ambiguities when he is brought to this country as opposed to law of war detention in guantanamo. that is what is at stake and we cannot afford to think that we are fighting -- no longer fighting a war against terrorists. we cannot afford to treat people like him like common criminals. as much as i believe in our criminal justice system, it was not created to gather intelligence, which is what we need to do to make sure that america remains safe. so i ask my colleagues to support amendment 2255 that is cosponsored also by senator chambliss, the ranking republican on the intelligence committee, senator inhofe, the ranking republican on the armed services committee, as well as senator fischer, rubio, and barrasso. thank you. the presiding officer: time has expired. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. mr. levin: i have a unanimous consent request. i would ask unanimous consent that letters from secretary hagel, secretary kerry, attorney

general and the -- and director clapper be put in the record at this point. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. under the previous order, the question occurs on the ayotte amendment number 2255. mr. levin: 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: on this society, the yeas a 43, the nays are 55. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed -- is not agreed to. is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will be two minutes equally divided prior to a vote on the levin-mccain amendment 2175. the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president -- the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: this amendment, ways levin-mccain -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please take your conversations outside. the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president, this amendment is a

levin-mccain-feinstein-udall amendment. it clarifies that gitmo detainees would not gain any additional legal rights as a result of their transfer to the united states for deteption -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. 6 the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. please take your confer converss to the hallway. mr. levin: thank you, madam president. any gitmo detainee who was transferred to the united states gains no additional legal rights. they also are not permitted to be released inside the united states. they don't lose their status as unprivileged, enemy belligerents eligible for trial, if they are transferred to the united states. they gain gain no additional right to challenge their detention beyond the habeas corpus that has been affirmed by the supreme court. i would hope this could be

broadly supported. senator mccain? mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i have a letter from 38 rear tired and flagged general retired officers. "as retired and general flag officers we believe it is imperative for congress to address guantanamo now. we have always believed that our detention policies should adhere to the rule of law and we as a nation are more secure when we do. guantanamo is a betrayal of american values. the prison is a symbol of torture and justice delayed. more than a decade after it opened, guantanamo remains a terrorism poster for terrorists which makes us all less safe." guantanamo has cost more than $400 million in the last two fiscal years and the department of defense estimates that there's $2.7 million per detainee per year.

madam president, i ask that the letter be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ayotte: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: i would urge my colleagues to eight vote against amendment 2175, if you want to bring the 174 gitmo detainees to the united states, that's what this amendment will allow the administration to do. and the plan that they're going to submit requires no congressional oversight, no approval, and does not answer the question. the chairman said that they will not get any additional legal rights. what about constitutional rights, if they are brought to our snoil will they have to be told they have the right to remain silent in if we catch the current head of al qaeda tomorrow, will he have to be read miranda rights? because thea's that's what's happening now. that is the real question here. that is not required to be answered by their plan that the administration.

and we have no oversight over that plan, madam president. i would urge my colleagues to vote "no" on this amendment. mr. levin: madam president, 15 seconds. ask unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: there are no additional rights for people brought to military detention in the united states than they have in guantanamo. nothing changes. there's no more miranda rights here than there are in guantanamo. if they're in military detention, they're in military detention wherever it is. the presiding officer: all time has expired. under the previous order, the question occurs on the levin-mccain amendment 2175. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 52, the nays are 46. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i'm going to announce a consent agreement. i'll read through it in just a minute. it seems to me this debate we had today was extremely important. as i said last night, one of the issues in this bill is guantanamo. i felt it was appropriate even though i agree with the language that's in the bill that the republicans have an opportunity to see if they could change it. that's what this was all about this afternoon. on the sexual assault issue, there's language in the bill. senator gillibrand and others want to change that. senator levin and senator --

especially senator mccaskill have come up with a side-by-side like we had here. that deserves a full debate. it's an issue that's been in in all the papers, the news stories the last several months. the senate deserves this and the american public deserves this debate. i would hope we could get this done. so i ask unanimous consent that pending -- the pending levin amendment numbered 2123 be set aside for senator gillibrand or or designee to offer amendment 2099 relative to sexual assault, that the amendment be subject to a relevant side-by-side amendment from senators mccaskill and ayotte, 2170, no second-degree amendments be in order, that each of these amendments be subject to a 60-vote threshold, that when the senate resumes consideration of the bill on wednesday, november 20, the time until 5:00 p.m. be equally divided between the proponents and opponents of the gillibrand amendments, divided between the

opponents and proponents of the gillibrand amendment and at 5:00 pan am p.m. the senate proceed to vote in relation to amendment 2099. upon disposition the senate vote in relation to the mccaskill-ayotte amendment 2170, there be two minutes equally divided between the votes and no motions to recommit be in order during the consideration of the sexual assault amendments. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. inhofe: reserving the right to object, would the senator amend his request to include the following language, following the disposition of the mccaskill-ayotte amendment all amendments be withdrawn and the republican manager or his designee be recognized to offer an amendment followed by an amendment by the majority side and the two sides continue offering amendments in alternating fashion until all amendments are disposed of. the presiding officer: will the leader so modify his request?

mr. reid: madam president, with the deepest respect to my friend, the senior senator from oklahoma, we are not in a position to have a bunch of amendments on this bill. it took us weeks to get compounding done, weeks, plural. what we should do is get this very contentious amendment out of the way and move on to other amendments. there's no reason we can't agree amendment to amendment. we are not -- everyone has to understand, everyone has to understand this is not going to be an open amendment process. not going to happen. we tried that, remember? people said haven't done anything on energy for five years. that pretty well says it all. but we said okay, we want to do is work on something that was bipartisan in nature led by senator shaheen, senator

portman was heavily involved in that. we never got off -- never got off first base. never got headed toward first base. we can't do that. there's going to have to be a change of atmosphere around here where we agree to do legislation. we talk about, oh, i remember the good old days when we had unlimited amendments. i remember those, too, but i also remember the good old days where the majority would have a few amendments, the minority would have a like number of amendments and we'd move forward and pass legislation. but no one is willing to do that now. we are, but they're not. so i know how well intentioned my friend is, but that was then and this is now, i object. i don't accept his -- his modification of my request. the presiding officer: is there objection to the original request? mr. inhofe: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: thank you very much, madam president. i have a motion to recommit

s. 1197 with instructions at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid moves to recommit the bill to the committee on armed services with instructions to report back with an amendment numbered 2305. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that motion. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have an amendment to the instructions at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid proposes an amendment numbered 2306 to the instructions of the motion to recommit. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i'm so sorry. i have a second-degree amendment at the desk i totally forgot about. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid proposes an

amendment numbered 2307 to amendment numbered 2306. mr. reid: madam president, what i would hope we could do tomorrow as we did today, i would hope people that feel strongly about this sexual assault issue would come and talk about it. it's so important. we were able to do that today on this amendment that we had and by the time 5:00 came there had been a full discussion of this amendment. no one was crying for more time. i would hope in the morning people who feel strongly about this issue would come and talk. we did have some people that came and talked today on the issue and that was important we did that. so there are very strong feelings about this amendment. it's a difficult issue, it's sexual assault in the military. madam president, it wasn't long ago we wouldn't even be discussing such a thing on the senate floor. we have to now because it's an issue that the military has and we are trying to work through

this. people have different views on how to proceed, but everyone agrees that things need to change. it's a question of how we change it. that's what this debate is all about. i would hope that senators would come in the morning and start talking about this issue. tee it up for a vote sometime tomorrow afternoon. so, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to a period of morning business with is senators permitted permitted and we -- with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each and we can do that until 7:30 tonight and during that period of time it would be for debate only. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

a senator: ,madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i'd like to address another round of attacks that have been spearheaded by big oil against america's biofuel producers. as the market share for big oil dips, big oil is doubling down to swat down its perennial opinion at-a. this time -- pinata.

this time around, petroleum producers and food conglomerates are using environmental groups as political cover to gain traction on efforts to pull the plug on the renewable fuel standard that we omnibus refer to as r.f.s. this is ridiculously transparent and very much self-serving assault by these special interest groups. the relentless campaign to discredit ethanol undermines america's long-standing efforts to diversify energy landscape, fuel the economy, and most importantly, strengthening our national security. the predictable efforts to smear ethanol's reputation ignore the renewable fuel's valuable contribution to clean energy, rural development, job creation, and u.s. energy independence.

the latest round of misguided untruths disregard the plain truth. the plain truth is, ethanol is renewable, it's sustainable, it's a clean burning fuel and all this helps run the nation's transportation fleet with less pollution and less imported oil. and let me remind you, most of that imported oil comes from countries that hate us and use our money to potentially kill americans. yet critics continue to hide behind distortions that claim ethanol is bad for the environment. and those distortions i want to discuss. i'd like to separate fact from fiction regarding ethanol's impact on the environment.

critics say farmers are putting fragile land into production to cash in on higher corn prices at the expense of soil erosion and clean water. now, that argument's not good under any respects. it may have been better last year and the year before when corn was $7 but corn's about $4 a bushel now. hardly making ends meet. they point out that five million conservation reserve program, c.p.r. acres, are no longer enrolled in the conservation program since 2008. they want to pin the blame on ethanol. but the facts are first of all, fewer acres enrolled in c.r.p. has more to do with federal belt tightening, meaning spending

less money here in congress than land stewardships decisions made by corn farmers. the 2008 farm bill had a lot to do with it. that farm bill built upon other stewardship incentives for american farmers and ranchers administered by the u.s. department of agriculture, including the environmental quality investment programs, wetland restoration and wildlife habitat programs. so land put into these programs under the 2008 farm bill takes land out of crop production but it's not the ethanol industry that's done it, it's federal policy. for instance, the wetlands reserve program in 2012 had a record-breaking enrollment of 2.65 million acres. the wetlands reserve program

lands cannot be farmed for 30 years, so they aren't going to be raising corn on that land to produce ethanol. according to the environmental protection agency, no new grassland has been converted to crop land since 2005. farmers must make marketing, planning and stewardship decisions that keep their operation financially sound and productive from crop year to crop year. even more importantly, these decisions must be environmentally sustainable for the long haul, both from the standpoint of the farmers' economic well-being as well as meeting certain laws that require that. so let me be clear, farmers simply cannot afford to not take sciewp husband care of the land

that sustains their livelihoods. fertilizer use is on the decline. compare application per bushel in 1980 versus 2010. night again initrogen is down 5e is down 48% and potash is down 54%. ethanol burns cleaner than gasoline according to the argonne national laboratory. corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 34% compared to gasoline. if the oil industry wants to talk about the environment, we should not forget and i will remind them and the people behind this move about the 1989 exxon valdez oil spill or the 2010 deepwater horizon oil spills in the mexican gulf. critics also say that the renewable fuels standard is driving more acres into corn production.

well, the fact is, if facts mean anything, the i.r.f. is driving significant investment in higher yielding, drought resistant seed technology that very much enhances production per acre. this is a win-win scenario to cultivate good-paying jobs, mostly in rural america, and to harvest better yields on less land. the total cropland planting to corn in the united states is decreasing. let's compare the last -- this year's crop year when u.s. farmers planted 97 million acres of corn -- 97 million corn acres. in the 1930's, farmers planted 103 million acres of corn. farmers have increased corn harvest through higher yields,

not more acres. critics contend that the nation's corn crop is diverted for fuel use at the expense of feed for livestock and higher prices at the grocery store. but what are the facts? in reality, one-third of the corn processed to make ethanol reenters the marketplace as high-valued animal feed called dried distiller's grain. livestock remains the largest end user of corn. so i get so darn tired of hearing people from big oil or these environmental groups or these big supermarket conglomerates say that 40% of the corn produced goes into ethanol when they don't give credit for the 18 pounds of every 56-pound bushel of corn, 18 pounds, or one-third of it,

is used for animal feed. so when coproducts such as the dried distiller's grain are factored in then, ethanol consumes only about 27% of the whole corn grain by volume. livestock feed uses 50%. critics also -- have also pursued the false accusation that the increased production of biofuels increases grocery prices. again, nothing could be further from the truth. the facts are that the u.s. department of agriculture secretary has said farmers receive about 14 cents of every food dollar spent in the grocery stores and the farmer's share of a $4 box of corn flakes is only 10 cents. so what's at stake when a coalition of special interest

tag teams -- special interests tag teams to pull the rug out from underneath the nation'selly no policy? nation's ethanol policy? well, there's a lot at stake. unfortunately these flawed attacks on ethanol and next-generation biofuels undermine america's effort to move forward with an aggressive, diversified energy policy that takes into account global dema demand, geopolitics, and u.s. economic growth. now it has resulted in an e.p.a. that is wholeheartedly adopte adopted -- that has wholeheartedly adopted this false narrative promoted by big oil and big oil allies. on friday then, the e.p.a. released its proposed rule for the required volumes under the renewable fuels standard for next year. the e.p.a. in this proposal chose to reduce the overall

biofuel mandate rather than increase the amount of biofuel to be blended a, as the law requires, the e.p.a. has chosen to waive the mandate and suggests that we use less homegrown renewable biofuel in our fuel supply; hence, more dependence upon foreign sources of energy. it's terribly disappointing that the u.s. biofuels industry is now under attack from president obama's e.p.a. this action, which was vigorously pursued by big oil, is a slap in the face of our domestic energy producers. who would have believed that big oil found an ally in president obama's e.p.a., since he's been such a defender of biofuels and all green energy?

who would have expected the obama e.p.a. to be more harmful to our domestic biofuels effort than president bush ever was? you know, president bush was demagogued as an oil man from texas. but he never undermined biofuels to the extent that this proposal from this e.p.a. would. in making this announce many, the e.p.a. said that the challenges to supplying more ethanol to the market are too great of the so-called -- is too great because of the so-called blend wall. the fact is, the blend wall is a creation of big oil. the primary reason ethanol is not blended at levels higher than 10% today is because big oil has stood in the way. congress knew in 2007 that the

rf -- renewable fuels standard would require biofuels to be blended at levels higher than 10%. but the petroleum companies fought that every step of the way, going back four or five years, and finally last friday they were successful. and friday's announcement, by the way, by e.p.a. rewarded them for their temper tantrums. the e.p.a.'s proposal puts big oil in charge of how we implement the real estate newable fuels standard -- the renewable fuels standard. it has rewarded big oil for its intransigence. while e.p.a. says it's intention is to put the r.f.s. program on a manageable trajectory that will support continued growth, i want to tell you the exact opposite is true.

this proposal is a step back, not a step afford. it undercuts all segments of biofuel including biodiesel, ethanol, and the advanced biofuels that go by the name of cellulosic ethanol. while this administration claims to have an energy strategy of all-of-the-above, the decision -- this decision by e.p.a. approves it's in favor of none of the above. ironically, biofuel producers now know what it's like for traditional energy producers with a bureaucracy that impedes domestic energy production at every turn. i find this decision baffling. i hope president obama will see the harmful impacts of the e.p.a. proposal and fix this mistake during the 60-day period

that e.p.a. must take to consider opinions on this issue. so there's 60 days to turn this around. i hope that we can do that. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: