another 11 individuals from guantanamo. and one of the issues that has troubled me most about this is that it's really important, i think, that the american people know what's going on, but so much of this is happening in the cloak -- the cloak of darkness, and so much of it is an unwillingness of this administration to level with the american people about the terrorist affiliations and activities of current and former guantanamo detainees. and we've seen the most recent example of that, which is troubling. on march 23 of 2016, paul lewis, the special envoy for guantanamo detention closure, testified before the house foreign affairs committee that there have been americans that have died because of guantanamo detainees.

and he was asked about this in this house hearing. my assumption is one of the reasons he was asked about it is because 30% of those who were held at guantanamo, terrorists who have been released from guantanamo, are suspected or confirmed of reengaging in terrorism. so apparently mr. lew weus was asked -- mr. lewis was asked and he said there have been americans who have died because of detainees who have been released. a fair question is, a very important, important question is to understand what have these former detainees done in terms of attacking americans or our nato allies who have worked with us to fight, to fight terrorists in places around the world. and so that was a question that i've posed to this

administration. i asked, based on what mr. lewis, who is the special envoy for guantanamo detention closure said, i asked him, i asked the administration for information by those killed by guantanamo detainees. the administration responded to me, but their answers to my questions were classified in such a way that even my staff, with a top secret security clearance, could not review the response. i was able to review the response. mr. president, what i want to be able to do is to give information to the american people so that they can understand the response because this administration continues to push to close guantanamo. they continue to release terrorists from guantanamo to countries around the world, and they continue to refuse to tell

the american people, hiding behind classification, who the people that are being released in terms of their background, of their terrorist affiliations, they have been releasing a name and the country they're transferred to. but no information to the american people about the terrorist background of these individuals. no information to the american people about how these individuals that are being released, what have they been engaged in, have they been engaged in prior attacks on americans or our allies. and i believe the american people have the right to know. soils -- so i also wrote a follow-up letter to the president on tuesday urging him to provide an unclassified response without delay to understand how many americans and our nato partners have been killed by former guantanamo detainees. and which former detainees committed these terrorist attacks so that we can understand what we're facing. and unfortunately we don't know. but today in "the washington

post" there was an article that reported 12 former guantanamo detainees were involved in attacks on americans after their release, and the estimate in "the washington post" report says that these detainees have killed about a half dozen americans. why should the american people have to rely on the ability of "the washington post" to talk to people off the record to try to find out exactly what are the activities of these terrorists which the administration continues to release without full information to the american people? and i appreciate the reporting of "the washington post," but i believe the american people deserve an answer directly from this administration, because, again, since mr. lewis testified that guantanamo detainees have been involved in killing americans, the administration has released 11 more detainees

from guantanamo with more than two dozen likely to be released in the coming months. again, 30% are suspected or confirmed for reengaging in terrorism. people like abraham al kozi, affiliated with al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, released by this administration in 2012 to sudan. he has joined back up with al qaeda in the arabian peninsula which is headquartered in yemen, and previously what has been revealed about him publicly is he trained at a notorious al qaeda camp, a member of bin laden's elite security detail. and what's more trouble is he's back with al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. he's a leader, a spokesman for this group and he is urging attacks on americans and our allies. so that is what is at stake when we think about the security of the american people. and yet, the administration, this president keeps pushing to

close guantanamo and is trying to take de facto steps to close guantanamo by releasing people without information to the american people. so i have in this bill, mr. president, in the defense authorization that is pending on this floor, i have in committee, in the armed services committee included a provision that would prohibit the international release or transfer of any detainee from guantanamo until the department of defense submits to congress an unclassified report on the individual's previous terrorist activities and affiliations as well as their support or participation in attacks against the u.s. or our allies. the administration keeps claiming that it's in the best interest of the united states, our national security interests, to close guantanamo. i fully disagree with that argument. but if that's what they really believe, why have they not told the american people when they

released the terrorists that are held at guantanamo who these people have been involved with and whether or not they have been involved with attacks on americans or our allies. instead the name and the country they're going to, that's all they're telling the american people. and if it's in our national security interest, they will fully tell the american people why they believed transferring or releasing -- releasing these terrorists to third-party countries, they will tell the american people the truth about who's being released and what they have been involved in. and i think that the american people, should they know that information, will, i hope, side with my view of this, which is that to close guantanamo, especially by releasing dangerous individuals who are there, with 30% of them suspected or confirmed of getting back in the battle is against our national security interests and makes us less

safe. so, mr. president, i would ask no matter where you in this body stand on the closure of guantanamo, don't we owe it to the american people to tell them? doesn't the administration owe it to the american people when they are releasing individuals from guantanamo? what terrorist group is this person affiliated with? has this person ever been involved with the attack of americans or our allies? don't the american people deserve the basic information? the american people need to know who's being released, why they're dangerous, and what is happening in terms of our national security interests, because i believe that they're being undermined greatly by continuing to release terrorists who get back in the fight. the last thing that our men and women in uniform should see, or any of our allies, is a terrorist that we previously had

captured at guantanamo. so i hope, mr. president, that the administration will live up to its transparency policy that the president claimed when he ran for office. because when it comes to releasing dangerous detainees from guantanamo, some of whom have gotten back in the fight, 30% suspected or confirmed of getting back in the fight of terrorism against us, the american people deserve information about what is happening and what danger these individuals pose to us and our allies. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president, -- the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i think it's very obvious that in the authorization bill and authorizing we place a limitation on the use of russian rocket engines. it is already known that in the appropriations bill that there is basically an unlimited purchase of russian rocket engines, much to the testimony, testimony of the military industrial congressional complex. i will be showing how the russians who have been sanctioned by the united states of america under vladimir putin will directly profit from the

continued purchase of these russian rocket engines and have no doubt in the negotiations that i have been trying to move forward so that i could satisfy the appropriators, there's no doubt who has the veto power. we know who they're talking to, the people i am negotiating with. boeing, lockheed and the outfit called u.l.a., which is the two of them. this is -- this is a classic example of the influence of special interests over the nation's priorities, but more importantly they are so greedy that they were willing to put millions of dollars into the pockets of these individuals, two of whom have been sanctioned by the united states of america and one of them who has been sanctioned by the e.u.

cronies of vladimir putin. it's really remarkable this nexus of special interests which end up profiting millions of dollars of profit for these individuals, which i will talk about in a minute. so really, my friends, when you see the american people -- i say again cynical about washington, there is such a tight relationship between this conglomerate of two of the biggest defense industries in america, boeing and lockheed, and we end up with the expenditure of tens of millions of taxpayers' dollars, it is really remarkable. now, in the authorization bill, we put a strict limit on it, and in the appropriations committee, which we already know about,

it's basically an open door. so that's why i was trying and will continue to try to have a simple amendment that says we will not provide money to any company or corporation that would profit these people who have been sanctioned by the united states of america in two cases, in one case by the european union. why are they? because of their invasion of ukraine. so, you know, when you talk about things that are unsavory, this is probably one of the most unsavory issues that i have been involved in in my years here. it was two years ago vladimir putin began his campaign in eastern europe, dismembering a sovereign nation, and today we're facing an increasingly belligerent russian government, and we know that putin continues to occupy ukraine, threatens

nato allies, bombs u.s.-backed forces in syria who are fighting against bashar assad's murderous regime. his tactical fighters buzz with impunity, u.s. ships in the baltic putting lives of u.s. personnel at risk. all the while, american taxpayers continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize russia's military industrial complex. now, you don't have to take my word for it, you don't have to take my word for it. here is a letter that i received a few days ago. let me tell you who signed it before -- before i read it. the honorable leon panetta, former secretary of defense. michael hayden, general hyattsville hayden, former director of the central intelligence agency, former director of the national security agency, michael j.morrell, former director and acting director of the central

intelligence agency, michael rogers, chairman of the house select committee on intelligence, and the former supreme allied commander at nato. these individuals have some credibility. i think more on this issue than almost anybody else. let me tell you what they write. we write to endorse the bipartisan effort you both -- this is to me and to mr. reed -- have led to include language in the national defense authorization act to phase out u.s. relation on russian technology for the space launch systems that deliver our vital and most sensitive satellites. and they go on to talk about how important reliable access to space is. fortunately i'm quoting from the letter, we now have an american industrial base with multiple providers that can produce all american-made rocket engines. they go on to state. and these are people like the head of the central intelligence agency saying -- quote -- there

is no need to rely on putin's russia for this sensitive critical technology. he goes on to talk about russia's aggressive intervention in ukraine and crimea, meddling in syria, the threat from russia is rising. as the committee knows well, last summer, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general dunford said that russia poses -- quote -- an existential threat to the united states, recalling russia's actions nothing short of alarming, and the list goes on and on about the things. for years -- here is a very important point. from these experts, for years, russia has helped fund its growing military with capital derived from the sale of rocket engines to the united states. russian officials have referred to u.s. purchases of these engines as -- quote -- free money, unquote. that's what the russians call

it. for modernizing its missile sector and frequently leveraged the department of defense's dependence on these engines as a bargaining chip in unrelated foreign policy disputes. they go on to talk about the defense authorization developed for the last two years passed new legislation to address this national security challenge under a proposed congressional transition plan, the russian engine would be phased out no earlier than 2020. we believe this proposed policy is wise and would prevent unnecessary expenditures on russian-made rocket engines in support of russia's industrial base. this policy guarantees assured access to space by increasing reliance on existing american-made systems providing an imminently reasonable solution to ending russia's involvement in the department of defense's space launch program.

now, i want to tell my colleagues that comes from some of those on both sides, republican and democrat administrations, reliable intelligence people that we have ever had serve our country. leon panetta, general hayden, mike rogers, and i have heard from many others the same way. so here we are with a clear influence of u.l.a. -- and that's lockheed and boeing, two of the largest defense industries in america, with, guess what? their launches in alabama. guess what? their headquarters in illinois. guess who is leading the charge to continue to place basically unending dependence on russian rockets. guess who? you can draw your own conclusion. let's talk about -- let's talk about these individuals for a

minute. i'd like to discuss how continuing to divide these rd- 180 engines would have us do business with the russian government and directly enrich putin's closest friends, who are a group of corrupt cronies and government appear -- apparachiks, including persons who are sanctioned to russia's invasion of ukraine and annexation of crimea. with the swift stroke of a pen just a few days ago on may 12, 2016, putin signed a decree that reorganized russia's entire russian space industry, consolidates all of its assets under a massive -- quote -- state corporation called rosecosmos. under putin's directive, rosecost most swallows up these other outfits, the russian launch companies that supplies the rockets to, guess who,

united launch alliance. this new state-owned space corruption in fact swallows up dozens of other russian companies. to be clear, rosecost most is not a privately owned corporation facilitating business with the russian government. it is the russian government. as a state corporation. it further state policy is controlled by apparachiks who have agency authority from putin to do his bidding. so there should be no confusion. rosecosmos is part of the very same military industrial base that conducts bloody operations in ukraine and syria. under rosecosmos, punitive is no longer using russian shell companies or offshore corporations to sell russian rocket engines to line the rocket of his most trusted friends.

rosecosmos is directly controlled by many of them. if you look at their highest level, the individuals who control the company look like a who's who of u.s. sanctions. officers and directors who have been individually sanctioned by the united states or the european union or control other companies that have been similarly sanctioned in connection with russia's invasion of ukraine. let's start with sergay chemezov. there he is. he is the man at the very top of this chart. chemezov is the most influential member of rosecosmos supervisory board and appears to finance the operations through a bank that he controls as part of his giant state-owned defense corporation rosetech. a c.e.o. of rosetech, chemezov controls roughly two-thirds of russia's defense sector and employs more than 900,000

people, which is approximately 1.2% of the whole russian work force. this has led some in the russian government to refer to him as the shadow defense industry minister. more importantly, chemezov is a former k.g.b. agent who was stationed with putin in communist east germany during the 1980's. the two lived together in an apartment complex in dresden. he is said to be putin's k.g.b. mentor. he acknowledges that his ties to putin gave him a competitive business advantage, but the truth is that his meteoric rise was fueled by a series of kremlin-backed takeovers of prominent russian companies. and now rosecosmos has been added to the list. both chemezov and corporation rose tech are targeted by u.s. sanctions. i repeat, they and his company are targeted by u.s. sanctions.

as the rose tech-owned bank, nova com bank which finances roscosmos operations. we have igor komarov who will serve as ros roscosmos chief officer. recently he was the head of russia's largest car manufacturer. his car manufacturer also happened to be taken over by chemezov's behemoth defense corporation rose tech and dhem disorve -- chemezov later served on the company's board as both chairman and deputy chairman. komarov is chemezov's protege. to put it simply. chemezov hand picked komarov, a man wtle or no experience in -- little or no experience in the space industry to run roscosmos. chemezov lever alleged his position as c.e.o. of rose tech

and access to putin to make sure roscosmos' new head is someone he controlled. this gives chemezov the ability to mngs roscosmos from the shadows much as he has done with russia's defense industry. think of komarov's relationship to chemezov a as dmitry's relatn shn to putin. rogozin has served as deputy prime minister of the russian federation and as the so-called space czar since 2011. remember, he's been sanctioned by the united states of america. he is now the space czar in russia. he's also the chairman -- chairman of roscosmos' board of directors, is overseeing the transition of roscosmos into its new form, a massive state-owned corps. -- corps. not surprisingly during his

tenure at space czar, he's been in a period of unprecedented corruption. he's publicly acknowledged a systemic crisis from which the space agency is yet to emerge. he also attributes recent financial scandals and criminal activities to -- quote -- a moral decline of space industry managers. i want to emphasize this. these are rogozin's words, not mine. the russian space czar who is overseeing the restructuring of roscosmos publicly admits that individuals running the state-owned corps are hope -- corporation are hopefully and -- hopelessly and fatally rupt. in face cool 2014 alone, roscosmos misallocated approximately $1.8 billion. in fact the money wasn't misallocate. it simply disappeared. there were gross violations such as misuse of appropriated funds

and financial reporting mefds. the number -- methods. the russia auditors thought they must be wrong. they finally concluded the original roscosmos organization is among the biggest and least disciplined of government agencies that blatantly ignore regulatory requirements and best practices in state procurement orders. and this is from russia's own internal government watchdog, the rough equivalent of the u.s. general accounting office, g.a.o. my friends, as conscientious americans, we simply cannot continue to do business with this group of self-admitted swindlers and crooks. we cannot support a russian space agency that is financed by a sanctioned russian bank owned by a sanctioned russian defense company, controlled by a sanctioned russian c.e.o. who also happens to be a former k.b.g. agent and close personal friend of vladimir putin.

it's time we found the moral courage to end our dependency on russian technology before the government -- before the russian government ends it for us. rogozin has already threatened to cut off our access to space. just last year, he declared -- quote -- "we're not going to deliver the rd-180 engines if the united states will use them for noncivil purposes. we also may discontinue servicing the engines that were already delivered to the united states." despite these threats, we still manage to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to chemezov, komarov, rogozin and countless other russian stooges just like them. we continue to supply vladimir putin with the very capital he needs to wage his deadly shadow war in europe and the middle east. we don't need to buy any more engines from russia. the secretary of defense, the

secretary of the air force and director of national intelligence have all testified to that point before the senate armed services committee. former secretary of defense and director of the c.i.a. leon panetta, c.i.a. directo directol hayden, mike morell, and others, including the former european commander and others say all endorse our efforts in this bill to responsibly end our reliance on russian rocket engines. i'm here to tell you we are subsidizing the russian military industrial complex at the expense of our own national interests and we must end this dangerous addiction before it's too late. so here we are, my friends, with a blatant, incredible story of people who are so involved in the russian invasion of the crain, -- of the ukraine, that they were sanctioned. they were sanctioned by the united states of america and other countries. they're now in charge of the russian rocket program.

they're the ones into whose pockets the hundreds of millions of dollars that we spend on these russian rockets, and we have this incredible alliance of boeing and united that is unbelievable in this concort yum -- consortium of the two biggest defense agencies in america that have such control over this body that we will continue to subsidize and pay hundreds of millions of american dollars to corrupt crooks, people and money that will fuel putin's activities which we all know with his indiscriminate bombing in syria are slaughtering thousands of innocent people, driving thousands into refugee situations. it's vladimir putin that is

bombing the people that we train and equip. and by the way, as you might have seen in the last couple of days, bashar assad said there's going to be no peace, that he's going to regain control of the entire country of syria making a farce and a joke out of the so-called cease-fire that was orchestrated by our secretary of state who went to moscow on bended knee to beg his buddy to agree to a cease-fire that really never existed. but the point is, we do have a supply of rocket engines. now, admittedly, they are more expensive. i will freely admit that. but we also have a number of other corporations, not just spacex but blue horizon. there's a number of others that are developing rocket engines. and i am confident if you look at what spacex just did, they

were able to land a rocket for the first time so it's reusable, their space launch. they were reusing it. and there will be other breakthroughs thanks to these entrepreneurs, like elon musk and jeff beezos and others who are taking charge when this old consortium, when this old complex called u.l.a. is running things and we're paying them $800 million a year to do nothing but stay in business. my friends, and i'd also like to point out one other aspect of this. the appropriations committee's job is to appropriate. it's the authorizing committee to do the authorizing. what was in the appropriations bill in numerous places was a

gross violation of the area of responsibility of the authorizing committee. now, i don't know exactly what we can do about this creeping policy making on the part of the appropriators, but i hope that at some point the majority on both sides are not members of the appropriations committee but they are members of various authorizing committees. sooner or later, they're going to get tired of authorizing certain programs and authorizing after debate and hearings and all of the things -- for example, i would -- i guarantee you the senate armed services committee has had ten times the number of hearings and debate and amendments and markup than the defense appropriations subcommittee. i guarantee you that. so they take it upon themselves on an issue such as this to put in their own version which is

obviously controlled by alabama and illinois. so that's what's wrong with this system. that's what's wrong with this body. that's what's wrong. and the american people are beginning to figure it out and they don't like it. and they shouldn't like it. i pointed out yesterday and lost a vote that in 1992, we spent $20 million on medical research out of the defense appropriations, out of american tax dollars. today it's almost 200 -- excuse me, it's a billion dollars worth of medical research most of which has nothing to do with the men and women who are serving this country. i note the presence of the senator from colorado. i'm sure that he may even know these individuals. i'd like for him to meet them because they are crooks. they're crooks and they're corrupt and they're butchers.

so i'd like for him to meet them as he continues to advocate for the status quo which is totally unacceptable expenditure of american tax dollars which indeed are used to kill americans. so that's a heavy responsibility i would say to my new friend in the senate, the senator from colorado. that's a heavy responsibility. these guys are killing people, and we're subsidizing these murderers and thugs and that's not something i would be proud of. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. gardner: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. president. i have great respect for my colleague from arizona, the service that he has given to this country, the sacrifices he has endured are tremendous and nobody can underestimate what he has done for this nation. i don't think anybody here would ever think that they have done that in whatever legislative action they take. so while we may disagree on certain issues or agree with a different course of action, everybody i believe wants to do what is best for their nation. and when it comes to this issue, this particular issue of having

access to space, having reliable access to space, maintaining competition in our industry so that we can provide the best value and cost savings to the american taxpayer while achieving the level of security that we need, that's where i believe this debate is rightfully focused. it's also where the debate from our own department of defense is focused. nobody in this chamber wants to continue the status quo. in fact, i've introduced an amendment with senator nelson and senators bennet and hatch and inhofe and sessions, a number of people who believe that we should end the status quo and go a new direction. in fact, that's what this entire debate is about is to make sure we no longer have to rely on the rocket as we do today, but we cannot leave the security of this country blind to capacities that we would lose if we pursue

the direction of the defense authorization act as it is written today. because if we pass this legislation, there are assets that will protect the people of this country that we may not be able to put into space, and if we do, in this bill, is language that will cost up to $1.5 billion because that's what this bill will force to be done. legislation that will result in a $1.5 billion to $5 billion tax increase. i just supported an amendment to add dollars to our defense and security because i believe it's important that the men and women of this country have the tools and the resources they need to protect and defend themselves. i supported that, billions of new dollars. and yet the actions under this bill would cost the american

taxpayer somewhere between $1.5 million and $5 billion in more money. so while we're adding more money, we're taking it away with passage of this act while reducing reliability, reducing access to space, and reducing competition. i believe, as organizations like the tea party patriots, organizations like a.e.i., organizations across the country that believe that we can do better, that we should keep competition, that we should keep reliability -- those are the things that we believe in. let me read comments by defense secretary ash carter, the secretary of defense, who's truly interested in making sure we protect the people of this nation from bad actors. quote -- "we have to have assured access to space, so we have to have a way to launch or national security payloads into space so our country's security depends on that. one way to do that, which is reflected in our budget, is to continue to use the atlas booster including a limited but

continuing number of rd-180 engines." that's the secretary of defense. air force secretary deborah lee james, "maintaining at least two of the existing systems until at least two launch providers are available will be necessary to protect our nation's assured access to space." this is coming from somebody who believes we need to protect this country and the people of this country frommed about actors. -- from bad actors. she goes ton say, "as we move forward, we respectfully respect this committee allow the department the flexibility to develop and acquire the launch capabilities our war fighters and intelligence community needs." assistant secretary of the air force william la plant on july 16 of 20 15* 15, "we believe authorization to use up to 18 rd-180 engines in the award and procurement of contracts through 2022 is a reasonable starting point to mitigate the risk associated with assured being a senior senator to space and enable competition." this is somebody who is interested in protecting the

people of this country from bad actors, people who would do harm, people who would do evil acts to this country and our allies. as assistant secretary of defense for acquisition, katrina mcfarland, june 26 20, 15, talks about the need for this program. intelligence director james clearp shall ash carter on may 11 20, 15, together said "we are working diligently to transition from the russian-made rd-180 rocket engine on domestically sourced propulsion capabilities but our concern that section 1608 presents significant challenges to do so while maintaining assured access to space." they care about the security of this future. -- of this nation. they care about the secure future of this nation. in fact, just a few days ago, in an article from former general shelton -- i don't know if we have that article -- but general

shelton, four-star commander in the united states air force, talked about the need to move away fro from these rockets to n american-made rockets but not allowing our competition to you suffer. this is what it would cost. if you look at what happens under the language of this bill, here's the graph. this is what the american taxpayers would be paying. 35% more, $1 .5 billion to a $5 billion increase in spending if the language of the bill, as written today, goes into law. that's not some staffer in the cloak of darkness in the mailroom trying to kowm come up with figures. that's what the experts agree will happen. so while this body is talking about, there is a he not enough money to fund defense with, while this body is voting on amendments to increase spending in defense, the same policies enshrined in this bill would cost up to $5 billion more. if we truly want to make sure we

have the resources needed to defend this country, let's not self-inflict $5 billion worth of harm while we all agree to transition to an american-made system but to do so in a way that relies on the ability to do what is right with competition, with reliability. instead of transitioning to a system that can't even reach 60% of projected n.s.s. needs -- national security space mission needs -- unless you use the more expensive rocket. so general shelton believes that we should keep this rocket. five-star general in the united states air force. russian rocket engines are essential for now, general shelton begins "the u.s. debating the 2017 national defense authorization act. an amendment proposed would provide relief from restrictions that we're facing right now, recognizing that the current

draft legislation would significantly harm the national security space program." a four-star general in service to our nation has said that if we don't change the bill as its written, it would significantly harm the national security space program. general shelton is the former commander of air force space command. i think he knows what he's talking b i think he's an expert. i could read more quotes from others. nasa administrator who believes that without this language we're going to increase costs in nasa, not just the department of defense, and we're going to hurt our ability to access space and access launches. you talk to the intel communities, init will communities who believe that they would lose the exat it i capacity to launch satellites that provide missile launch detection that can protect our people and our country. yes, let's make sure we

transition, yes, let's make sure that we change the status quo, but let's do it in way that's smart, good policy, and protects the interests of the american people. that's what this amendment is about and we can all agree to that now, mr. president, i would like to change topics quickly, if i could. mr. president, just a couple of weeks ago in colorado, channel 9 news in denver reported that a bus was going to leave denver to make a four-hour drive to a place called amachi. it's where some 7,000 people lived, worked, and called home during much of world war ii. ten weeks after the japanese bombed apparel harbor, the president signed an executive

order creating internment camps for people of japanese descent. one of those camps was in colorado. and just a couple of weeks ago marked the 40th year that japanese-americans have made a formal pilgrimage to that camp. those 7,000 people lived in pair racks, formed their own schools, planted gardens and had beauty parlors and boy scott troops. their sons vowed to fight and die for the country that imprisoned their parents. many of the visitors to the camp were elderly, in their 90's, there were some college students as well. but amongst the people who visited camp amache just a couple of weeks ago wags the valedictorian of a past high school class called marion

kanucci. it was her first visit since she left the camp more than 70 years ago. she was a valu valedictorian an3 years ago she gave a speech as the head of her class and just a few weeks ago she returned to camp amache where she reread that speech again for the first time. and so i thought members, i would read excerpts of that speech today. her speech titled "america, our hope is in you." june 25, 1943. "one and a half years ago i knew only one america, an america that gave me an equal chance at the at the struggle for life, lisht, and the pursuit of happiness. if i were asked then what does america mean to you, i would answer without any hesitation

and without -- and with all sincerity that america means freedom, equality, security, and justice. the other night while i was preparing nor this speech, i asked myself this same question, she wrote what does america mean you to? i hesitated. i was not sure of my answer. i wondered if america still means and will mean security, equality, and justice when some of its citizens were segregated, discriminated against, and treated so unfairly? i knew i was not the only american seeking an answer. then i remembered that old saying that all the answers to the future will be found in the past for all men, so unmindful of the searchlights reflecting in my win dorks i sat down and tried to recall all the thongs that were taught to me in my history, sociology, and american life classes. this is what i remembered:

america was born in philadelphia on july 4, 1776 and for 167 years it has been held as the hope, the only hope for the common man. america has guaranteed to each and all, american and foreign, a lite right to own a home, to worship, speech, think and act as he please. as a free man to every other plan. every revolution within the last 167 years which had for its, a, more freedom was based hon her constitution. no cry from on oppressed people as ever gone unanswered by her. america froze shoeless in the snow at valley forge and battled for her life at gettysburg. she gave the world its greatest symbols of democracy. george washington, who freed her from tyranny, thomas jefferson who defined her democratic course, and abraham lincoln, who saved her and renewed her faith. sometimes america failed and

suffered, sometimes she made mistakes -- great mistakes -- but she always admitted them and tried to rectify all the injustices that flowed from them. her history is full of errors, but with each mistake she has learned and has marched forward, on-ward toward a goal of security and free men where the understanding of all men are created equal, all men without whatever their race color or religion be given a chance to save each other according to their needs and abilities. i was once again at my desk," she wrote, "true, i was just as much emittered as any other equack way but i had found in the past the answer to my question. i had also found my faith in america, faith in the america that is still alive in the hearts, minds, and consciences of true americans today. faith in the american sportsmanship and attitude of

fair play that will judge citizenship and patriotism on the basis of actions and achievements and not on the basis of physical characteristics. can we the graduating class of amache senior high school still believe that america means security and justice and freedom? do i believe this? do my classmates believe this? yes, with all our hearts, because in that faith, in that hope, is my future, our future and the world's future. close quote. to marion konishi, her husband who served in the 42nd, thank you for sharing these words 73 years later. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, you got a choice here. you can believe the senator from colorado, where there is substantial presence of u.l.a. and the outfit that makes a lot of money. you can believe him or you can believe leon panetta, former director. central intelligence agency, michael hayden, former director of the national security agency, michael moraell, michael rogers, former chairman of the house select committee on intelligence, admiral stavritus, and there's many, many more. all of them are saying that they support what i am trying to do. it's interesting that the senator from colorado would completely ignore the view and position of the most respected people in america.

respect the senator from colorado. i do not compare his credentials to that of the former secretary of defense. by the way, a couple points. one is americans for tax reform are in opposition to proposed lift on the rocket engines. they point out they point out america has spent over $1 billion that they've spent on this. and also there was an interesting incident that happened. i forgot. it was maybe a couple of months ago where an individual who is an executive from this outfit called u.l.a., he made a speech that had a lot of interesting comments in it. he didn't obviously know that it was being recorded. the interesting thing is this man brett toby, he was a vice

president of engineering for u.l.a. he said during a lecture at the university of colorado, boulder last week, the defense department had -- quote -- "bent over backwards to lean the field to u.l.a.'s advantage in a competition in the new market with spacex." so an executive of u.l.a. alleges that the defense department bent over backwards to lean the field in favor of u.l.a. now if that isn't a graphic example of what's going on here, then i don't know what is. he also talked about how they were going to have to because of, because of the spacex competition, they were going to have cuts in their work force. they were going to have to change the way they do business,

on and on because of competition. and all these years, they've had none. they've had none. but they have at the defense department bent over backwards to lean the field to u.l.a.'s advantage in a competition with a new market entrance in space exploration technologies. i would remind the chair that it was about ten years ago now that there was an idea for boeing to build a new tanker. it smelled very badly. i and my staff and others pursued it. it ended up with executives going to jail from boeing. so this is another one of these examples, unfortunately, that contributes to this profound citizennism of the arican people of how they spend their money. so my colleagues have a choice here. they can believe the senator

from colorado, and i'm sure the senator from illinois will come because that's where boeing is headquartered and they'll talk about all these things. and then you can compare that with probably one of the most respected men in america, leon panetta. i thought he was one of the great secretaries of defense, general hayden, michael morell, michael rogers, james stavridis, all of these people who are -- have no dog in this fight. they don't have anything based in their state that would affect their state's economy. they have a wealth of experience. i would imagine there's at least a century worth of experience in defense amongest these -- amongst these individuals. in no way do i disparage the senator from colorado's experience but i'll match these guys against yours any day of the week. they have no dog in this fight. they have no corporation that's based in their state. and so again i know after all

these years in the senate armed services committee, something that smells bad as i have when i did with the boeing tanker when people went to jail. this stinks to high heaven. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: i would just continue the number of people who believe that it is important that we approach this from the standpoint of an amendment that senators nelson and myself have offered along with a bipartisan group of legislators. i'll begin with general mark welsh, air force chief of staff. again this is testimony before the senate in 2015. virtually and i quote, virtually everybody agrees that we would like to as the united states of america not be so reliant on an engine going forward -- on a russian engine going forward into the future. but the question is how to do it and when we will be ready

because we don't want to cut off our nose to spite our face. all of the technical experts with whom i've consulted tell me this is not a one or two or three-year deal. you're looking at maybe six years to seven years to develop a engine, another year or two beyond that to be able to integrate. of course our amendment doesn't give -- would cut it off at 2022 because we believe that's the transition that we would need in order to provide the kind of security that the people of this country expect. let me just show some of the national security missions that will be delayed if we don't have the ability to use all of our complement, all of the components of our current rocket set today. the space warning satellites that are designed for ballistic missile detection from anywhere in the world, particularly countries like north korea would be delayed. i had the opportunity to go to south korea just last week where

i met with general brooks who talked about the need for us to provide more intelligence over north korea. the day we were there, north korea launched once again or tried to launch a ballistic missile. it failed thankfully but what happens one day when it doesn't fail? are we going to be able to have the space-based infra red system in place that we need to be able to protect the people of this country? because if they succeed and we don't know, that is catastroph catastrophic. the mobile user objective system and advanced extremely high frequency satellite systems is designed to provide capabilities to our armed services around the world would be delayed. according to a letter dated may 23 from the deputy secretary of defense, again somebody very much interested in the future security of this country, the current security of this country, losing and delaying the capability to place position and navigation communication missile warning nuclear detection,

intelligence surveillance and recondistance satellite -- reconnaissance satellites in orbit would be significant. national aerospace and space administration said before the senate when asked about what would happen with the loss of these rockets, they are counting on these rockets to be able to -- be able to get the number of engines that would satisfy the requirements for nasa to fly the dream chaser when it comes around in 2019. the dream chaser already has a resupply service contract for the international space station. it's designed to fly on top of one of these rockets. if we were to change that, it would no longer have that rocket available. they would undergo significant cost and delay in trying to retro fit the rocket, just like the orion space program, additional cost to try to retro fit. we can talk about more experts. the defense under secretary for

acquisition technology, april of 2015 said there's going to be a period of time where we would like to have the option possibly of using rd-180's if necessary. there are much more expensive options available to us but we prefer not to go that way. we've already shown the chart of how expensive it would be. now i want to show one final chart. now, when we talk about how much money is being spent on rocket engines, i'd like to just point this chart out here. because if we're concerned about cronies from russia, then let's talk about other areas where we're importing from russia. this is from 2013. now, here if you look at where we're at, engines and motors represent .32% of this pie chart, .32%. that's how much money is being spent on importing from russia

engines and motors. but if you look at something like -- i don't know -- let's say nickel, metal, we import .59% of our imports, .59% of those imports from russia make up nickel imports. arms and ammunition, .56%, more than engines and motors that we're importing from russia. here's an interesting one. fish cros cross taish shuns and aquatic vert greats, 1.2% of our imports from russia, apparently croscrustaceans. so we're going to continue to have very good debate on this body and members can come at this from a different approach and i look forward to working out a solution that all members can be proud of that we've done what's best for our country and best for our taxpayers and best

for our security. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: the senator from utah is waiting. you've got a choice. believe those that have a vested interest in continuing this purchase of russian rocket engine or some of the most respected people in america who say we don't need to do it. that's what the choice is here. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i rise today to discuss and to urge my colleagues to support amendment number 4448, the due process guarantee amendment. this amendment addresses a little known problem that i believe most americans would be shocked to discover even exists. under current law, the federal government has proclaimed the power, has arrogated to itself the power to obtain indefinitely without charge or trial u.s.

citizens and lawful permanent residents who are apprehended on american soil. let that sink in for just a minute. if you're a u.s. citizen or u.s. green card holder and you're arrested on american soil because you're suspected of supporting a terrorist group or other enemy of the united states, the federal government has claimed the power to detain you indefinitely without formally charging you or without offering you a trial. i'm not talking about american citizens who travel to foreign lands to take up arms against the united states military and are captured on the battlefield. no, i'm talking here about u.s. citizens who are apprehended right here in the united states of america. under current law, even they can be imprisoned for an unspecified, in fact unlimited period of time without ever being charged or being given the benefit -- without the benefit

of a jury trial to which they are entitled. you don't need to be a defense attorney to recognize what an outrage this is. arresting u.s. citizens on american soil and then detaining them indefinitely without charge or trial is an obvious deviation from the constitutional right to due process of law. the last time the federal government exercised such power during the interment of japanese americans during world war ii without congressional authorization, congress responded by passing a law to prevent it from happening again. of course such legal protection should not need to be codified into federal statute in the first place, but they did it anyway. the fifth amendment of the constitution states in no uncertain terms that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. but then again as james madison reminded us, if men were angels,

no government would be necessary. so in the wake of world war ii, congress passed and president nixon signed the nondetention act of 1971 which states -- quote -- no citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the united states except pursuant to an act of congress. those last few words are absolutely crucial, except pursuant to an act of congress. the nondetention act of 1971 recognized as i believe most americans do, that in some cases, in some grave, treacherous, unfortunate case, indefinite detention of u.s. citizens may in the eyes of some be deemed necessary. but the point is that the federal government does not inherently possess the power of indefinite detention. to the extent such power can even be said to exist within our constitutional framework at all, a question that many of us would regard as at least debatable.

certainly only an act of congress such as an authorization for the use of military force or aumf or perhaps a declaration of war can give the federal government that power. but fast forward 40 years and this important legal protection has eroded. you see, in 2011, 40 years after the passage of the nondetention act of 1971, congress passed its annual national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012. the predecessor of the bill that we're considering today. in that version of the ndaa, there was a provision, section 1021 giving the federal government the power to detain u.s. citizens indefinitely without trial, even those who were apprehended on american soil. now, it may sound like section 1021 meets the act of congress threshold established by the nondetention act of 1971, but

importantly, it does not. it does no such thing. here's why. the language of section 1021 merely presumes that the 2001 aumf gives the government the right to detain u.s. citizens indefinitely without having to prove anything. even though an explicit grant of such power appears nowhere, nowhere at all in the 2001 aumf. my amendment would resolve this problem. in clear and straightforward language, my amendment clarifies that a general authorization to use military force, a declaration of war or any similar authority, on its own shall not be construed to authorize the imprisonment or deteption without charge or -- detention without charge or trial of a doesn't of the united states apprehended in the united states. this means that if congress believes it's necessary to have the power to indefinitely detain

united states citizens captured in the u.s., then congress must expressly say so in any authorization it passes. my amendment recognizes that ther due process protections of u.s. citizens are far too important to leave up to implied legal contemplation. the 2001 aumf does not expressly state that the federal government has the power to detain indefinitely american citizens on american soil. you will not find that. so if those who believe that it is somehow in the national security interests of the united states for the federal government to have that power, they should file an amendment to the aumf that says so explicitly. and then we can see that the american people think and we can find out just as importantly what their elected representatives in the house and in the senate think.

or they can file an entirely new aumf that provides such authority sprsly. -- expressly. now, mr. president, this amendment, the one that i'm discussing today, this should not be controversial. in fact, in 2012, just a year after the initial offending provision that i described a moment ago, was passed, the senate passed this amendment with 67 votes, in large part thanks to the tireless efforts of my distinguished colleague, the senior senator from california, senator feinstein, who joins me as a cosponsor of the amendment today. unfortunately, the due process guarantee amendment was stripped from that version of the ndaa. the ndaa passed in 2012 or 2013 during the conference process. at the time some opponents of the amendment were under the impression that it would extend

due process protections to u.s. citizens apprehended outside the united states, but that, mr. president, is undeniably false. the due process guarantee amendment applies only to u.s. citizens and lawful permanent residents who are apprehended on u.s. soil. it has been four years since that misunderstanding prevented congress from passing this commonsense, bipartisan reform. that is more than enough time for this institution to gain clarity on what this amendment does do, and just as importantly, on what this amendment does not do. and so i.t. time, mr. president, that we finally pass this amendment. and i urge each of my colleagues to do so. mr. paul: will the senator yield for a question? mr. lee: yes. mr. paul: four years ago we passed legislation under the defense authorization that allows the american government to detain an american citizen without a trial.

think about that. one of our basic riots, one of our -- one of our basic rights, one of our most basic rights is to have a jury of our peers. and you say, oh, well, it'll never be used. president obama recognized this. he said, this is a terrible power and i promise never to use it. any president who says a power is so terrible he's not going to use it should not be on the books. as the senator from utah said, it's not about having laws that require angels to be in charge of your government. someday there will be someone in charge of the government that makes a grievous mistake, like rounding up the japanese. so we have to be very, very careful about giving power to our government. that's what the challenge is here. many will say, well, we are at war and at war you have to have the law of war. what is the law of war also known as? martial law. but this is a war that does not seem to have an end.

they're not asking you for a one- or two-year period in which there won't be trials. they're asking you to relinquish your right to trial for a war that may have no end. and i want you to imagine this. who could these enemy combatants be that may not get trials? imagine that you're an arab-american living in dearborn, michigan, and you send an e-mail to someone overseas. may be that person is a bad person. but should not an arab-american in dearborn, michigan, have a right to defend themselves in court and say, i was just sending an e-mail to them, but i am not a terrorist. shouldn't they get the right to defend themselves? we need to be very careful that as we fight this long war that we don't wake up one day and say, we won the war but we lost what we stood for, we lost the bill of rights, we lost what our soldiers -- i know soldiers who have lost two arms and a leg fighting for us, and they come

back and they say, they were fighting for the bill of rights. that's what this should be about, protecting the bill of rights while they're gone. and so the question i have for my esteemed colleague is, some will say, well, they get a hearing, they get a habeas hearing, they go before a judge. isn't that due process? is a habeas hearing equivalent to due process? mr. lee: no, no, it may include habeas but some might say habeas corpus is the beginning of due process, not the end of the sometimes it occurs at the beginning, sometimes at the end. but regardless when it occur, a habeas proceeding does not represent the sum total universe of what due process moons. loork you can't read the fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth amendments to the constitution to see what happened in the version of the ndaa that we passed in 2011 was an affront to the constitutional order. it was an aberration. now, we're not asking for anything drastic. all we are asking here is that

before the government takes this step -- the type of drastic step you're describing, that at a minimum that we require congress to expressly authorize that is. is that really too much? and for those who would say we're at war, we're in danger -- and i understand the point. there are those who don't like our way of life. they perhaps want to do us harm. for those who would say that we are at war and we've got to that i can into account and we've got to consider that, my response is okay, if that's the case, then let's at least do it the way we're supposed to do t let's at least have that discussion. rather than doing it by subterfuge, rather than doing it under a cloud of uncertainty, rather than doing it by implications. we would to do so expressly. that's all this amendment does. mr. paul: let me clarify in a follow-up question. if an american doesn't goes to syria and fights with isis and

is captured on the battlefield, that doesn't -- this amendment would not mean that they get a trial? mr. lee: no. mr. paul: they still could be held a as an enemy combatant? lee this would not cover that at all. that person is captured on the battlefield outside the united states. that person wouldn't be covered by this amendment. paul let's also be clear what we're talking about. people who have been defined as enemy combatants aren't always holding a wevment you can a promise began difficulty. we have had propagandists who were killed overseas who were propagandists for the enemy. so it is conceivable that an american citizen could be exchanging information and say something derogatory about us or something in favor of the enemy and that could be considered to be -- that person is not a propagandist. mr. paul: i guess my point is, soon they have day in court to determine the facts and have representation as opposed to being plucked up and saying,

you're going to guantanamo bay for the rest of your life because you made some criticism that is now the state has deemed you an en? i. mr. lee: that's absolutely right. that is why we need these protections. that helps illustrate the slippery-slope nature of this problem. it also emphasizes why it is if there are some in our body who want to make sure this power exists in the government that we must pass legislation affirmatively making it so, expressly providing that power rather than doing it indirectly. that's all our amendment does. this is indeed a slippery slope. if all you have to do is indefinitely detain someone without charge, without trial, success spngdzing their rights under the fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth amendments, if that's all you have to do is charge them in a certain way, then our constitutional protections have become weakened indeed, weakeninged to a dangerous degree. mr. paul: and is it currently drew that this amendment is being blocked by one senator

from gaining a vote. mr. lee: we're trying to get a vote. this got a vote in 2012. this received 67 votes from, votes from people of both parties, from members, one person who you may be thinking of who has objections to it now. if we're going to get on other amendments, this should get a vote. no has explained to me why this should not, at a minimum, receive a vote. if someone doesn't like this, fine, let had a them vote again it. this is very relevant to the national defense authorization act. it was the national defense authorization act passed in 2011 that was the vehicle for enacting this into law. mr. paul: i guess were unconcluding -- concluding point i would like is we have time in the senate body to vote about which rockets we're going to use, made in which state, in which country. shouldn't we have time to vote about the abrogation of the bill of rights, of the right of a

trial by jury? i think that this is an eminently important issue, should not be pushed under the rug, and that no one should be fraid to take a stand, not everyone will agree, but we should be allowed to take a stand on the senate floor, openly debate and have a vote on whether or not you will have your right to trial by jury or whether or not we are going to abbreviate that right and said we are at war. but reacialtion if you think that -- but realize if you that i wu'er your rights ca rights ce bbreviated at a time of war, that the people who tell you they are going to abbreviate your right rights are also tellg that you this war has no end. floss conceivable end to this war and the diminishment of your lint, the loss of your right to trial by jury will go on a understand on without end. i wholeheartedly support my fellow senator from utah's amendment and i advocate for having a vote on the senate floor. mr. lee: i agree, and i'd note

the presence of my distinguished colleague from california. i yield the floor so she can address the amendment of. mrs. feinstein: i thank the senator, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much. i have listened to this debate and i rise to urge my colleagues to allow a vote on this due process guarantee amendment. senator lee has filed it. i am a cosponsor, and i'm delighted to be a cosponsor. we actually voted on an earlier version of this amendment in the 2012, so this is nothing new. what members may not recall is that it passed by -- with 67 votes as an amendment to this bill in 20 -- this bill for 2013. i would also note that thanks to then-chairman leahy, the bill on which this amendment is based had a hearing in the judiciary

committee on february 29, 2012. so this bill has come before this body before. it got 67 votes, and it's had a hearing in the judiciary committee three years ago. unfortunately, the amendment was taken out of the ndaa in conference that year. so it's my hope that the senate will pass this amendment again this year and that the house will support it so that the law will clearly protect americans in the united states fro fromindefinite detention from their own government. now, members may say, well, this isn't going to happen. we're not going to do this. but we have done it. and i remember has a small child going just south of san francisco to a racetrack called tanfaran. and it wasn't a racetrack. it was a detention center for

japanese-americans during world war ii. and there were hundreds of families housed there for years against their will. to prevent this from ever happening again, congress passed and president nixon signed into law the non-detention act of 1971, which clearly states -- and i quote -- "no citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the united states except pursuant to an act of congress." now, that sounds good, but it didn't go far enough. despite the shameful history of indefinite detention of americans and the legal controversy since 9/11, some in the senate have advocated for the indefinite detention of u.s. citizens during debate on the defense authorization bill in past years. these members have argued that

the supreme court's plurality decision in the 2004 case of hamdi v. rumsfeld supports their view. however, the hamdi case involved an american captured by the united states military on the battlefield in afghanistan. yasser hamdi was a u.s. citizen who took up arms on behalf of the taliban. and he was captured on the battlefield in afghanistan, not on united states soil. that's the difference. while the supreme court did effectively uphold hamdi's military detention, the supreme court did not accept the government's broad assertions of executive authority to detain citizens without charge or trial. in fact, the hamdi decision says clearly that it covers only --

and i quote -- "individuals falling into the limited category we are considering." end quote. and it did not foreclose the possibility that indefinite detention of a united states citizen would raise a constitutional problem at a later date. since hamdi was decided in 2004, decisions by the lower courts have contributed to the legal ambiguity when it comes to the detention of u.s. citizens apprehended in our very own country. you can look at the case of jose padilla. he's a united states citizen arrested in chicago in 2002. padilla was initially detained by the bush administration under a material witness warrant based on the 9/11 terrorist attacks and later designated as an enemy

combatant who allegedly conspired with al qaeda to carry out terrorist attacks, including a plot to detonate a dirty bomb inside our country. padilla was transferred to a military brig in south carolina where he was detained for three and a half years while seeking his freedom by filing a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. now it's important to note that padilla was never charged with attempting to carry out the dirty bomb plot. instead, he was released from military custody in november 2005 and transferred to civilian federal custody in florida where he was indicted on other charges in federal court related to terrorist plots overseas. in a 2003 decision by the circuit court known as padilla

v. rumsfeld, the court of appeals held that the 2001 authorization for use of military force, which we call the aumf, did not authorize padilla's military detention. the decision stated -- and i quote -- "we conclude that clear congressional authorization is required for detentions of american citizens on american soil because 18 u.s.c. 401-a, the nontkwepbgs -- nondetention act prohibits such detentions after specific congressional authorization." the padilla case bounced back and forth from the second circuit up to the supreme court, then to the fourth circuit and the legality of his military

detention was never conclusively resolved. thus, there remains ambiguity about whether a congressional authorization for the use of military force permits the indefinite detention of united states citizens arrested on united states soil. so let me say over 12 years -- let me repeat. 12 years after padilla was initially arrested and detained, he was finally sentenced to 21 years in prison in 2014. the simple point, mr. president, is that we can protect national security while also ensuring that the constitutional due process rights of every american captured within the united states are protected. that's what this amendment would do. like the amendment that passed

here in 2012 with 67 votes on this floor, this amendment would prevent the government from using a general authorization for the use of military force to apprehend americans at home and detain them without charge or trial indefinitely. so no one could be picked up and charged -- and not charged and held indefinitely, which is now permissible. it states very simply -- this is our legislation -- and i quote -- "a general authorization to use military force, a declaration of war or any similar authority on its own shall not be construed to authorize the imprisonment or detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful

permanent resident of the united states apprehended in the united states." end quote. the amendment also modifies the existing subsection a of the nondetention act. so it covers lawful permanent residence of the united states and ensures that any detention is consistent with the constitution. so new subsection a will read -- and i quote -- "no citizen or lawful permanent resident shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the united states except pursuant to an act of congress that expressly authorizes such imprisonment or detention. now let me explain the impact of these changes to the law. first, the united states government will continue to be able to detain u.s. citizens or

lawful permanent residents on a foreign battlefield pursuant to an authorization to use military force, like what we passed after 9/11. that aumf provides the authority to detain al qaeda, isil, and affiliated terrorist fires. in other words, if the government needs to detain an enemy combatant on a foreign battlefield under a post-9/11 congressional authorization to use force, that's not barred, even if the enemy combatant is in fact a u.s. citizen. indeed, the supreme court held in hamdi that the aumf is -- quote -- "explicit authorization" for that limited kind of detention. so the amendment does not disturb the hamdi decision. second, when acting with respect to citizens or lawful permanent

residents apprehended at home, the amendment makes clear that a general authorization for use of military force does not authorize the detention without charge or trial of citizens or green cardholders like padilla who are apprehended inside the united states. instead, it should be arrested and charged like other terrorists captured in the united states. now the simple point is indefinite military detention of americans apprehended in the united states is not the american way and must not be allowed. in the united states the f.b.i. and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies have proven time and time again that they're up to the challenge of detecting, stopping, arresting, and convicting terrorists found

on united states soil. our law enforcement personnel have successfully arrested, detained and convicted literally hundreds of terrorists, both before and after 9/11. specifically, there were 580 terrorism-related convictions in the federal criminal court between 9/11 and the end of 2014. that's according to the department of justice. and more recently, federal prosecutors have charged 85 men and women around our country in connection with isil since march of 2014. suspected terrorists can still be detained within the united states criminal justice system using at least the follow four options: one, they can be

charged with a federal or state crime and held. two, some can be held for violating immigration laws. three, they can be held as a material witness as part of a federal grand jury proceeding. or four, they can be detained under section 412 of the patriot act, which provides that an alien may be detained for up to six months if their release -- quote -- "will threaten the national security of the united states or the safety of the community of any person." simply put, there is no shortage of authority for united states law enforcement to take the necessary actions on our soil to protect the homeland. some may ask why in legislation protects green cardholders as well as citizens. and others may ask why the bill does not protect all persons apprehended in the united states

from indefinite military protection. let me make clear i would support providing the protections in this amendment to all persons in the united states, but the question comes, there is some political support to expand it, to cover others besides u.s. citizens and green cardholders. we went through this in 2012, i believe, mr. president, before you were here. the overriding situation stpo prevent the federal government from moving in and be picking up americans and holding them without charge or trial as was done with japanese americans after world war ii. and finally, with the passage of this, we will close out that chapter once and for all. so this isn't about whether citizens apprehended in the united states like jose padilla

or others who would do us harm should be captured, interrogated, incarcerated and severely punished. they should be, to the fullest extent the law allows. but not an innocent american picked up off the street and held without charge or trial. not because of somebody's name or looks or heritage. so what about how a future president might abuse the authority to indefinitely detain people militarily here in the united states? our constitution gives everyone in the united states basic due process rights. the fifth amendment provides no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. and this is a basic tenet of our constitution and our values. people are entitled to notice of charges, to an opportunity to be

heard, and to a fair proceeding before a neutral arbiter. in criminal cases the accused also has a right to a speedy and public trial p by a jury of their peers. so these protections are really a sacred part of who we are as americans, and i think it's something we all take great pride in and that now is once again the time. we did this in 2012 and the 2013 ndaa bill. it received 67 votes on this floor. and i would hope that we would not be blocked from taking another vote on this. we experimented with indefinite detention during world war ii. it's a mistake we all realized, and a betrayal of our core values. so let's not repeat it. i want to thank senator lee, nor

tom udall, senator cruz, senator paul and others who have worked with us through the years. and i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. i yield the floor. thank you very much, mr. president. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, when we asked the men and women of this country to go to war on our behalf, we make a solemn promise to take care of them, to support them while they are abroad and take care of them when they come home. as the daughter of a world war ii veteran, this is a promise i take very seriously, and i know that my colleagues do too. mr. president, one aspect of this promise i've been proud to fight for is the idea that we should help warriors who have sustained grievous injuries, achieved their dreams of starting families.

this is something that's hard for many people to think about, but it is a reality for far too many men and women. people like tyler wilson, he's a veteran i met who was paralyzed and nearly died in a firefight in afghanistan. after years of surgeries and rehab and learning an entirely new way of living, he met crystal, the woman he wanted to spend the rest of his life with. together they wanted to start a family, and i believe that we have an be obligation as a nation to help them. that's why i have been fighting to expand v.a. care to pay for i.v.f. treatments for people like tyler, and it's why i was so encouraged that six months ago, the pentagon announced a pilot program to allow service members who are getting ready to deploy, the very men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line in defense of

our country, an opportunity at cryo preservation. that is a practice already widely used among the general population and it gives our deploying members not only the ability to have options for family planning in the event they are injured on the battlefield, it gives them peace of mind. it says they don't have to worry about choosing between defending their country or a chance at a family someday. as secretary ash carter said himself, this was a move that -- quote -- honors the desire of our men and women to commit themselves completely to their careers or to serve courageously in combat while preserving their ability to have children in the future. mr. president, i couldn't agree with that sentiment more. and while the pilot program was not ground breaking and in fact has been used by the british armed forces for years, i

believe the pentagon's announcement spoke volumes about having respect for service members who are willing to risk suffering catastrophic injuries on our behalf and to tell them no matter what happens to you on the battlefield, your country will be there for you with the best care available. so i applaud secretary ash carter for his leadership. it is the right thing to do for our young men and women who have big plans after their service is complete. so, mr. president, that is why i was so shocked by one line in this massive ndaa bill before us, a line that brings me here to the floor today. blink and you'll miss it. on page 1455 of this 1,600-page bill, one line in the funding chart, you will find an attempt to roll back access to the care members of our military earned

in their service to our country. mr. president, that line, that simple little line zeros out the very program that house men and women in our military realize their dreams of having a family, even if they go on to suffer catastrophic injuries while fighting on our behalf. the very program that secretary party got off the ground just six months ago, the promise the pentagon made this bill throws in the trash. mr. president, taking away that dream is wrong. it is not what our country is about. and while i don't know how or why that line got into this bill, i am here today to shine a light on it in the hopes that we can get this fixed before it's too late. now, in the past day, i have talked to both the chair and ranking member, and i am hopeful that we can change course. we simply cannot allow this provision or others like it to

splip through the cracks and continue to chip away at the care that these service members deserve. that's not what this country is about. mr. president, many of my colleagues are so quick to honor our military members with their words, but our service members need to see that same commitment with their actions. and that is why i am here today urging my colleagues to keep this vital service intact for members of our military. we can take action that truly shows our service members and our veterans that we understand this service is a cost of war and it's a cost that we as a country are willing to take on. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a

quorum. i withdraw that request. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i'm going to try to make sense out of some of the discussion that has been going on that has been quite detailed and very esoteric with regard to the russian rocket engine which is the main engine in the tail of the atlas 5 rocket, the first stage of the atlas 5. why is there a russian engine? well, at the time in the early 1990's of the disintegration of the soviet union, as the united

states went in to try to help secure the nuclear material and nuclear weapons of which was clearly in the interests of the united states and her allies that loose nukes not get in the hands of rogue nations or rogue groups. at the same time it was clearly in the interest of the united states that we try to prevent all of the experts, the russian scientists and engineers that had been involved in the russian rocket program of which it was an exceptional program. from those scientists and

engineers of going to rogue nations or to rogue groups read iran. and thus it became apparent when united states scientist and engineers and space pioneers visited the russian engine plant , it was this extraordinary engine that had this high compression with liquid oxygen as a fuel and also kerosene. and as a result it was clearly in the interest of the united states not only to prevent loose nukes and scientists leaving, it was clear it was interested to keep them employed, remember, in

a soviet union that was disintegrateing at the moment and therefore it was in the interest of keeping that russian rocket engine manufacturing facility employing those engineers and scientists. that facility has been called in one instance inergo mash, and another instance it's made reference to as roscosmos. and therefore private companies in the united states arranged to buy the russian engines and keep them employed, and at the same time to obtain the plans with the idea that down the road the

u.s. would manufacture the same russian engine but its manufacture would be done in the united states. that intention was never carried out, and as a result that leads us to where we are today. today we still buy the russian engines, and on an average, that is costing us $88 million a year. by the way, how much is that of the total expenditures that we buy from russia and other goods? it's less than a percent. in fact, it's a third of a percent, that $88 million a year on average purchasing this excellent engine. that excellent engine happens to be the workhorse engine that gets the atlas 5, which is our

most reliable rocket for military launches, as well as future nasa launches, as well as commercial launches of communication satellites in orbit. now, the whole fracas that has been engulfing this defense bill here is because now that same russian federation that it was so important for us 25 years ago to keep employing its scientists and engineers, that same russian federation today is being led by a former k.g.b. agent, vladimir putin, and he's doing things that we don't like. he runs over ukraine and he

takes apart called crimea, and he's pushing into eastern ukraine and he's doing all kinds of bad things there that is threatening the freedom of the people of ukraine. and so naturally we would not want, as articulated by senator mccain, we would not want to continue to buy those russian engines, which is basically helping vladimir putin even though it's a minuscule less than a third of a percent of the total goods that we buy from russia. so that brings us to this point. so how do we get out of the mess? how we get out of the mess is we build our own engine. we should have done that years

ago, but now we can actually build a better engine and not plug into the same rocket, because if it's a different engine, you can't plug into the same rocket the atlas 5. you've got to basically plug it in to a different rocket. and there is now a competition going on as we speak developing a replacement engine. in one case it's called a be-4. in another case, it's called an aerojet rocketine engine. that competition's going to continue. but we can't do it overnight, so it's going to take some time. now, an optimistic estimate

might say that the engine is ready about 2019, and then you have got to test fire in the new rocket that you have developed, so a realistic time of when the new engine is available is at the end of the year 2022. so what do we do to make sure we have the rockets to have assured access to space between now and the end of 2022, and that's what all this discussion is out here. on the one hand, there is a very successful company called spacex. they are now certified with a rocket called the falcon 9, and that rocket has won some

competitions and has put payloads in space including one defense payload that i know of. there may be more, but i do know that they have been certified for the department of defense. its competitor is the other company called united launch alliance, which is a combine of boeing and lockheed, and they have been successfully launching the atlas 5 without a miss now for years and years, and i think the successful number of rocket launches is something in excess of 50, maybe 60. and thus it's a proven workhorse . so we never want to get to the position that we just have one rocket company because if

something happened, you want to have a backup because we have got to get satellites into space to protect our national security, and we've got to do it over this period of time from now until the end of 2022. and, therefore, how do you keep them going alive if you eliminate the ability of being able to buy the russian engine? that's what all of the very emotional and very well-meaning speeches out here on the floor have been about. in one case united launch alliance. in another case, spacex. for the good of the country, we've got to have both until we can develop and test and fly