the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i

ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: thank you, mr. pres. mr. president, here we are stuck again and i want to speak just a little bit about getting in country moving again and getting americans earning again. this great country of ours has endured a lot. we've endured despite civil war, the great depression, world wars that we've been in, assassination of leaders, and the slaughter of innocents by terrorists. this great nation of ours has confronted racism and civil unrest and political scandal at all levels and always we've

endured. in the throes of the great depression, the words of president roosevelt had reassured most americans when he said, "this great nation will endure as it has endured. it will revive and it will prosper." and today we are once again walking a rugged path. just this most recent example of the failure of the super committee was just the latest crash that has been caused by super rigid ideology and hyperpolitical partisanship. and the truth be told, we're in a most difficult time in our nation's economic life, still facing a decision of how to pay

for an enormous debt. and the truth be told, we owe this money mostly due to the misconduct of the money change changers, the misuse of the tax code that favors special interests, and years of excessive spending. yet there are members of this congress who propose that we should first not address those underlying causes, that those most responsible should not even have to pay their fair share toward reducing the debt. and instead, they propose that we first take away from social security savings and medicare health coverage of the elderly and that we pull back the hand this nation compassionately

extends to those among us who are less fortunate. it seems some want to erase all the progress that we've made since those words of roosevelt by declaring war not on poverty but on the poor, the middle class, and the elderly. and because a host of our citizens face the grim problems of unemployment, loss of their homes and depletion of their savings, this congress should fight any measure that unfairly inflicts pain on those least responsible for our present economic condition. and so, mr. president, the american people deserve a lot from their congress. they deserve honesty. they expect us to work together, and they want action that is

evenhanded. and so as we move forward, i would hope that all our colleagues in the senate and in the house could be guided by the words of then a young president, ken kennedy, who said, "let us t seek the republican answer or the democratic answer but the right answer , and in this spirit, can't we work to pull our nation out of its financial doldrums? can't we just ask what is the right thing to do? is it right that household income for the average american is actually in decline? is it right that a hedge fund manager pays a lower tax rate than the person who cleans his office? is it right that an oil company gets to write off $11 billion on its tax return because it polluted the gulf of mexico?

is it right that the u.s. congress cannot agree on a deficit reduction plan because of partisan politics? mr. president, the american people know what's right and they know what's not right, and if we could just for a minute put all of this partisanship aside and just do what's right, then we might be able to balance our nation's books to get this country moving again and to get americans employed and earning again. and while we're at it, we might just restore the american public's confidence in our government. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. sessions: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask the quorum call be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: i would ask that i be allowed to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, our country is facing a very, very serious financial crisis. we are seeing what happened in europe. we had some good numbers on the stock market for a while, but if i understand what happened, there was a very real crisis facing the europeans and at the very last moment, they took some action that was received positively, but they are not out of the woods yet and neither are we, and our debt is surging. we have gone from five years ago $161 billion deficit to $450 billion deficit in president bush's last year to $1.2 trillion in president obama's first year, $1.3 trillion in president obama's second year,

$1.2 trillion this year and over a trillion predicted in deficit next year. and so we are going to have a proposal that comes before us. the ranking to provide a payroll holiday. and it's sold as avoiding a tax increase. that's what the president says it is. we're avoiding a tax increase. and so we ought to ask ourselves exactly how that's so and if it's so. let me just say i don't think that's accurate. two years ago, there was an employee payroll tax holiday. it went only to the employer. it cost the treasury $7.6 billion. last year, as part of the final compromise, a bipartisan compromise, it was agreed that

the -- there would be a 2% tax holiday for working persons, so instead of paying 6-plus percent on your withholding tax, you would pay 4%. that cost $111 billion for that year. so the president says if we don't extend that, we're going to have a tax increase. but is he accurate? no, not really. this year's proposal would be to reduce not the 4% but the 3.1%, cutting the 6.2% withholding to 3.1% for the employer and for the employee, and it would cost in one year $265 billion. $265 billion that would not be going into the social security trust fund. so that those who retire would

have the retirement funds they have been promised, would not go there. it weakens social security, the integrity of the system, in my opinion, but we are told not to worry, the united states treasury will replace this $265 billion with treasury money , but the problem is the treasury doesn't have any money. the treasury is already in debt, the treasury is going to add another $1 trillion to the deficit this year. so now it's going to be added to a $265 billion more in one fell swoop in one bill right here at the end of the session, and if you don't vote for it, the president says you're raising taxes on the american people. that's not an accurate statement. in an economic sense, in my

opinion, the real essence of this is the united states treasury will borrow $265 billion. and then they will direct the social security administration to send that money out in the form of a reduced benefit, reduced withholding amount to be paid by workers. it's a direct borrow and it's a direct delivery of money and it uses social security trust fund moneys as a vehicle to transfer the money. but in an economic sense, it borrows $265 billion to spend. now, how much is $265 billion? the super committee, the committee of 12 was trying to find 1 $200 billion in savings over ten years. not one year, ten years. and this one bill, this one

proposal of $265 billion would be spent this one year. to achieve the committee of 12's goal, they would simply needed to have cut $120 billion a year for ten years out of the entire federal government. they failed. immediately now, the president and our majority leader is demanding this congress pass an expenditure unexpected, not before done, nothing like such a large expenditure ever has come out of social security to spend another $265 billion. how will we ever get our house in order? i wish i could figure out a way to be supportive of this. i don't see how i can be. i am pleased that the republicans are trying to work up a bill that would not cost as much as $265 billion and some

way to pay for it, but in truth if we're going to be able to cut spending to pay for any kind of new expenditure, wouldn't we be better to do what the committee of 12 tried to do, cut spending to reduce the debt? shouldn't we be seeking ways if we're going to raise taxes to use those taxes to pay down the debt instead of taking ten years under the president's plan to pay and a new tax that takes ten years of that tax to pay for this one area of the big expenditure, and that's what the proposal is. i would say to my colleagues this goes beyond partisan politics. this gets to the point are we in control of the treasury and the spending of the united states of america? can we defend what we are doing? and don't think that's the only thing that is going to come up.

our budget committee, i'm the ranking republican on the budget committee, we look at these numbers. this also will be taken care of in december, count on it. we are going to deal with the alternative minimum tax. that's going to cost $50 billion. we're going to deal with unemployment insurance, an additional $70 billion to extend those payments beyond 90-some odd weeks. we're going to fix the doctors' payment because we have to. we can't cut the doctors that much. $21 billion. we're going to extend most if not all of the tax extenders, we call them, $90 billion. the total is $500 billion. some of this we have been expecting to take care of, but we weren't expecting or planning in any way to have a

continuation of the payroll holiday is going to cost $265 billion. i just would say to my colleagues when are we going to think more rationally about it? i just heard how are we going to pay for the a.m.t., unemployment insurance, doctors payments and the tax extenders? somebody said well, we're just going to count the savings from the war. the congressional budget office will show that the decline in expenses for the iraq and afghanistan war will be a savings. we can just spend that. that is fraudulent. that's a gimmick, and it should not be acceptable. everybody knows the war costs are going to be coming down and we have been planning for that. you can't assume that that money is available to spend willy-nilly. we were bringing the war costs down to bring the debt down, not to fund new spending.

we need to bring the war costs down to try to reduce our debt and our deficit, not to fund new spending. but that's how they're going to do this, i have been told, and i am not surprised because there is no other way they are going to do it. so, mr. president, i just would share that as we will be voting in a little bit on this issue. i don't know what their answer is. i don't know how to fix our problem. i know one thing, we remain in denial. our country is in greater debt crisis than we realize. mr. erskine bowles and alan simpson of president obama's debt commission said we are facing the most predictable financial crisis in our nation's history as a result of our debt. we need to get kearse about how to fix it. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. cardin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland.

mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, today i rise to address a humanities issue of deep -- a human rights issue of deep concern. for two years since december 3, 2009, an american citizen and a marylander, alan gross, has been imprisoned by the cuban government. two years he has been held by the cuban authorities. alan was in cuba to help the country's small jewish community establish an internet and improve its access to internet access which would allow the community to go online without fear of censorship or monitoring. after being held for 14 months without charge and then a cursory two-day trial, he was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison. his appeal to the cuban supreme court was denied in august of this year. alan gross is a caring husband

and a father, a devoted man who has dutifully promoted u.s. product liability interests while serving the needs of thousands of foreign citizens from afghanistan to haiti over a career that has spanned more than 25 years, 25 years of public service. unfortunately, alan has been caught in the middle of a conflict between two nations with a long and difficult relationship, but it's entirely unacceptable that his personal freedoms have been violated every day that he continues to be incarcerated. alan's health has deteriorated during his imprisonment. he has lost 100 pounds and suffers from a multitude of medical conditions, including gout, ulcers, arthritis that have worsened without adequate treatment. mr. president, last night i had a chance to talk to his wife judy who had a chance to visit with her husband in cuba earlier last month.

judy informs me that alan gross' health conditions are deteriorating and that he is in need of adequate health care. in addition, his mother and daughter are both struggling with serious health care issues, and his wife is struggling to make ends meet. the gross family should not have to suffer through such a trying period of time without alan for support. sentencing alan gross to 15 years behind bars also sentences his family to 15 years without a husband, father and son. there is no reason for the gross family to continue to suffer the consequences of political gamesmanship any longer. i urge the cuban government to remember that this is a real man and a family who are suffering. i have already written the cuban government urging them in the strongest possible manner to immediately and unconditionally release alan gross.

his continued imprisonment is a major setback in our bilateral relations and it is unlikely that any positive steps to improve that relationship can or will happen while he remains in prison. as a united states senator and as a marylander and as a fellow human being i urge the cuban government to let alan -- see alan gross, for who he is, a man who believed he was helping others when he saw a need. enough is enough. enough is enough. i call on the cuban government to release alan gross immediately and to allow him to return to his family. mr. president, with that i would yield the floor. and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent upon the conclusion of the post-cloture time, a pending germane feinstein amendment 1126 are be the pending business, the senate proceed to votes in relation to the following feinstein amendments in the order listed, feinstein number

1126 and feinstein number 1456, that there be two minutes equally divided in the usual form prior to the second vote, there will be more time than that prior to the first vote, that no amendment be in order to either amendment prior to the votes and that all post-cloture time be considered expired at 6:00 p.m. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mccain: mr. president. i will not object. for the benefit of our colleagues after spirited discussions for a long period of time we have reached a compromise with senator -- the senator from california on language that -- concerning detainees and there are certain members on my side who wanted a vote on the original amendment as written, we have modified it and there will be -- so

that -- so that there will be a vote on the original feinstein amendment and then one which is modified by agreement between most of the people involved. there may be some who still oppose it but we have reached an agreement between torl california, committee, the senator from south carolina and others that i think will be agreeable 0 a majority of the members. and by suggest to my friend the chairman that when that vote starts at 6:00 perhaps we can line up the other remaining amendments which -- some of which we hope get voice votes, some of which will require recorded votes as the procedure under post-cloture. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, it has not yet been ruled on, and i want to modify very slightly

what i said in the unanimous consent agreement. i said that the senate proceed to votes in relation to the following feinstein amendments. i should have said the senate proceed to votes on the feinstein amendments in the order listed. the presiding officer: is there rejection -- objection to the request as modified? mr. mccain: no rejection. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: two other unanimous consent requests before we turn it over to the senator from california. i ask unanimous consent it be in order to make a point of order en bloc against the list of amendments in violation of rule 22 that is at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? the point of order -- without

objection, the points of order are sustained and the amendments fall. tax reform arizona. mr. mccain: in the minutes remaining between now and 6:00 p.m. i hope we could roughly divide time between the two sides. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i would hope in fact that the time between now and 6:00 be divided between the two sides and we will yield immediately to senator feinstein the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from california -- mr. levin: i have one more unanimous consent agreement. i ask unanimous consent -- i ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be withdrawn: rubio number 1290 and merkley 1256. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the amendments are withdrawn. mr. levin: i want to thank the presiding officer and all these

involved in working out this approach that allows us now to vote on two amendments, the original feinstein amendment that's pending plus an alternative which i think will hopefully command great support. mr. mccain: how much time is remaining? the presiding officer: eight minutes. eight minutes on each side.mr. e two minutes -- you want time? -- three minutes to the senator on my side, three minutes for the senator from south carolina, preceded by two minutes from the senator from idaho, and two minutes for the senator from new hampshire, if she arrives here. mrs. feinstein: shall i go first? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president, i'd like to explain what has happened this long afternoon.

originally some of us -- namely, senators leahy, durbin, udall of colorado, kirk, lee, harkin, webb, wyden, merkley, and myself -- realized that there was a fundamental flaw in section 1031 of the bill, and there is a difference of opinion as to whether there is this fundamental flaw or not. we believe that the current bill essentially updates and restates the authorization for use of military force that was passed on september 18, 2001, and despite my support for a general detention authority, the provision in the original bill, in our view, went too far. that the bill before us would allow the government to detain

u.s. citizens without charge until the end of hostilities. we have had long discussions on this. the distinguished chairman, the distinguished ranking member, the senator from north carolina believe that was not their intent. and these discussions went on and on. and they resulted in two amendments: our original amendment which covers only u.s. citizens, which says that they cannot be held without charge or trial, and a compromise amendment which i shall read. on page 360 between lines 21 and 22, insert the following language: "nothing in this section shall be construed to effect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of united states citizens or lawful resident aliens of the united states or any other persons who are

captured or arrested in the united states." i believe this meets the concerns of the leadership of the committee, and this is presented as an alternative. there are those of us that would like to vote for the original legislation, which i intend to do, as well as for this modifying amendment. they will appear before you as a side-by-side. so everyone will have the chance to vote yea or nay on the original or yea or nay on the compromise. as i said, i would urge that we vote "yes" on both. now, this is not going to be the world as we see it, post-vote. but i will tell you this: that the chairman and the ranking member have agreed that the modified language presented in the second vote will be contained in the conference;

that they will do everything they can to contain this language in the conference. the original amendment, my original amendment, which affects only u.s. citizens, that is not the case. they're likely to drop that amendment. so i want to make the point by voting for both, and i would hope others would do the same. i think a lot has been gained. i think a clear understanding has been gained of the problems inherent in the original bill. i think members came to the conclusion that they did not want to change present law and they wanted to extend it not only to citizens but to resident aliens, as well -- legal resident ail swens, as well as l resident aliens, as well as as any other person av arrested ine

united states. that would mean that they could not be held without charge on the one hand without trial. so the law would remain the same as it is today and has been practiced for the last 10 years. i actually believe that, you know, it's easy to say either my way or the highway. i want to get something done. i want to be able to assure people in the united states that their rights under american law are protected. the modified amendment, which is the second amendment you will be voting on, does that. it provides that assurance that the law will remain the same and will not affect the right of charge and the right of trial of any united states citizen, any lawful legal alien, or any other person in the united states. and we have the commitment of both the chairman and the ranking member that they will defend that in cfns.

now, there are those who say, i want to just vote senator the original amendment. that's fine. i'm not sure whether it will pass or not. but in my judgment, the mod any indication is eminently suitable to accomplish the task at hand and has the added guarantee of the support of the chairman, the ranking member in a conference committee with the house. i believe they've given their word. i believe they will keep it. this record will reflect that word, and so i would like to call up my amendment number 1456, which is the original amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. mrs. feinstein: excuse me. let me just schaing this. 1456 is the modification. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment.

the clerk: mrs. feinstein proposes an amendment numbered 1456. on page 360 -- mrs. feinstein: i think finishf you would dispense with the reading, that would be fine. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: others wish to speak, so i will yield the floor. mr. levin: how much time is on our side? the presiding officer: about a minute. mr. levin: i wanted to have a couple minutes. aii'll split -- is senator mccain here? would there be an objection to extending this by ten minutes equally divided? is there objection? he's not here to -- the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. levin: i'm not going to do that without him here. is your side ready to go? mr. graham: yes, i think. mr. levin: why don't you start using the time on your side and then i'll ask nor that extension. mr. graham: how much time do we have? the presiding officer: eight minutes. you're allotted three minutes,

senator. the senator from south carolina is allotted three minutes. mr. graham: would the senator please inform me when i use two? the presiding officer: yes. greenhouse gas emission greenhouse thank you very much mr. graham: thank you very much. to senator feinstein, i do believe the second provision is where we want to be. i never intended by 1031 to change the how imposing a greater burden on american citizens or more exposure to military detention nor did i want to create additional rights beyond what exist today. the problem i have with senator fine stiens amendment, it says the authority to describe in this section for the armed forces of the united states to detain a person does not include the authority detain a citizen of the united states without trial. here is my concern. when you tell a judge as a defense attorney, i want my client's rights preserved regarding a civilian trial guaranteed under this section and the end of hostilities could

be 30 years from now, your honor, if these rights are anything, they need to attach now. if the civilian rights attach, i think american citizens are not subject to military commission trial. a lot of people on my side didn't like that. i really do want to make sure american citizens go into article 3 courts. but the law has been for -- since world war ii, if you joined the enemy even as an american citizen, yo you're subt to being detained for interrogation purposes. that's been my goal. you can detain an american citizen who's sided with al qaeda if they're involved with hostile acts. i think that is a proper thing to be doing noe now. it was done in world war ii when american citizens helped the nazis. if an american citizen wants to help al qaeda involved in a hostile act, they become a an enemy of this nation, they can be humanly detained.

that is my concern about your amendment that it would take that away. we have common ground on the second amendment, and at the end of the day, the senate has talked a lot about different things. this has been a discussion about something important. i quite frankly enjoyed it. with that, i yield my time. the presiding officer: the senator -- the senator from idaho. mr. risch: thank you. thank you, senator graham. i think that there's been an adequate compromise that's been reached here. we're going to have a side-by-side to vote on, which will give everyone the opportunity to express themselves. let me say this: every single one of us on this floor has, as a goal, to protect the rights of the united states citizens. this country was founded by people who had just gone through some very, very difficult times

with a country that was very -- a government that was very oppressive on them, and they wrote the constitution specifically to protect themselves, to protect individuals from the government. that law, that -- those constitutional provisions today are as good as they were then. every single one of us wants to see that american citizens are protected. now, that is protections that take place in the case of criminal cases. in the case of a war, in the case where a united states citizen joins enemy combatants and fights against the united states, there is a different standard, although a delicate division, that exists. and if you look at the provisions of section 1031, where covered persons are defined, it is very, very clear that it applies only to people who participated in the september 11, 2001, attack on

the united states, and it provides to people who are part of or who have substantially supported al qaeda and the taliban orb its associated forces and have actually committed a belligerent act or have directly participated in the house stilts. this -- in the hostilities. this is drawn very quaiflly and very narrow so that a united states citizen can, as my good friend from kentucky always say, be able to file a writ of habeas carpus in the united states district court and have a united states district judge determine whether or not a person is actually an enemy combatant or not. that united states district judge can turn it down. that person does not necessarily go free. the united states government can then charge them with treason or any one of a number of crimes, but they will be tried in the united states district court. on the other hand, if they are

found to be a combatant by a united states district judge whose decision is reviewable by the circuit court, and if the supreme court chooses by the supreme court, if they are found to be the enemy combatant, then they will indeed be subject to this. so this has been very narrowed, people who are watching this and who are concerned about the civil liberties of the united states citizens, as i am, as people in idea he idaho are, ase in every state in america are, under those circumstances those people would be well-protected and will have the amendment here that everybody will have the opportunity to express themselves on. with that, i will yield the floor, mr. president. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. levin: mr. president, i would ask that there be five additional minutes evenly divided so that we could have three minutes left on our side

and that would split that with the senator from illinois. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. risch: we have no objection, mr. president. mr. levin: mr. president, we're going to be soon voting on two amendments. the first amendment that i propose, the first feinstein amendment, restricts the authority that was vaibled and is available currently to the president of the united states under the laws of war. that authority is if an american citizen joins a hostile army against you takes up arms against us, that that person can be determined to be a combat, an enemy combatant. that is not me saying that's the constitution. that is the supreme court of the united states in the hamdi case, and i quote, "there is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant." the problem with the feinstein

amendment is that current authority in the president to find and designate an american citizen who attacks us, who comes to our land and attacks us as an enemy combatant would be restricted. we should not restrict the availability of that power in the president. now we have an alternative. now in the second feinstein amendment which i ask unanimous consent to be a cosponsor of -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: in the second amendment we have an alternative. now it would provide the assurance that we are not adversely affecting the rights of united states citizens in this language. senator mccain, senator graham, and i have argued on this floor that there's nothing in our bill, nothing, which changes the rights of united states senator -- of united states citizens. there was no intent to do it,

we did not do it. and what the second feinstein amendment provides is that nothing in this section of our bill shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of the united states citizens or lawful resident aliens of the united states or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the united states. it makes clear what we have been saying, this language already does, which is not affect existing law relative to the right of the executive branch to capture and detain a citizen if that law is there allowing it, it remains. if as some argue the law does not allow that, then it continues that way. we think the law is clear in hamdi that there is no bar to this nation holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant and we make clear whatever the law is, it is unaffected by this language in our bill.

in durbin: i want to thank my colleague, senator graham, levin, and particularly feinstein for working owe hard. i'm concerned the united states would for the first time in the history of this country with the original language authorize indefinite detention within the united states. we've agreed with the latter amendment that makes it clear this bill does not change existing detention authority in any way. it means the supreme court will ultimately decide who can and cannot be detained indefinitely without a trial. to this day the supreme court has never ruled on whether it is constitutional to indefinitely detain a u.s. citizen captured in the united states. some of my colleagues see this differently, the language we've agreed on makes it clear section 1031 will not change that law in any way. the supreme court will decide

who can be detained. the united states senate will not. i ask to be added as a cosponsor to the second pending amendment by senator feinstein. the presiding officer: without objection. all time has expired on that side. mr. graham: how much time do we have? the presiding officer: 4 1/2 minutes. mr. graham: i would like to take an opportunity to end what has been a very good debate. senator feinstein, i know she's busy, she something on the floor i want to reiterate that the second amendment that senator durbin just suggested we've reached a compromise on, i am fully committed to making sure it stays in the conference report. some folks in the house may have a problem but i just think it is good, sound law. the goal, mr. president, for me has never been to change the law to put an american citizen more at risk than they are today. it's just to keep the status quo and acknowledge from the congress' point of view that the obama administration's decision to detain people as enemy

combatants is within the president's power to do so, and the court has said in re quirin and the hamdi case that the executive branch in a time of war can detain an american citizen who decides to collaborate with the nazis and also al qaeda as an enemy combatant. they can hold them for interrogation purposes to collect intelligence, you don't have to take them right into court and put them on trial because the goal is to protect the nation from another attack. the law also says that no one, including an american citizen, can be held indefinitely without going to an article 3 court. every person determined to be an enemy combatant by the executive branch has to have their case presented to an independent judiciary and the government has to prove to a federal judge by a preponderance of the evidence that they fall in this narrow exception. the government's lost about half the cases, won about half the cases. my concern was feinstein one is

it would change the law. it would be changed for the first time ever saying you cannot hold an american citizen who has collaborated with the enemy for intelligence-gathering purposes. i think homegrown terrorism is growing. if someone left this country, an american citizen went to pakistan, got radicalized and came back here and started trying to kill americans, i think we should have the authority to detain them as any belligerent just like in world war ii and gather intelligence as to whether or not somebody else may be coming. that's what i want to reserve and with all due respect to senator feinstein, her first amendment very much puts that in jeopardy. it's going to be confusing, litigation-friendly and let's just stay with what we believe the law is, as to senator durbin, you have one view, i have another but we have a common view and that's not to do anything in 1031 that would change the law and the ultimate authority on what the law is is not lindsey graham, it's not dick durbin, it's the supreme

court of the united states. and that's the way it should be. and that's exactly what we say here. we're doing nothing to change the law when it comes to american citizen's detention. to enhance it or to restrict whatever rights the government has or the citizen has. and i think that's where we need to be as a nation and one last word of warning to my colleagues: the threats we face as a nation are growing. homegrown terrorism is going to become a greater reality. and we need to have tools. law enforcement is one tool but in some cases holding people who have decided to help al qaeda and turn on the rest of us and try to kill us so we can hold them long enough to interrogate them to find out what they're up to makes sense. when you hold somebody under the criminal justice system you have to read them their rights right off the bat. under the law of war you don't because the purpose is to gather intelligence. we need that tool now as much as any time including world war ii. thank you all for a great

debate, and i hope we can vote no on feinstein one and have a strong, bipartisan vote on feinstein two. with that i yield. the presiding officer: is all time yielded back? mr. graham: does anybody want to speak? speak now or forever hold your peace. all time is yielded back. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on amendment number 1126 offered by the senator from california, mrs. feinstein. mr. levin: requested prior to each vote there be two minutes, equally divided and that start with the vote after this one. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be.

the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or to change a vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 45, the nays 55. the motion is -- the amendment is not agreed to. without objection. under the previous order there will be two minute of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment number 1456 offered by the senator from california, mrs. feinstein. the senate will come to order. the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent all votes related to this defense authorization bill

be 10 minute in duration including final passage. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the senator from michigan. mr. levin: a number of people, a number of colleagues have asked where we're at. we're probably going to have three or four more roll call votes, hopefully including final passage. there is also a package and everyone should liv to this. at least 70 of us are affected. there is a package of about 70 amendments which have len cleared. however there -- been cleared. there is however an objection to that package being adopted. when i say the package has been cleared, what i'm saying is there has been no objection on the substance to any of those 70 amendments. if there was an objection on the substance, they wouldn't be cleared. so there's no objection on the substance of those approximately 70 amendments, but you should all be aware because most of us have amendments in that cleared

manager's package that unless that objection is removed, we cannot get that package adopted tonight. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: i wonder if i might be able to make a few comments on this. this amendment is a compromise amendment. i think it's actually a very good amendment. i want to thank the chairman of the committee, the ranking member, senator graham, who participated in rather lengthy discussions, and this is the result. the amendment, i will read it. it says "nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the --. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mrs. feinstein: relating to the tee tension of united states citizens or lawful resident aliens of the united states or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the

united states." there is a commitment from both the chairman and the ranking member and senator graham that they will defend this amendment in conference, and so i hope that everyone will vote for it because essentially it just supports present law. there is no change in law. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i very much support this amendment, i'm a cosponsor. i hope we can all vote for it. mr. president, this does what we have said, those of us who wrote this bill that the bill does and doesn't do all along, that it does not change current law. this amendment reinforces that point, that this bill does not change current law -- this section of this bill, this section of this bill does not change current law relative to the intention of people -- detention of people in the united states. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i won't repeat what the chairman said except

i'd like to thank senator feinstein for her willingness to sit down and negotiate with us. senator durbin, who has been a passionate advocate and i'd also like to thank all those people who came to the floor so often. i think the senate is a better institution as a result of the debate and i'm sure that the united states senate and the american people are much better informed on this very, very important national security aspect of this bill. and i thank my colleagues. i urge an aye vote. a senator: mr. president. is there any reason for a roll call vote? the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. mr. levin: i think we need the yeas and nays on this. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be.

the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senator in the chamber who wish to vote or to change a vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 99 and the nays are 1. the amendment is agreed to. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided fryer a vote on amendment -- divided prior to a vote amendment number 1444 offered by the senator from new jersey, mr. menendez, and the senator from illinois, mr. kirk. a senator: what was the amendment number? the presiding officer: 1414 is the amendment number. mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey is recognized. mr. menendez: mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senate will come to order. the senator from new jersey has the right to be heard. would senators -- would senators please take their conversations

from the well, off the floor. mr. menendez: mr. president, the menendez-kirk bipartisan amendment sponsored by over half the members of the senate makes it very clear that the treasury department's own determination under the patriot act that the iranian central bank is the central source for money for iran's nuclear march towards a nuclear weapon needs to be addressed and that is exactly what we do in this amendment. it creates the maximum effort against the iranians and it ensures we do not have any oil disruption as a result of those sanctions by giving the president the opportunity to make a determination that there is sufficient oil supplies so as not to create a disruption, and it gives him, in addition, a

national security waiver. this is the maximum opportunity to have peaceful diplomacy tool to stop iran's march to nuclear weapons, and i urge my colleagues to give it a strong bipartisan vote. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. mccain: i strongly support the amendment. i think it's vital at this time that we send a strong signal to iran. recently tried to pull off the assassination of the saudi ambassador right here in washington, d.c. it's long overdue. it's too bad that the united states has to do it by ourself rather than having the entire united nations security council act. this is a strong amendment and i think it's a very important one. i strongly support it. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. kirk: mr. president, the menendez-kirk amendment is a strong bipartisan amendment. over half of the senate has already formally cosponsored this amendment. i urge its adoption, especially after the bomb plot in washington, d.c., the iaea report on nuclear developments in iran, and the overrunning of

our allies, the british embassy site just two days ago in tehran. and i yield back. the presiding officer: has all time been yielded back? all time yielded back? the question occurs on the amendment. a senator: 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:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who wish to vote or change a vote?

if not, on this vote the yeas are 100 and the nays are zero. the amendment is agreed to. the majority leader. mr. reid: if i can have the attention of the senate. the presiding officer: the majority leader is speaking to the senate. could we have order. mr. reid: mr. president, if we have this consent agreement that i'm going to ask in just a second we will have four votes remaining for the evening and that would be all. we'll be in session tomorrow, we have some things we need to do procedurally but there shouldn't be any votes tomorrow. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of s. -- s. 1867 the defense bill, the senate proceed to vote on the reid of nevada motion,, that there be two minutes equally divide dividend the leaders or their designees prior to the vote. that upon disposition of the

reid motion to proceed it be in order for the republican leader or his designee to move to calendar 224, s. 1931. prior to the vote, that both motions to proceed be subject to a 60 vote affirmative vote threshold, finally that the cloture motion to the motion to proceed to s. 1917 be vitiated. the presiding officer: is there objection? is there objection? without objection, so ordered. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate, equally divided prior to a vote on amendment 1209 offered by the senator from florida, mr. nelson. the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, it's my understanding that -- that both leaders have decided to

accept this, so i don't see any need for a roll call vote. the presiding officer: is all time yielded back? mr. levin: our time is yielded back. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the amendment. hearing no further debate, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. mccain: lay on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, there will now be two minute of debate equally divided prior to a vote

on amendment numbered -- on amendment numbered 1080 offered by the senator from vermont, mr. leahy. mr. levin: senator leahy authorized me and told me that he was withdrawing this amendment relative to military custody because of all of the actions which have previously been taken and i am very confident that's what he told me. so i'm going to -- i'm going to withdraw that amendment on his behalf. the presiding officer: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to vote on amendment number 1274 offered by the senator from alabama, mr. sessions.

mr. sessions: mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: this amendment is crafted to simply clarify and affirm what appears to be the law and logic tells us should be the law today. if an individual is apprehended as a prisoner of war, they are detained under the laws of war until the conflict ends. but if after being detained or when they're detained it determined they have committed crimes against the laws of war, they can be tried for those crimes. there is a slight ambiguity, i think it's pretty clear that they have a right -- the military would have a right to continue to detain them as a prisoner of war if they were not convicted of the much higher burden crime against the laws of war. so the essence of this is simply to say what the judge said in

the case involving the african embassy bomber, the guy -- the presiding officer: the senator's time is ex expired. mr. sessions: 285 counts, you'd probably be detained under the laws of war. hoe this would clarify that. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. levin: mr. president, i think that this can be accepted on a voice vote. i have great problems with it but i think there's probably a majority here that will favor it, and a distinct minority perhaps that would not, but it is something which basically doesn't add to the existing law, which says that this is theoretically possible. all this does is say this is possible that one can be acquitted in a criminal case and still be held as an enemy combatant. and we can try to --.

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

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senator in the chamber who wish to vote or to change a vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 41, the nays are 59. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: we do not have order in the senate. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the majority leader is recognized.

mr. reid: mr. president, we have too many conversations still going on. the presiding officer: will senators who are having conversations in the well please take them off the floor. mr. reid: mr. president, the next roll call vote -- mr. president, the next roll call vote will be the 9,000th vote cast by senator frank lautenberg. senator lautenberg, the senior senator from new jersey, has really always been a fighter for his state, for progressive causes. before coming to the senate, senator lautenberg served his country admirably in world war ii, graduated from columbia business school and became -- and this is an understatement -- a successful businessman. his determination made him successful in the private sector has also served him well in the senate, where he worked tirelessly on behalf of the state of new jersey.

frank really tried to retire once in 2000 but really he just couldn't stay away from serving the state and this nation and returned to the senate a little over a year after he had retired. as the top democrat on the senate budget committee, senator lautenberg negotiated the balanced budget act of 1997 which restored fiscal discipline while cutting taxes for students and families with children. he's been at the cutting edge of environmental issues in this country since he came to the senate. he's worked for -- as a member of the public works committee, environment committee, for doing good jobs with highways, railways, runways in new jersey and he's done that in conjunction being a member of the public works committee but also the appropriations committee. but during his time in the senate, he's done things that will be a lasting mark on his career, his legacy, forever. our nation's roads are safer because he was responsible for

our passing the 21-year-old drinking age. he established a national drunk driving standard which was so important, a standard throughout the country. he banned triple-trailer trucks, the so-called killer trucks, from the roads of new jersey and other states. and he's dedicated his time in the senate to holding terrorists accountable and protecting new jersey's ports, which are important to all of us, not only the people of new jersey. senator lautenberg has done many things. he's authored the domestic violence gun ban, the only significant gun legislation to become law since the brady bill, which prevents convicted abusers from buying guns. the thing that i've recognized very importantly, i had one of my boys who just couldn't stand the cigarette smoke in airplan airplanes, and even though the airlines tried to set up a standard for smoking, you know, if you smoked on the airplane, the fact that you were someplace else on the airplane, everybody got the secondhand smoke. he fought this and banned

smoking on airplanes, which i'll always remember and certainly my boy key will always remember that. so for three decades, frank lautenberg has left a mark that's very impressive. impress and his 9,000 votes have been something that people will look back and historically determine that frank lautenberg has been one of the most productive senators in the history of our country. congratulations, frank. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i would like to associate myself with the remarks of the majority leader and congratulate the senator from new jersey on this milestone. in his long and very distinguished career here in the senate. [applause] mr. menendez: mr. president, i know we want to hear from our

colleague shortly. i want to join in recognizing over a quarter of a century of distinguished service from the distinguished senior senator from new jersey, which is only emblematic of the type of work he has done. whether it is saving lives by raising the drinking age, whether it is allowing workers to understand and have the right to know the toxic chemicals they were working with and the community in which those toxic chemicals were located, whether it is making sure that all of us didn't have to breathe secondhand smoke on an airplane, whether it is making sure that those who pilfer the land and contaminated it were held responsible to clean it up in a superfund or to have cleaner air to breathe, frank. mrfrank-- frank lautenberg's legislation has touched lives across the nation. we salute him for his tremendous service. mr. lautenberg: thank you.

thank you, mr. -- the presiding officer: the senior snr from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: thank you, mr. president. thank you, mr. leader for your kind words and the help that you have given me to make some of the decisions that we labored with. my colleague, bobman nen des, who has worked very hard do his share in moving legislation and doing the right thing by the people in our state and our country. and one of the things that is, to me, pretty important was when i said to my mother in 1982, i said, mom, i'm going to run for the united states senate. i think there's an opportunity

there. and i was running ad.p., quite a good company at the time, and so she said, frank, what do you need it for? i said, mom, i don't need it. and the night of the election we were gathered at my house in new jersey, and my mother was then committed to a wheelchair, and she had tears running down her face. i said, mom, you asked me why i need it. so i said, why are you crying? she said, because i always wanted you to win. and the people in new jersey were very kind over these years electing me five times to the senate, and giving me the honor and the opportunity to give something back to this country of ours. i came from a family that was a poor family, immigrant family. my parents were young when they were brought by their parents to

america. they were hoping that maybe good things could happen as a result of our being -- becoming -- their becoming americans. and so i stand here, and i'm glad -- and, mr. leader -- that we're not taking a vote on whether or not i should be commended for this. i might not get all the votes that you gave me because you didn't ask for unanimous consent. but, nevertheless, it passed, and so i thank all of you, even those with whom i might occasionally disagree. it's shocking, but it does happen here. but i have my -- i have respect for everybody who is sent here by their constituents from every state in the country, and for their point of view. doesn't mean i agree, but i have respect for the fact that we can say what we want in this free country of ours, say things that

sometimes maybe we wish we hadn't said, but we have a chance to speak out on the things that we believe, and so i thank all of you for your service and for the accolades given to me this night, mr. leader. with that, i say i don't know the -- i don't note the absence of a quorum. there's a quorum here. i thank all of you for being here. the presiding officer: there will be two minutes of debate on leahy amendment 1087. who yields time?

mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask now consent that the pending germane leahy amendment 1087 be modified with the changes that are at the desk. further, that the amendment, as modified, be agreed to. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the amendment is modified. the senator from -- mr. thune: reserving the right to object, could the manager clarify exactly what that is. mr. levin: there is -- there was a provision in the bill relative to the freedom of information act, which by agreement was modified. mr. thune: this doesn't have anything to do with the managers' package. the presiding officer: is there objection?

without objection, the amendment is modified and accepted. there will now be two minutes of debate on the udall amendment. mr. levin: okay, i now ask the leahy amendment we just agreed to, i ask to move to reconsider. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, i now ask -- there's a pending amendment which apparently the clerk will need to to report at this time. the presiding officer: the udall amendment is pending. mr. levin: i ask consent now, mr. president, the pending germane udall -- senator udall from new mexico amendment 1202 be modified with the changes at the desk. furtheres this a this a, that te amendment as modified be agreed

to. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the amendment as modified is agreed to. the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: i would thank the chairman for working with me on this. i think he gave us a modification that's a good one. this amendment i'm offering with senator schumer and senator sanders closes the buy american loopholes and applies buy american requirements to solar projects that are funded by the department of defense to meet energy goals in this bill. if american taxpayer funds are used to improve our military bases' energy security, then american solar firms should have the ability to compete. we know that other nations like china are spending vast resources to become leaders in the solar power market. think about it this way: china does not spend its tax dollars on u.s. solar panels pat

chinese military bases. the presiding officer: the senator will suspend. the national is not in order. a senator: regular order. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: why should congress provide -- the presiding officer: the senator has used his one minute. time has expired. mr. udall: and i thank senator mccain. i thank senator levin. i ask that my full statement be included in the record and i appreciate their help on this amendment. mr. mccain: i yield the time. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 2k 30, s. 1867, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 20120 for military activities of the department of defense, for military construction and for defense activities for the department of injuring to

prescribe military strengths for such year and for other purposes. the presiding officer: there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided on the bill, as amended. mr. levin: we are going to be making a unanimous consent request -- the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i am not going use my one minute other to say thanks to everybody that has been so heavily involved in that, which is just about everybody in the senate. i want to particularly thank senator mccain and his staff and my staff has been incredible. we've had hundreds of amendments we've had to get through. we've done the best we can. we are -- and i want to just tell my friends this so we can prepare a path for unanimous consent agreement. it's not prepared yet, so i can't read it, but it's going to be something like this, that for those amendments which were germane, not because of modification but were germane, and --

mr. udall: i don't think we disposed of the udall amendment. mr. levin: i believe we did. mr. udall: i would ask the chair -- the presiding officer: the udall amendment was agreed to. mr. udall: okay, thank you. pardon me. mr. mccain: we weluctantly. reluctantly. mr. levin: there are 71 amendments approximately which were cleared. we spoke about those before. if anyone had an objection, they were not cleared. so by definition there's no objection on the substance of these amendments. however, there is objection for other reasons. one of them being that if an amendment was modified to make it germane, there would be an objection on that basis. so what senator mccain and i are talking about and we'll put it in a unanimous consent proposal and then you can all decide if you want to agree to this, is that we would work --

we passed the bill tonight and do all the other things we need to do, because that has to be done. we got to get to conference. but that in the next couple days senator mccain and i, working with the parliamentarian, would go through the 71 amendments, whatever the number is, the parliamentarian would advise us as to which of those amendments are germane and were germane, and these are all cleared amendments, and for that group, whatever the number is that we're informed by the parliamentarian are germane and were germane, we would then put in a bill which would be introduced next week and that that -- if we can get it done, the unanimous consent request would have that bill introduced, read a third time, and passed. that would be the most we could ask for. it would seem to me if we could pass this tonight, we could do the same thing with a bill,

providing senator mccain and i agree after talking with the parliamentarian that the only amendments that would be in that bill would be amendments which were germane. now, how do we get that bill into the conference report? we haven't figured that out yet, but we're work on that piece as well. but at least we could get the bill passed so we could go conference and show that the senate passed these "x" number of amendments. this is the best we can do. it's the cleanest we can do. the parliamentarian did not like the different idea we proposed and i don't blame him and her, but that's what we're going to be offering in a few minutes. mr. mccain: nothing more to add. i'd like to vote. a senator: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, if i may be permitted to just thank the distinguished chairman for that offer. i'm -- it's unclear to me how it actually will be executed. and all of this could have been

avoided from my perspective if a simple unanimous consent request had been allowed to modify an amendment that i had that was not germane to make it germane so we could have a simple up-or-down vote, something that was really in the nature of a technical correction, which i would think as a matter of custom and courtesy would be allowed. but parntsly that's not the way things are operated. so all of these -- all of these convolutions are being engaged in simply to avoid an objection caused by -- an objection to a unanimous consent request to modify an amendment to make it germane, and it could all be avoided and we could have taken care of this in ten or 15 minutes. but i don't understand that the -- the distinguished chairman is actually making that unanimous consent request at this time. but i is merely explain what