al qaeda has declared war against the united states, officially and openly.

the united states congress has authorized the use of military force against al qaeda, which is the equivalent of a declaration of war. well, what if he'd received a modest sentence after being convicted or -- and had credit for time served? what if he had been acquitted on all 285 counts? would the president have been required to release him? -- into the united states if the government couldn't get some country to take him? that would be wrong. he was at war against the united states. he was a combatant against the united states. like any other captured combatant, he can be held as long as the hostility continue. but -- and by the way, let me note, the military commissions are open. if they decide to try one of these individuals -- not just

hold them as a prisoner of war but hold them and try them for violation of the laws of war -- they get lawyers, they get procedural rights, the supreme court has established what those rights are, congress has passed laws effectuating what the supreme court said these trials should consist of and a mechanism has been set up to fairly try them. but enemy combatants are not common criminals. if a bank robber is denied bond, he remains in jail awaiting trial. speedy government trial with government-paid lawyers. enemy combatants are not sitting in guantanamo bonn bay waiting trial by military commission or by an article 3 court. they are held in military custody precisely because they y are enemies, combatants against the united states. they should continue to be held there as long as the war continues and they don't -- and as long as they do not remain a

threat to return to the battlefield against the united states. so this is an important point considering that 27% of the former guantanamo detainees that have been released, 161 out of 600 have returned to the battlefield, attacked americans. this nation has no obligation to release captured enemy prisoners of war when we know for an absolute fact that 27% of them have returned to war against the united states. and how many others have but we just don't have proof of it? and that's -- that's what the whole history of warfare is. lincoln ceased exchanging prisoners with the south after he realized that they had more soldiers in the south. and it was not to his advantage to release southern -- captured

southern soldiers who would return to the fight. so he held them until the war was over. under the laws of war, the president has the authority to prevent an enemy combatant from returning to the battlefield. that's consistent with all history. this amendment -- please, senators, i hope you would note -- would make it clear that the president simply has the authority to continue to detain enemy combatants held pursuant to the rules of war, even though they may have been tried, regardless of where that trial would be held, and what the outcome was. as long as, of course, they could prove they were enemy combatant and violating the rules of law. mr. president, i would note one thing. i see my senator -- friend from california is here and probably is ready to speak. on the question of citizenship, can a citizen be held in this

fashion? the supreme court has clearly held that they may. but the senator's offering legislation that might change that. my amendment doesn't answer that question. it just simply says a combatant should be able to be held under the standard of a prisoner of war, a combatant, even if they had been prosecuted for violation of the laws of war and acquitted. it's common sense, i believe the courts will hold that. it's an issue that's out there. i think congress would do well to settle it today. i urge my colleagues to do so. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mr. levin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president, in a few minutes i'm going to be making -- the presiding officer: quorum call, senator. mr. levin: i appreciate the presiding officer. i ask unanimous consent if a further proceedings under the

quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: in a few moments senator mccain and i will be seeking unanimous consent that the following pending and germane amendments be considered en bloc, that the amendments be modified with the changes that are at the desk where applicable: begich 1114 as modified. mccain 1220. reed of rhode island 1146 as modified. levin 1293 as modified. boxer 1206. chambliss 1304 as modified. pryor 1151. nelson of florida 1236. blunt 1133. and murkowski 1287. further, that the amendments be agreed to en bloc. we're not making that request now. we will be making that request in a few minutes. this is not the so-called managers' package, by the way. this is the pending germane amendments which have been before us for some time but

which have now been cleared, we believe, and there is no opposition. but if there is and people wanted to speak on it, i think senator mccain wanted to be sure, as i do, that there be an opportunity for people to come down. so i will yield now to my friend from arizona. mr. mccain: reserving the right to object, i will not object, i thank my friend. i also believe that he overlooked brown amendment number 1090 i think was agreed to to be a part of that. mr. levin: that was not on my sheet, but it's fine. that would be added. mr. mccain: i note the presence of our friend from texas who would like to voice his objections to the package of amendments pending which have been agreed by both sides, because of his concerns about a particular amendment that he had. i'd like to hear from him in a minute. but i'd like to say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, if you have an objection, please come to the floor. we would intend to vote or seek

approval of these, of what the distinguished chairman just proposed at five after the hour. that gives me 15 minutes. i yield. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, is there a unanimous consent request pending? the presiding officer: no, there's not. mr. cornyn: thank you for the clarification. i just wanted to make sure. madam president, i discussed with the distinguished chairman of the senate armed services committee and the ranking member, the distinguished ranking member my concerns that earlier i attempted to gain unanimous consent to modify my amendment with regard to the sale of f-16's to taiwan in order to make it germane. i was happy to do that in order to get a vote. but the chairman tells me there is an objection to that. so i wanted to make clear that any amendment that's offered,

whether now in this list or subsequently the managers' package or otherwise that is being treated differently than mine is, that i'm going to object to unanimous consent. but i would ask just for present purposes, through the chair, i'd ask the distinguished chairman of the armed services committee: are there any amendments on this list that were modified in order to make them germane? mr. levin: the answer is -- and i double checked on this. the answer is "no." and that's about as directly as i can say it. we checked with staff, and staff says that none of them have been -- they have been modified as i indicated in many indicates, but none in order to make them germane. mr. cornyn: madam president, i appreciate the direct response from the chairman. i'll have no objection to any amendment that's being offered that is not being offered as

modified in order to make it germane. i hope my point's clear as mud, but i will yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: can i just say that i support, strongly support the amendment by the senator from texas, and i will do everything that i can to see that this issue is raised. i cannot comprehend why we would not want to provide one of our closest allies with the equipment they need to protect themselves with a growingly aggressive mainland china kpeublgt character -- exhibiting characteristics of threatening and bullying taiwan. i want to assure both senators from texas who have been very involved in this issue, and i want to tell him i will continue to do everything i can to see that this amendment is adopted. we need to send a signal that we do support our friends.

i yield the floor. mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: madam president, i just would join with senator mccain in support of senator cornyn's amendment. taiwan has been a strong ally of the united states. senator mccain said we would provide them military aircraft, but in truth they would buy it. they're our allies. they're friends. they're prepared to purchase from an american company, legitimate military equipment that they could use to help maintain their freedom that they've cherished on the island. and i think it's hard for me to understand how that would be objected to. so i just want to say as someone

who looked at these issues for some time as a member of the armed services committee, i do believe senator cornyn, also a member of that committee, is correct. i strongly support the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote for it if and when we can get a vote. i thank the chair, would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i have an amendment that has been accepted, almost, sort of,

kind of accepted. amendment 1090. that i would like to discuss briefly. i want to thank senators wyden and coons for their bipartisan leadership as cosponsors of this amendment. i believe we're going to vote on it shortly, and i would ask that it be accepted either by vote or by u.c. vote. it's a simple amendment that will make sure that the national guardsmen who get deployed will receive the housing allowances that they need and deserve. this is a bipartisan amendment, and the defense department has agreed that the situation needs to be fixed. something that recently was developed. there is a little bit of history behind this, but i really don't think it's important because senator wyden and senator coons and i have taken the lead on this issue, which is critically important to providing the funds that have been taken merely by a change in the regulations, and

this is a time quite frankly that our men and women who are fighting need that money. i'm introducing the amendment as a result of a bill i introduced last september entitled the national guard basic allowance for housing equity act. and i introduced this legislation to fix an inequity that hurts national guardsmen who are deployed. merely as a result of their deployment, madam president, they could lose upwards of a thousand dollars per month in their monthly housing allowance. basic allowance for housing or b.a.h. is a benefit paid to members of the military to offset the cost of local housing markets. when a service member is deployed, b.a.h. is necessary to offset the cost of housing or rent in a particular geographic area. everyone in the military, especially families, rely on this benefit. this benefit is especially critical when service members deploy because as we know the

spouse is often at home, and she or he are responsible for taking care of the bills. what would you say, madam president, if i told you that because you were ordered to deploy to afghanistan, for example, the department of defense is going to withhold $1,000 or more from your monthly housing allowance, a huge piece of your household income because of a new policy interpretation? that's right, it's merely a new policy interpretation. and because of a d.o.d. oversight, over 800 guardsmen, some even in your state, 40 in massachusetts who are deployed to afghanistan right now are losing, newly losing in the middle of the battle up to $1,000 per month in their housing allowance because they were ordered to deploy. title 10 mandates that full time guardsmen when ordered to active duty for a contingency operation even if there is no break in their active federal service must revert back to their home of record status rather than their current duty station. because of this change in

status, it alters a guardsman's basic allowance for housing on their monthly pay stub. you're basically punishing a guardsman for being deployed to a war zone. for example, take a full-time national guardsmen who is from worcester. he calls worcester, massachusetts, home, and probably votes in massachusetts but he is stationed in washington, d.c., let's say right down the street at the pentagon. so he or she earns a housing allowance based on the cost of living in d.c., and as we all know, it is higher than in worcester, massachusetts. it sounds pretty normal, pretty straightforward, right? but this guardsman is then ordered to active duty, to federal status, for the purpose of deploying overseas. a new housing allowance rate kicks in that is based on his home of record back in worcester, not when he or she was actually stationed here in d.c. as a result, the guardsman and his family immediately start losing up to $1,000 a month because of that deployment to serve their country. so full-time guardsmen are entitled to the b.a.h. rate they are receiving at the duty

station because it is where they and their dependents live. that's often where the spouses will reside until that service member comes back. they are not going back to worcester while he or she was stationed obviously at the pentagon or here in d.c. it's not right. it's something that d.o.d. agrees with. senator wyden and coons concurred. i appreciate their bipartisanship in moving this forward. and i'm all about finding savings, but the good thing is that this is no cost to the government. it's already budgeted in the d.o.d. budget. i'm not into savings that treat our service men and women unfairly. so it provides a simple, noncontroversial fix, it is germane, it's relevant, it helps people who are serving our country right now, and it is bipartisan. it's how we should do things around here. i'm glad the d.o.d. has realized that this is a problem, and i hope my colleagues will really move forward in a manner that -- to make our citizens proud. i want to thank senator mccain

for his effort in getting this really important matter to our guardsmen who are serving presently overseas. it's a testament to his diligence, and i want to thank chairman levin for putting up with the problems throughout the last few days, but it's important to people. it's not about politics. it's about serving our men and women. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. mccain: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i want to thank the senator from massachusetts for his amendment. he spent a great deal of time in his life serving in the national guard, including spending time in afghanistan recently. he understands the burdens that our national guard men and women bear, and i am very grateful for his careful attention to their needs, and this is clearly an

issue that needed to be addressed and we are proud to have it as part of our legislation. so again, my thanks to the senator from massachusetts and also to my friend, chairman levin, for helping making this amendment possible. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: madam president, i now ask unanimous consent that the following pending germane amendments be considered en bloc, that the amendments be modified with the changes that are at the desk, where applicable -- begich number 114 as modified, mccain 1220, reed of rhode island as modified, boxer 1206, chambliss 1304 as modified, pryor 1151, nelson of florida 1236, blunt 1133 as modified, murkowski 1287 as modified, and brown number 1090 as modified, and further that the amendments be agreed to en bloc. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the amendments are agreed to. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent now that the following

two amendments be withdrawn, collins 1105 and collins 1158. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the amendments will be withdrawn. mr. levin: i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana is recognized. mr. vitter: thank you,

madam president. i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. vitter: madam president, i speak for -- i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes on a different topic than the defense authorization bill. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. vitter: i come to the senate floor to discuss another very important issue for our economy, which is the national flood insurance program. national flood insurance program is a vital federal program that helps provide flood insurance for properties all across the country. and it is absolutely vital to citizens and to our economy, to the real estate market, to closings, which can't happen without this type of insurance in many instances. it's important all across the country. it's nowhere more important than in louisiana, which, unfortunately, has a pretty severe flooding risks. madam president, the last few years with shall -- we've

extended this necessary and important program but sometimes with real fits and starts and even lapses of the program. as you know, in 2010 it really got worse than ever. congress allowed the national flood insurance program to lapse four times for a total of 53 days really for no good reason. wasn't a money issue, wasn't a cost issue, wasn't a deficit issue, because continuation of the program along the current structure does not raise deficit and debt. but we had these deadlines that kept approaching and we let in many instances, in four instances, the deadline to actually come and the program to lapse four times in 2010 for a total of 53 days. that had enormous negative consequences. closings, real estate closings, that were scheduled to happen had to be canceled.

now, here we are in the middle of a horrendous recession, clearly the worst since world war ii, let by problems in the real estate market. and we had good, solid real estate closings which had to be put off and canceled for no good reason. really crazy. we learned a little bit from that experience, and this year in 2011 we've done better. we've continued to program without lapse. but i'm afraid, madam president, we're getting back into this habit of extremely short-term extensions which brings with it the threat of lapses. we just extended the program a few weeks ago, but we only extended it for the duration of the current c.r. until december 16. the program is set to expire nationwide this december 16.

madam president, the ultimate solution is a long-term, full reauthorization of the flood insurance program, and i support that full six-year bill, and we have voted out of the senate banking committee a full, long-term, six-year reauthorization bill. however, madam president, that's not going to pass into law between now and december 16, and it's pretty clear it's not going to pass into law for several months. so, madam president, that's why i'm urging all of us to come together in a bipartisan fashion in the meantime to pass a clean extension of the program for the remainder of this fiscal year through september 30, 2012, or for some significantly long time within that year. i think that is needed right now to assure the real estate market

that there won't be disruptions, to take that threat and that uncertainty out of the market and out of the line of closings that we want to encourage, that we want to build as we try to build up the real estate market and the economy in general. because i believe this is clearly the right path, madam president, i've done two things. i've filed that extension, that clean extension, a bill under my name, through september 30, 2012. this is very similar to the extension we passed in late 2010 to get us through that fiscal year to cept 30, 2011. that was my -- september 30, 2011. that was my bill, we passed it unanimously in the senate again to avoid these deadlines and disruptions which hamper economic recovery. so i filed that bill.

that would be a clean extension of the program through september september 30, 2012. the second thing i did today was write senator reid, the majority leader, and ask him to focus on this important program and the need for this extension as soon as possible, and to hotline it through the senate, to ask for unanimous consent, both sides, all members, as we did about a year ago, pass this the so that we extend the program, important vital program, through september 30, 2012 or some similar, significant time frame. again, i just wrote senator reid today to highlight this need. i'll be following up with him. i've already followed up and talked to many other interested members starting with those leaders on the banking committee under whose jurisdiction this falls. so, madam president, this

should be a no brainer. this should be a completely nonpartisan or bipartisan exercise. this is not some big ideological dispute. this is simply extending, continuing a vital, necessary program without if any way increasing deficit and debt, in a way that we take out uncertainty, take out the specter of this necessary program lapsing yet again, as it did four times in 2010, for a total of 53 days. we can't let this lapse, and quite frankly, we shouldn't even go near the deadline before we extend it because that in and of itself even if we don't technically allow it to lapse, creates uncertainty and chaos in the real estate market and disrupts real estate closings. we need every good real estate transaction we can get.

we need every bit of additional economic activity we can get in this horrible economy. this recession that was led by a bad real estate market. we need to lead recovery with a recovering real estate market. so let's do this in a simple, straightforward, commonsense, bipartisan way in that effort. we did it around my bill in that nearly full-year extension about a year ago. let's do it again. in closing, madam president, i want to underscore i am fully committed to the full, detailed, six-year reauthorization bill. it's come out of the senate banking committee. it needs to pass through the senate. we need to resolve differences with the house. we need to pass that into law. but that's not going to happen between now and december 16, and it's not going to happen for several months. so in the meantime, let's

remove the threat of disruption, of lapses in the program, of uncertainty. all of that is extremely harmful in this very fragile economy. thank you, madam president. i yield back the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator frommethesenator from ss recognizedment mr. thune: is the senator in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, it is. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted and that i be allowed to speak in morning business.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. thune: madam president, yesterday, a number of us -- in fact, i think the number now is somewhere in the 37 to 38 ballpark of senators, introduced legislation to expedite consideration of the keystone x.l. pipeline. what's interesting to me about all of this is that this is a project that's been literally reviewed and analyzed and studied and scrutinized now for the better part of three years. in fact, they've had two comprehensive environmental evaluations and three years of study and review, and then just recently, the obama administration deferred a decision on the permit until after the 2012 elections, essentially put off the decision for about 18 months. well, what's iran and i can sort of interesting -- well, what's iran and i can sort of interesting about that, madam president -- well, what's ironic and interesting about that, madam president, is that this is a project, after having been vetted for three years, carefully reviewed, carefully

studied, all the environmental impact analysis done, would lead to all kinds of economic development for this country and job creation in many of the states that are impacted. our state of south dakota happens to be one of those. the pipeline traverses south dakota as it heads down to refineries in other places in the country. but it would benefit my state by generating significant amounts of state and local tax revenue, revenue that's much needed by many of the local jurisdictions, school districts, counties, municipalities in the state of south dakota. and so there's a tremendous benefit to the construction of this pipeline to the various states who are impacted simply as a result of the additional tax revenue that would be raised by it. now, you add to that in my state of south dakota the hundreds of jobs that would be created, the half a billion dollars of economic activity that it would generate and this -- it's very clear from the state of south dakota's standpoint, which is why i believe our governor as weighed in behind this project,

that this is something that ought to at least be decided. there's no reason why, no rational reason why, no logical reason why this project would be delayed for 18 months simply to get past the next election. we've done all the -- all the work has been done. it seems to me at least that there ought to be a decision made. now, you're talking about a $7 billion investment here in this country and part until canada to get the -- where the oil sands is to get the oil to the refineries in the united states, and if you look at the overall, as i said, economic impact, number of jobs created, it's pretty, pretty impressive. 20,000 jobs i think is what the estimate is that it would create in this country, and those are jobs that, frankly, many of these states could certainly benefit from. not to mention the fact that you are doing business with somebody who is favorable and friendly to us. canada is a -- our biggest trading partner. we do i think about $640 billion

annually of bilateral trade with canada. canada is a country with which we have a very good, strong trading relationship. it strikes me at least that if we're going to get oil from somewhere, that it makes sense to get it from a country like canada as opposed to some of the other countries around the world that are much less friendly to the united states. in fact, the keystone x.l. pipeline would transport about 700 -- i think 700 -- let me check here the number -- barrels of oil each year, 700 million barrels, billion barrels? i'll get that number near just a minute. but it's the equivalent -- i should say, 700,000 daily. that's what i'm looking for. 700,000 daily barrels of oil that would come through that pipeline. and what that is the equivalent of is the amount that we get on a daily basis from venezuela. so if you're thinking about getting 700,000 barrels of oil from somewhere in the world, wouldn't it make sense to get if

from canada as opposed to getting it from venezuela? in terms of what it does for our energy independence, for our energy security in dealing with a friendly nation, and making it more possible for our country to become less dependent upon foreign countries around the world for this energy that weigh need in this country, is it strikes me at least that this particular project makes a lot of sense. so you've got not only the economic impact in terms of the activity that it would create in the various states that would be impacted by it, the number of jobs that would be created -- and i said 20,000 jobs is the estimate, $7 billion initial investment -- and all the tax revenue generated for state and local governments along the way. now, wouldn't it be nice if the united states got into the situation where we were actually an energy exporter? believe it or not, this is the first year in the last 62 -- and this is according to a story that ran in "the wall street journal" yesterday -- according

to data released by the u.s. energy information administration on tuesday, the u.s. and sent abroad 754 million barrels of everything from gasoline to jet fuel in the first nine months of this year while imported 689.4 million barrels. that means for the first time in 62 years in 2011, if this trend continues, we will have exported more energy than we imported. now, we are still a net importer of petroleum, of oil. hopefully we can change that at some point in the future by developing these areas, thee veers that we have in this country, one of which is the bakken reserve in the state of north dakota, which is generated enormous amounts of oil for this country. so we're still an oil importer. annet oil imhort importer. for the first time in 62 years, 62 years in 2011, we may be a net exporter of energy.

that is -- that is an amazing, amazing, i think, datapoint and suggests that this could be something that could benefit enormously the american economy. well, in order for that to happen, twoaf have those resources that we can get from the oil sands in canada, bring them into the united states where they're refined in refineries here in the u.s., and then either used here or sent abroad. but it is a way that we can generate additional economic activity and additional jobs for our economy. this is a quote from somebody -- global director of oil that tracks energy markets. he said this trend that we're going to see in 2011, the first time in 62 years that we'll be a net exporter of energy, this gentleman says it looks looks like a trend that could stay in place for the rest of the decade. that is remarkable change in terms of just the flow of energy from this country. the last time we had -- we were a net exporter of energy in this country was during world war ii and shortly thereafter. so it's been over 60 years,

madam president. that's what a project like this could do for our country. not just the immediate impact on those states through which this pipeline could traverse in terms of, as i said earlier, the tax rue revenue that would be generated for state and local governments, but you also have the economic activity that it receipts in these states, the jobs that it created in those states and when it does in order to move us increasingly away from dependence upon other countries in the world with whom we have at best shaky relationships to start w doing business with our largest trading partner, a country with whom we do enormous amounts of trail every single quleer, it seems to me a--every single yeao me to be better. as i mentioned, 700,000 barrels a day is what the pipeline would

transport into this country and that is the equivalent that we get hoon daily basis from venezuela. and so a project that really ought to be decided -- now, whether or not it's decided affirmatively -- and obviously as you can tell, i believe it shoovment there are people in my state of south dakota who are opposed to this. there have been ample opportunities for public input at hearings and that sort of thing, public forums for people to comment on it. and so it's -- you know, there have been lots of opportunities for those who are opposed to it to weigh in. all the analysis that's been done, all the study that's been done and now completed has stated that there isn't any reason for this not to move forward. particularly now given the fact that the state of nebraska has negotiated with the builder of that pipeline an agreement that could take it in a slightly different direction through that state. so all those hoops have been

cleared, all those hurdles have been cleared, there really isn't any reason why this should be delayed another 18 months after the next presidential election other than for purely and simply political reasons. so i would hope that we will be able to get good, strong support here in the united states senate for this legislation that would allow this to be decided in a more immediate time frame. as i said, right now the administration has punted this until after the next election, for 18 months down the road. what this legislation would do is to enable this to be decided in the next couple of months, next 60 days or so, subject obviously to -- there's some requirements in there. obviously all the strongest environmental requirements. but all those things being said, all those things have been been reviewed, all those things have been been accomplished, it is time for a decision on this important project, and i would hope that we can get strong

support here in the united states senate for this legislation. it's been introduced by a number of my colleagues, the senator from north dakota, senator hoeven, senator mccow ski from alaska dirnl a cosponsor of it as i said, at last count, it has somewhere along the lines of 37 or 38 cosponsors, and it passed in the house of representatives incidentally already and so there is a vehicle out there that's passed one body of congress. it would be my hope that we would be able to get action on it here in the senate understand that it might be something that we could do that would have an immediate impact on jobs. we always talk about shovel-ready projects. well, that is shovel-ready project. this thing is ready to go. they are ready to start construction and it has been through the last three years all of the process that this government can require it to go through in order to make sure this is a project that should move forward. so, madam president, the

legislation, the bill number -- and i'll have it here for new a moment -- i can't find the bill number. but, in any event, i will get that for the record. i think it is important for this body to act on this legislation and allow us to get to where we can actually get a decision on this project, a decision that will lead to more economic activity, more economic impact, more jobs for americans, more energy security for this country, and hopefully at the end of the day a lessening of the dangerous dependence that we have on foreign sources of energy and that weemed like to get away from. and so i think it is a win-win all the way and. i congratulate the cosponsor -- the sponsors of this legislation for the thoughtful way that they have considered this, the way they have put this legislation together, and i would hope tha r its consideration here in the united states senate w that i yield the floor.

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