To clarify the disposition under the law of war of persons detained by the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012--Resumed

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the pending business is S. 1867, the
Defense Authorization Act; is that correct?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1867) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2012 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.

Pending:

Levin/McCain amendment No. 1092, to bolster the detection
and avoidance of counterfeit electronic parts.
McConnell (for Kirk) amendment No. 1084, to require the
President to impose sanctions on foreign financial
institutions that conduct transactions with the Central Bank
of Iran.
Leahy amendment No. 1072, to enhance the national defense
through empowerment of the National Guard, enhancement of the
functions of the National Guard Bureau, and improvement of
Federal-State military coordination in domestic emergency
response.
Paul/Gillibrand amendment No. 1064, to repeal the
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution of 2002.
Merkley amendment No. 1174, to express the sense of
Congress regarding the expedited transition of responsibility
for military and security operations in Afghanistan to the
Government of Afghanistan.
Feinstein amendment No. 1125, to clarify the applicability
of requirements for military custody with respect to
detainees.
Feinstein amendment No. 1126, to limit the authority of
Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under
section 1031.
Udall (CO) amendment No. 1107, to revise the provisions
relating to detainee matters.
Landrieu/Snowe amendment No. 1115, to reauthorize and
improve the SBIR and STTR programs, and for other purposes.
Franken amendment No. 1197, to require contractors to make
timely payments to subcontractors that are small business
concerns.
Cardin/Mikulski amendment No. 1073, to prohibit expansion
or operation of the District of Columbia National Guard Youth
Challenge Program in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
Begich amendment No. 1114, to amend title 10, United States
Code, to authorize space-available travel on military
aircraft for members of the reserve components, a member or
former member of a reserve component who is eligible for
retired pay but for age, widows and widowers of retired
members, and dependents.
Begich amendment No. 1149, to authorize a land conveyance
and exchange at Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson, Alaska.
Shaheen amendment No. 1120, to exclude cases in which
pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest from the
prohibition on funding of abortions by the Department of
Defense.
Collins amendment No. 1105, to make permanent the
requirement for certifications relating to the transfer of
detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, to foreign countries and other foreign entities.
Collins amendment No. 1155, to authorize educational
assistance under the Armed Forces Health Professions
Scholarship program for pursuit of advanced degrees in
physical therapy and occupational therapy.
Collins amendment No. 1158, to clarify the permanence of
the prohibition on transfers of recidivist detainees at
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to foreign
countries and entities.
Collins/Shaheen amendment No. 1180, relating to man-
portable air-defense systems originating from Libya.
Inhofe amendment No. 1094, to include the Department of
Commerce in contract authority using competitive procedures
but excluding particular sources for establishing certain
research and development capabilities.
Inhofe amendment No. 1095, to express the sense of the
Senate on the importance of addressing deficiencies in mental
health counseling.
Inhofe amendment No. 1096, to express the sense of the
Senate on treatment options for members of the Armed Forces
and veterans for Traumatic Brain Injury and Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder.

[[Page S7786]]

Inhofe amendment No. 1097, to eliminate gaps and
redundancies between the over 200 programs within the
Department of Defense that address psychological health and
traumatic brain injury.
Inhofe amendment No. 1098, to require a report on the
impact of foreign boycotts on the defense industrial base.
Inhofe amendment No. 1099, to express the sense of Congress
that the Secretary of Defense should implement the
recommendations of the Comptroller General of the United
States regarding prevention, abatement, and data collection
to address hearing injuries and hearing loss among members of
the Armed Forces.
Inhofe amendment No. 1100, to extend to products and
services from Latvia existing temporary authority to procure
certain products and services from countries along a major
route of supply to Afghanistan.
Inhofe amendment No. 1101, to strike section 156, relating
to a transfer of Air Force C-12 aircraft to the Army.
Inhofe amendment No. 1102, to require a report on the
feasibility of using unmanned aerial systems to perform
airborne inspection of navigational aids in foreign airspace.
Inhofe amendment No. 1093, to require the detention at
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, of high-
value enemy combatants who will be detained long-term.
Casey amendment No. 1215, to require a certification on
efforts by the Government of Pakistan to implement a strategy
to counter improvised explosive devices.
Casey amendment No. 1139, to require contractors to notify
small business concerns that have been included in offers
relating to contracts let by Federal agencies.
Casey amendment No. 1140, to require a report by the
Comptroller General on Department of Defense military spouse
employment programs.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Senators are encouraged to come to the
floor to offer their amendments this morning. We are going to be here
doing business. Senators who have remarks, speeches, proponents of the
amendments, opponents of amendments are given an opportunity here today
which may be one of the relatively few opportunities that are going to
be available.
We will be here the Monday after we return as well before the vote at
5:30 on Monday, November 28, on a judicial nomination, but we will also
be here before that time to hear from proponents and opponents of
amendments and to have people offer amendments. We are not going to
have the whole week, we have been told by the leader, when we come back
for this bill, so we are going to have to make additional progress
today. We made some progress last night. We cleared some amendments
last night. We are going to try to clear some additional amendments
this morning and adopt some amendments that can be cleared. We have 155
filed amendments, and we have 31 pending amendments. Again, we are
going to try to clear some of those today and adopt some of those
today, and we are going to try to do the same on Monday when we return.
Again, I urge that Senators who want to speak on pending or filed
amendments, proponents of those amendments, opponents of those
amendments, let us know immediately, if you would, whether you wish to
speak in support of or in opposition to pending or filed amendments.
Obviously, if people want to oppose amendments, then we are not going
to clear them if we know about that, but we have to know about that.
These are on file. The clerk has the amendments. We know which
amendments are pending. The list is available.
The staff is going to be here for the first couple days, at least,
next week prior to Thanksgiving. Our staffs will be here to work with
staffs of Senators to try to revise amendments that may be open to
revision. So that work is going to go on, and we have to use these time
periods--today and next Monday and Tuesday--for work on amendments and
the Monday we get back for work on amendments because we need to get
this bill passed.
This is a critically important bill, and with 155 filed amendments,
31 of which are already pending, we have a lot of work to do. We are
going to try to do the very best we can, but we have to get a bill
passed and we have to debate some of the very significant amendments
which have already been filed and are pending.
So I want to thank my friend from Arizona and see whether he might
want to comment on my comments or otherwise.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Levin and his staff for
their hard work on this very important piece of legislation. I am glad
to see the chairman announced that the staff will be in working next
week. For a change, the taxpayers will get a return on their
investment. I am very glad to know that. But in all seriousness, they
did a lot of work late last night and will be working hard all this
week.
I think that maybe our colleagues should plan on some late nights
when we get back because we do need to get this done. There is a lot of
important business before the Senate.
I would also like to point out that we spent the better part of
yesterday on the detainee issue, and I appreciate that the detainee
issue is one that is of transcendent importance. It certainly goes
beyond just national security. It is a very controversial issue with
the American people and Members on both sides of the aisle. On one side
of the aisle, they would like to see much more restrictive policies,
and on the other side of the aisle there is a very serious concern--and
a legitimate concern, although I don't share it--about erosion of the
constitutional rights and liberties of American citizens.
Hopefully, we can get a vote on that amendment so we can move forward
to other very important amendments that Members obviously, by the large
number of amendments, are very interested in in this process. I also
hope we are able to get a unanimous consent agreement to limit, to cut
off the number of pending amendments so that we can make progress on
those that have been filed and those that are pending.
I thank the chairman again and our respective staffs and our
colleagues. I thought it was a very beneficial debate we had yesterday
that a lot of Members participated in, and I think it served not only
to educate our colleagues and the American people who observed it, but
I also think it was a healthy discussion that was held on both sides of
the aisle and on both sides of this issue, and it very well informed
Senators on this issue.
Again, I understand, for example, that the Senator from Illinois, Mr.
Durbin, came to the floor and said we need a very in-depth discussion
on this issue. I think we had that. I also think this is a very
important issue and one that deserved the attention of the Senate, but
now I think it is time to move on.
I also congratulate all Members who took part in sort of a colloquy
and discussion we had amongst Members on both sides of this issue
yesterday. I have found that those colloquies add a great deal to the
debate as we get the input and ideas and sometimes spirited discussion
on these issues.
So I thank the chairman, and we look forward to getting this
important piece of legislation done.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first of all, I thank my friend and
colleague from Arizona, the ranking member, for his comments and for
all of his work on the committee. All of our colleagues on the
committee have put in a lot of time.
I want to emphasize something he said about the opportunity here for
debate--that we have a number of pending amendments, including the
amendments on detainees. We are here to hear debate on those or any
other amendments today and on Monday. We were here yesterday and had a
long debate. As the Senator from Arizona said, we had a lengthy debate,
and we were prepared to vote. The supporters were not. That is fair
enough. If they want additional time to debate it, we should welcome
that. But there is time, there is time today and there is time on
Monday when we get back to debate that amendment and those amendments
not only on the detainees but on many other issues that are important
that are in this bill.
I agree with my friend from Arizona that we should ask the majority
leader to make Monday night available for votes after the scheduled
vote at 5:30. We need to have votes on amendments. I would hope that
amendments that can't be agreed to will be voted on on Monday night
after the vote on the judge, which is scheduled for 5:30.
I also agree with the Senator from Arizona about trying to get a
limit on the number of amendments. We will try again today to see if we
can get a

[[Page S7787]]

unanimous consent agreement. I haven't had a chance to talk this
morning with the Senator from Arizona, but we will try--and he just has
given me an indication that this is fine with him--to see if we can't
set a time later on today, maybe at noon or 1:00, for the filing of
amendments and to limit amendments to those that are filed by that
time.
We are going to try to get that done with a safety valve, which I
suggested last night and I think is acceptable to the Republican
manager, my friend from Arizona, which is that, in addition to whatever
amendments are filed by whatever time we put in the unanimous consent
proposal, there be an additional two amendments on each side that would
be available to the managers that would need to be relevant--just
relevant amendments--to an amendment that is filed or relevant to the
bill. I think you would need a safety valve, and people would
understand that. Those two amendments would be allocable--two
amendments each by the Republican manager and myself, if that is
agreeable. It would take unanimous consent, but I think everyone
realizes we have to have a universe here that we can work with during
the next week.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I don't want to talk too much longer. I
see our dear friend from New Mexico, who has been serious enough to
come in this morning and debate and discuss his concerns about the bill
and amendments.
But I would ask the chairman, we have, as the Senator mentioned, a
large number of pending amendments--not just filed but pending--and one
of them, of course, is for the detainee issue, there is another Paul
amendment, and there are several others that perhaps we could vote on
on Monday, as the chairman mentioned.
If any of our colleagues feel they haven't the time to amend it, they
are welcome to come now and they are welcome to come on Monday. I
understand that may cause them some small inconvenience in their
schedule, but if they filed a pending amendment, then there is an
amendment pending and they ought to be able to adjust their schedules
to come and debate it. If they aren't able to do that, we should still
be able to dispose of those amendments, I say with great respect and
courtesy to all of my colleagues.
So I hope that Chairman Levin and I and others would say: Look, we
are going to notify everybody that we are going to have votes on the
following amendments on Monday afternoon after we vote on the judge. If
you are interested in debating it, we will be here to debate it and
discuss it with you.
We have to get this legislation passed for the good of the men and
women who are serving this Nation with far greater inconvenience than,
frankly, our colleagues might experience by having to come back on
Monday or by coming over here today.
I yield.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will be done in one moment so that our
friend from New Mexico can schedule his presentation.
I just wanted to add one additional thing to what the Senator from
Arizona said, in addition to agreeing with him. We will be here today
and we will be here a week from Monday so that there will be plenty of
opportunity to debate these pending amendments or other amendments, and
people need to know we are going to be seeking votes on these pending
amendments if we can't clear them or work them out. There will be an
opportunity for debate before the vote.

One other comment; that is, I will have a detailed statement
addressing the detainee issue a little later on this morning. It will
address some of the statements that are incorrect and misleading which
were in the administration's statement on this subject. Also, some of
the statements of our colleagues need to be addressed and, I believe,
corrected. Because this is a complex issue it is important to know what
is in the bill and what is not in the bill. If it is properly
characterized and if it is properly stated, it is still complex, but to
misstate it or overstate it or to mischaracterize what is in our bill
just confuses an issue which needs to be debated on its merits and not
confused. It is complicated enough without obfuscation and confusion
about what is in the bill on detention or other matters and what is not
in the bill.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.

Amendments Nos. 1200, 1066, 1067 as Modified, 1068, 1119, 1090, 1089,
1056, and 1116 En Bloc

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of my friend,
Senator Udall. If it is OK with the chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the following amendments be considered pending on behalf of their
sponsors? Would that be agreeable?
For Senator Cornyn, amendment No. 1200, related to Taiwan F-16s; for
Senator Ayotte, amendment No. 1066, related to financial audits; for
Senator Ayotte, amendment No. 1067, as revised, related to the
notification of Congress for the initial custody of members of al-
Qaida; for Senator Ayotte, amendment No. 1068, related to the
authorization of lawful interrogation methods; for Senator Brown of
Massachusetts, amendment No. 1119, related to child custody rights; for
Senator Brown of Massachusetts, amendment No. 1090, related to housing
allowance rates; for Senator Brown of Massachusetts, amendment No.
1089, related to disclosures by schools participating in tuition
assistance; for Senator Wicker, amendment No. 1056, related to military
chaplains; and for Senator Wicker, amendment No. 1116, related to truck
licenses for transitioning servicemembers.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Let me notify Senators on our side that we are more than
willing to do that same courtesy for them if they would let our staff
know at the cloakroom this morning. We can do the same thing for
Senators on our side as the Senator from Arizona properly did for
Senators on his side.
Mr. McCAIN. Could I say, I hope Members on both sides, if they have
amendments, get them to us this morning so we can bring this part of
the process to an end.
Mr. LEVIN. And if I may, doing what the Senator from Arizona just did
will also facilitate, hopefully, the acceptance of a unanimous consent
request that there then be a cutoff as I described at perhaps noon or 1
o'clock today so we can know what the universe is and begin to whittle
it down.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report by number the
amendments called up by the Senator from Arizona.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], proposes amendments
numbered 1200, 1066, 1067 as modified, 1068, 1119, 1090,
1089, 1056, and 1116 en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 1200

(Purpose: To provide Taiwan with critically needed United States-built
multirole fighter aircraft to strengthen its self-defense capability
against the increasing military threat from China)

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1088. SALE OF F-16 AIRCRAFT TO TAIWAN.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Department of Defense, in its 2011 report to
Congress on ``Military and Security Developments Involving
the People's Republic of China,'' found that ``China
continued modernizing its military in 2010, with a focus on
Taiwan contingencies, even as cross-Strait relations
improved. The PLA seeks the capability to deter Taiwan
independence and influence Taiwan to settle the dispute on
Beijing's terms. In pursuit of this objective, Beijing is
developing capabilities intended to deter, delay, or deny
possible U.S. support for the island in the event of
conflict. The balance of cross-Strait military forces and
capabilities continues to shift in the mainland's favor.'' In
this report, the Department of Defense also concludes that,
over the next decade, China's air force will remain primarily
focused on ``building the capabilities required to pose a
credible military threat to Taiwan and U.S. forces in East
Asia, deter Taiwan independence, or influence Taiwan to
settle the dispute on Beijing's terms''.
(2) The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) conducted a
preliminary assessment of the status and capabilities of
Taiwan's air force in an unclassified report, dated January
21, 2010. The DIA found that, ``[a]lthough Taiwan has nearly
400 combat aircraft in service, far fewer of these are
operationally capable.'' The report concluded, ``Many of
Taiwan's fighter aircraft are close to or beyond

[[Page S7788]]

service life, and many require extensive maintenance support.
The retirement of Mirage and F-5 aircraft will reduce the
total size of the Taiwan Air Force.''
(3) Since 2006, authorities from Taiwan have made repeated
requests to purchase 66 F-16C/D multirole fighter aircraft
from the United States, in an effort to modernize the air
force of Taiwan and maintain its self-defense capability.
(4) According to a report by the Perryman Group, a private
economic research and analysis firm, the requested sale of F-
16C/Ds to Taiwan ``would generate some $8,700,000,000 in
output (gross product) and more than 87,664 person-years of
employment in the US,'' including 23,407 direct jobs, while
``economic benefits would likely be realized in 44 states and
the District of Columbia''.
(5) The sale of F-16C/Ds to Taiwan would both sustain
existing high-skilled jobs in key United States manufacturing
sectors and create new ones.
(6) On August 1, 2011, a bipartisan group of 181 members of
the House of Representatives sent a letter to the President,
expressing support for the sale of F-16C/Ds to Taiwan. On May
26, 2011, a bipartisan group of 45 members of the Senate sent
a similar letter to the President, expressing support for the
sale. Two other members of the Senate wrote separately to the
President or the Secretary of State in 2011 and expressed
support for this sale.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) a critical element to maintaining peace and stability
in Asia in the face of China's two-decade-long program of
military modernization and expansion of military capabilities
is ensuring a militarily strong and confident Taiwan;
(2) a Taiwan that is confident in its ability to deter
Chinese aggression will increase its ability to proceed in
developing peaceful relations with China in areas of mutual
interest;
(3) the cross-Strait military balance between China and our
longstanding strategic partner, Taiwan, has clearly shifted
in China's favor;
(4) China's military expansion poses a clear and present
danger to Taiwan, and this threat has very serious
implications for the ability of the United States to fulfill
its security obligations to allies in the region and protect
our vital United States national interests in East Asia;
(5) Taiwan's air force continues to deteriorate, and it
needs additional advanced multirole fighter aircraft in order
to modernize its fleet and maintain a sufficient self-defense
capability;
(6) the United States has a statutory obligation under the
Taiwan Relations Act (22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.) to provide
Taiwan the defense articles necessary to enable Taiwan to
maintain sufficient self-defense capabilities, in furtherance
of maintaining peace and stability in the western Pacific
region;
(7) in order to comply with the Taiwan Relations Act, the
United States must provide Taiwan with additional advanced
multirole fighter aircraft, as well as significant upgrades
to Taiwan's existing fleet of multirole fighter aircraft; and
(8) the proposed sale of F-16C/D multirole fighter aircraft
to Taiwan would have significant economic benefits to the
United States economy.
(c) Sale of Aircraft.--The President shall carry out the
sale of no fewer than 66 F-16C/D multirole fighter aircraft
to Taiwan.

amendment no. 1066

(Purpose: To modify the Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan
to provide that a complete and validated full statement of budget
resources is ready by not later than September 30, 2014)

At the end of subtitle A of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1005. AUDIT READINESS OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

Section 1003(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84;
123 Stat. 2440; 10 U.S.C. 2222 note) is amended by inserting
``, and that a complete and validated full statement of
budget resources is ready by not later than September 30,
2014'' after ``validated as ready for audit by not later than
September 30, 2017''.

amendment no. 1067, as modified

(Purpose: To require notification of Congress with respect to the
initial custody and further disposition of members of al-Qaeda and
affiliated entities)

At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1038. REQUIRED NOTIFICATION OF CONGRESS WITH RESPECT TO
THE INITIAL CUSTODY AND FURTHER DISPOSITION OF
MEMBERS OF AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES.

(a) Required Notification With Respect to Initial
Custody.--
(1) In general.--When a covered person, as defined in
subsection (c), is taken into the custody of the United
States Government, the Secretary of Defense and the Director
of National Intelligence shall notify the specified
congressional committees, as defined in subsection (d),
within 10 days.
(2) Reporting requirement.--The notification submitted
pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be in classified form and
shall include, at a minimum, the suspect's name, nationality,
date of capture by or transfer to the United States
Government, location of such capture or transfer, places of
custody since capture or transfer, suspected terrorist
affiliation and activities, and agency responsible for
interrogation.
(b) Required Notification With Respect to Further
Disposition.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 10 days before a change of
disposition under section 1031(c) is effected, the Secretary
of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence shall
notify and inform the specified congressional committees of
such intended disposition.
(2) Reporting requirement.--The notification required under
paragraph (1) shall be in classified form and shall include
the relevant facts, justification, and rationale that serves
as the basis for the disposition option chosen.
(c) Covered Persons.--For the purposes of this section, a
covered person is a person who--
(1) is a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated
force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the
direction of al-Qaeda; and
(2) has participated in the course of planning or carrying
out an attack or attempted attack against the United States
or its coalition partners.
(d) Specified Congressional Committees.--In this section,
the term ``specified congressional committees'' means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
(2) the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives;
(3) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
(4) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the
House of Representatives.
(e) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 60 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply
with respect to persons described in subsection (c) who are
taken into the custody or brought under the control of the
United States on or after that date.

amendment no. 1068

(Purpose: To authorize lawful interrogation methods in addition to
those authorized by the Army Field Manual for the collection of foreign
intelligence information through interrogations)

At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1038. AUTHORITY FOR LAWFUL INTERROGATION METHODS IN
ADDITION TO THE INTERROGATION METHODS
AUTHORIZED BY THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL.

(a) Authority.--Notwithstanding section 1402 of the
Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), the
personnel of the United States Government specified in
subsection (c) are hereby authorized to engage in
interrogation for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information using methods set forth in the
classified annex required by subsection (b) provided that
such interrogation methods comply with all applicable laws,
including the laws specified in subsection (d).
(b) Classified Annex.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, and on such basis
thereafter as may be necessary for the effective collection
of foreign intelligence information, the Secretary of Defense
shall, in consultation with the Director of National
Intelligence and the Attorney General, ensure the adoption of
a classified annex to Army Field Manual 2-22.3 that sets
forth interrogation techniques and approaches, in addition to
those specified in Army Field Manual 2-22.3, that may be used
for the effective collection of foreign intelligence
information.
(c) Covered Personnel.--The personnel of the United States
Government specified in this subsection are the officers and
employees of the elements of the intelligence community that
are assigned to or support the entity responsible for the
interrogation of high value detainees (currently known as the
``High Value Detainee Interrogation Group''), or a successor
entity.
(d) Specified Laws.--The law specified in this subsection
is as follows:
(1) The United Nations Convention Against Torture, signed
at New York, February 4, 1985.
(2) Chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, relating
to military commissions (as amended by the Military
Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (title XIV of Public
Law 109-163).
(4) Section 2441 of title 18, United States Code.
(e) Supersedure of Executive Order.--The provisions of
Executive Order No. 13491, dated January 22, 2009, shall have
no further force or effect, to the extent such provisions are
inconsistent with the provisions of this section.
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Element of the intelligence community.--The term
``element of the intelligence community'' means an element of
the intelligence community listed or designated under section
3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
401a(4)).
(2) Foreign intelligence information.--The term ``foreign
intelligence information'' has the meaning given that term in
section 101(e) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(e)).

[[Page S7789]]

amendment no. 1119

(Purpose: To protect the child custody rights of members of the Armed
Forces deployed in support of a contingency operation)

At the end of subtitle I of title V, add the following:

SEC. ___. PROTECTION OF CHILD CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS FOR
PARENTS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES
DEPLOYED IN SUPPORT OF A CONTINGENCY OPERATION.

(a) Child Custody Protection.--Title II of the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 521 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 208. CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION.

``(a) Restriction on Change of Custody.--If a motion for
change of custody of a child of a servicemember is filed
while the servicemember is deployed in support of a
contingency operation, no court may enter an order modifying
or amending any previous judgment or order, or issue a new
order, that changes the custody arrangement for that child
that existed as of the date of the deployment of the
servicemember, except that a court may enter a temporary
custody order if the court finds that it is in the best
interest of the child.
``(b) Completion of Deployment.--In any preceding covered
under subsection (a), a court shall require that, upon the
return of the servicemember from deployment in support of a
contingency operation, the custody order that was in effect
immediately preceding the date of the deployment of the
servicemember be reinstated, unless the court finds that such
a reinstatement is not in the best interest of the child,
except that any such finding shall be subject to subsection
(c).
``(c) Exclusion of Military Service From Determination of
Child's Best Interest.--If a motion for the change of custody
of the child of a servicemember is filed, no court may
consider the absence of the servicemember by reason of
deployment, or possibility of deployment, in determining the
best interest of the child.
``(d) No Federal Right of Action.--Nothing in this section
shall create a Federal right of action.
``(e) Preemption.--In any case where State or Federal law
applicable to a child custody proceeding under State or
Federal law provides a higher standard of protection to the
rights of the parent who is a servicemember than the rights
provided under this section, the State or Federal court shall
apply the State or Federal standard.
``(f) Contingency Operation Defined.--In this section, the
term `contingency operation' has the meaning given that term
in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code, except
that the term may include such other deployments as the
Secretary concerned may prescribe.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the items
relating to title II the following new item:

``208. Child custody protection.''.

amendment no. 1090

(Purpose: To provide that the basic allowance for housing in effect for
a member of the National Guard is not reduced when the member
transitions between active duty and full-time National Guard duty
without a break in active service)

At the end of title VI, add the following:

Subtitle D--Pay and Allowances

SEC. 641. NO REDUCTION IN BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING FOR
NATIONAL GUARD MEMBERS WHO TRANSITION BETWEEN
ACTIVE DUTY AND FULL-TIME NATIONAL GUARD DUTY
WITHOUT A BREAK IN ACTIVE SERVICE.

Section 403(g) of title 37, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) The rate of basic allowance for housing to be paid a
member of the Army National Guard of the United States or the
Air National Guard of the United States shall not be reduced
upon the transition of the member from active duty to full-
time National Guard duty, or from full-time National Guard
duty to active duty, when the transition occurs without a
break in active service.''.

amendment no. 1089

(Purpose: To require certain disclosures from post-secondary
institutions that participate in tuition assistance programs of the
Department of Defense)

At the end of subtitle D of title V, add the following:

SEC. 547. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR POST-SECONDARY
INSTITUTIONS PARTICIPATING IN DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE TUITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of Education, shall prescribe
regulations requiring post-secondary education institutions
that participate in Department of Defense tuition assistance
programs, as a condition of such participation, to disclose
with respect to each student receiving such tuition
assistance the following information:
(1) Whether the successful completion of the advertised
education or training program by a student meets
prerequisites for the purpose of applying for and completing
an examination or license required as a precondition for
employment in the occupation for which the program is
represented to prepare the student.
(2) The completion date of degree, certification, or
license sought by the student participating in the tuition
assistance program.
(b) Applicability.--For purposes of this section, the term
``Department of Defense tuition assistance program'' applies
to financial tuition assistance provided by the Department of
Defense to active duty servicemembers and eligible spouses.

amendment no. 1056

(Purpose: To provide for the freedom of conscience of military
chaplains with respect to the performance of marriages)

At the end of subtitle C of title V, add the following:

SEC. 527. FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE OF MILITARY CHAPLAINS WITH
RESPECT TO THE PERFORMANCE OF MARRIAGES.

A military chaplain who, as a matter of conscience or moral
principle, does not wish to perform a marriage may not be
required to do so.

amendment no. 1116

(Purpose: To improve the transition of members of the Armed Forces with
experience in the operation of certain motor vehicles into careers
operating commercial motor vehicles in the private sector)

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

SEC. ___. IMPROVING THE TRANSITION OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES WITH EXPERIENCE IN THE OPERATION OF
CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLES INTO CAREERS OPERATING
COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES IN THE PRIVATE
SECTOR.

(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Transportation shall jointly conduct a study to
identify the legislative and regulatory actions that can be
taken for purposes as follows:
(A) To facilitate the obtaining of commercial driver's
licenses (within the meaning of section 31302 of title 49,
United States Code) by former members of the Armed Forces who
operated qualifying motor vehicles as members of the Armed
Forces.
(B) To improve the transition of members of the Armed
Forces who operate qualifying motor vehicles as members of
the Armed Forces into careers operating commercial motor
vehicles (as defined in section 31301 of such title) in the
private sector after separation from service in the Armed
Forces.
(2) Elements.--The study required by paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) Identification of any training, qualifications, or
experiences of members of the Armed Forces described in
paragraph (1)(B) that satisfy the minimum standards
prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation for the
operation of commercial motor vehicles under section 31305 of
title 49, United States Code.
(B) Identification of the actions the Secretary of Defense
can take to document the training, qualifications, and
experiences of such members for the purposes described in
paragraph (1).
(C) Identification of the actions the Secretary of Defense
can take to modify the training and education programs of the
Department of Defense for the purposes described in paragraph
(1).
(D) An assessment of the feasibility and advisability of
each of the legislative and regulatory actions identified
under the study.
(E) Development of recommendations for legislative and
regulatory actions to further the purposes described in
paragraph (1).
(b) Implementation.--Upon completion of the study required
by subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary
of Transportation shall carry out the actions identified
under the study which the Secretaries--
(1) can carry out without legislative action; and
(2) jointly consider both feasible and advisable.
(c) Report.--
(1) In general.--Upon completion of the study required by
subsection (a)(1), the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary
of Transportation shall jointly submit to Congress a report
on the findings of the Secretaries with respect to the study.
(2) Elements.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) A description of the legislative and regulatory actions
identified under the study.
(B) A description of the actions described in subparagraph
(A) that can be carried out by the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of Transportation without any legislative
action.
(C) A description of the feasibility and advisability of
each of the legislative and regulatory actions identified by
the study.
(D) The recommendations developed under subsection
(a)(2)(E).
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Motor vehicle.--The term ``motor vehicle'' means a
vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer propelled
or drawn by mechanical power and used on land, but does not
include a vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer
operated only on a rail line or custom harvesting farm
machinery.
(2) Qualifying motor vehicle.--The term ``qualifying motor
vehicle'' means a motor

[[Page S7790]]

vehicle or combination of motor vehicles used to transport
passengers or property that--
(A) has a gross combination vehicle weight rating of 26,001
pounds or more, inclusive of a towed unit with a gross
vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds;
(B) has a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,001 pounds or
more;
(C) is designed to transport 16 or more passengers,
including the driver; or
(D) is of any size and is used in the transportation of
materials found to be hazardous under chapter 51 of title 49,
United States Code, and which require the motor vehicle to be
placarded under subpart F of part 172 of title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations, or any corresponding similar regulation
or ruling.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, let me first say, before I
talk about my amendments, I had the opportunity yesterday to listen to
Senator Levin, Senator McCain, Senator Durbin, and many other Senators
with regard to the debate on this bill. I thought it was excellent
debate. I thought it was lively, it was robust, it was to the point,
and it was the Senate at its best. I don't know how we get to the point
where we have the kind of debate they were having on this Defense
authorization bill, but I hope we can do more of it, and I look forward
to returning after Thanksgiving and having the opportunity to do that.
I compliment the two top Members of that committee and the other
Senators who were here on that debate.

Amendments Nos. 1153, 1154, and 1202 En Bloc

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendments in order to call up amendments Nos. 1153, 1154, and 1202 by
number en bloc, and that once the amendments are reported the Senate
return to the regular order.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Udall], for himself and
others, proposes amendments numbered 1153, 1154, and 1202 en
bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 1153

(Purpose: To include ultralight vehicles in the definition of aircraft
for purposes of the aviation smuggling provisions of the Tariff Act of
1930)

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1088. INCLUSION OF ULTRALIGHT VEHICLES IN DEFINITION OF
AIRCRAFT FOR CERTAIN AVIATION SMUGGLING
PROVISIONS.

(a) Amendments to the Aviation Smuggling Provisions of the
Tariff Act of 1930.--
(1) In general.--Section 590 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1590) is amended--
(A) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
(B) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
``(g) Definition of Aircraft.--As used in this section, the
term `aircraft' includes an ultralight vehicle, as defined by
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.''.
(2) Criminal penalties.--Subsection (d) of section 590 of
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1590(d)) is amended in the
matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting ``, or attempts
or conspires to commit,'' after ``commits''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
apply with respect to violations of any provision of section
590 of the Tariff Act of 1930 on or after the 30th day after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Interagency Collaboration.--The Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering shall, in consultation
with the Under Secretary for Science and Technology of the
Department of Homeland Security, identify equipment and
technology used by the Department of Defense that could also
be used by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to detect and
track the illicit use of ultralight aircraft near the
international border between the United States and Mexico.

amendment no. 1154

(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish an
open burn pit registry to ensure that members of the Armed Forces who
may have been exposed to toxic chemicals and fumes caused by open burn
pits while deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq receive information
regarding such exposure)

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

SEC. ___. ESTABLISHMENT OF OPEN BURN PIT REGISTRY.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall--
(1) establish and maintain an open burn pit registry for
eligible individuals who may have been exposed to toxic
chemicals and fumes caused by open burn pits;
(2) include any information in such registry that the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs determines necessary to
ascertain and monitor the health effects of the exposure of
members of the Armed Forces to toxic chemicals and fumes
caused by open burn pits;
(3) develop a public information campaign to inform
eligible individuals about the open burn pit registry,
including how to register and the benefits of registering;
and
(4) periodically notify eligible individuals of significant
developments in the study and treatment of conditions
associated with exposure to toxic chemicals and fumes caused
by open burn pits.
(b) Report to Congress.--
(1) Report by independent scientific organization.--The
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall enter into an agreement
with an independent scientific organization to develop a
report containing the following:
(A) An assessment of the effectiveness of actions taken by
the Secretary to collect and maintain information on the
health effects of exposure to toxic chemicals and fumes
caused by open burn pits.
(B) Recommendations to improve the collection and
maintenance of such information.
(C) Using established and previously published
epidemiological studies, recommendations regarding the most
effective and prudent means of addressing the medical needs
of eligible individuals with respect to conditions that are
likely to result from exposure to open burn pits.
(2) Submittal to congress.--Not later than 540 days after
the date on which the registry required by subsection (a) is
established, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit
to Congress the report developed under paragraph (1).
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible individual.--The term ``eligible individual''
means any individual who, on or after September 11, 2001--
(A) was deployed in support of a contingency operation
while serving in the Armed Forces; and
(B) during such deployment, was based or stationed at a
location where an open burn pit was used.
(2) Open burn pit.--The term ``open burn pit'' means an
area of land located in Afghanistan or Iraq that--
(A) is designated by the Secretary of Defense to be used
for disposing solid waste by burning in the outdoor air; and
(B) does not contain a commercially manufactured
incinerator or other equipment specifically designed and
manufactured for the burning of solid waste.

amendment no. 1202

(Purpose: To clarify the application of the provisions of the Buy
American Act to the procurement of photovoltaic devices by the
Department of Defense)

At the end of subtitle B of title VIII, add the following:

SEC. 827. APPLICABILITY OF BUY AMERICAN ACT TO PROCUREMENT OF
PHOTOVOLTAIC DEVICES BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) In General.--Section 2534 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(k) Procurement of Photovoltaic Devices.--
``(1) Contract requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall
ensure that each contract described in paragraph (2) awarded
by the Department of Defense includes a provision requiring
any photovoltaic devices installed pursuant to the contract,
or pursuant to a subcontract under the contract, to comply
with the provisions of chapter 83 of title 41 (commonly known
as the `Buy American Act'), without regard to whether the
contract results in ownership of the photovoltaic devices by
the Department.
``(2) Contracts described.--The contracts described in this
paragraph include energy savings performance contracts,
utility service contracts, power purchase agreements, land
leases, and private housing contracts pursuant to which any
photovoltaic devices are installed on property or in a
facility--
``(A) owned by the Department of Defense;
``(B) leased to the Department of Defense; or
``(C) with respect to which the Secretary of the military
department concerned has exercised any authority provided
under subchapter IV of chapter 169 of this title (relating to
alternative authority for the acquisition and improvement of
military housing).
``(3) Consistency with international obligations.--
Paragraph (1) shall be applied in a manner consistent with
the obligations of the United States under international
agreements.
``(4) Definition of photovoltaic devices.--In this
subsection, the term `photovoltaic devices' means devices
that convert light directly into electricity.
``(5) Effective date.--This subsection applies to
photovoltaic devices procured or installed on or after the
date that is 30 days after the date of the enactment of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
pursuant to contracts entered into before, on, or after such
date of enactment.''.
(b) Conforming Repeal.--Section 846 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (10
U.S.C. 2534 note) is repealed.

[[Page S7791]]

amendment no. 1153

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment,
along with my cosponsors Senators Heller, Bingaman, Feinstein, and
Gillibrand, to provide a simple fix to a loophole in the Tariff Act of
1930.
Our amendment will allow our Federal agents and prosecutors to crack
down on smugglers who use ultralight aircraft, also known as ULAs, to
bring drugs across the U.S.-Mexico border.
In the last Congress, then-Congressman Heller introduced a very
similar bill in the House with Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords. That
bill passed overwhelmingly by a 412-3 vote. I hope we can have a
similar bipartisan result here in the Senate.
ULAs are single-pilot aircraft capable of flying low, landing and
taking off quickly, and are typically used for sport or for recreation.
However, because of increased detection and interdiction of more
traditional smuggling conveyances, ULAs have increasingly been employed
along the Southwest border by Mexican drug trafficking organizations to
smuggle drugs into the United States.
The use of ULAs by drug smugglers presents a unique challenge for law
enforcement and prosecutors. Every year hundreds of ULAs are flown
across the Southwest border and each one can carry hundreds of pounds
of narcotics.
Under existing law, ULAs are not categorized as aircraft by the
Federal Aviation Administration, so they do not fall under the aviation
smuggling provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930. This means that a drug
smuggler piloting a small airplane is subject to much stronger criminal
penalties than a smuggler who pilots a ULA.
Our amendment will close this unintended loophole and establish the
same penalties if convicted--a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison
and a $250,000 fine--for smuggling drugs on ULAs as currently exist for
smuggling on airplanes or in automobiles.
This is a common sense solution that will give our law enforcement
agencies and prosecutors additional tools they need to combat drug
smuggling.
The amendment would also add an attempt and conspiracy provision to
the aviation smuggling law to allow prosecutors to charge people other
than the pilot who are involved in aviation smuggling. This would give
them a new tool to prosecute the ground crews who aid the pilots as
well as those who pick up the drug loads that are dropped from ULAs in
the U.S.
Finally, the amendment directs the Department of Defense and
Department of Homeland Security to collaborate in identifying equipment
and technology used by DOD that could be used by U.S. Customs and
Border Protection to detect ULAs.

Amendment No. 1154

Mr. President, this next amendment would establish an Open Burn Pit
Registry. This amendment, filed by myself and lead cosponsor Senator
Corker, is important to both our active duty troops and veterans.
In both Afghanistan and Iraq open air burn pits were widely used at
forward operating bases. Disposing of trash and other debris was
admittedly a major challenge. Commanders had to find a way to dispose
of it while concentrating on the important mission at hand.
The solution that was chosen, however, had serious medical and
environmental risks. In Afghanistan and Iraq, pits of waste were set on
fire, sometimes using jet fuel for ignition. Oftentimes, these burn
pits would turn the sky black.
Some burn pits were small, but others covered multiple acres of land.
At Joint Base Balad, Iraq, over ten acres of land were used for burning
toxic debris.
This was a base, that at the height of its operations, hosted
approximately 25,000 military, civilian and coalition personnel. These
personnel would be exposed to a toxic soup of chemicals released into
the atmosphere. According to air quality measurements taken near the
base, the air at Balad had multiple particulates harmful to humans.
These particulates ranged from plastics and Styrofoam, metals,
chemicals from paints and solvents, petroleum and lubricants, jet fuel
and unexploded ordnance, medical and other dangerous waste . . . all of
this was in the air and being inhaled into the lungs of service
members.
More specifically, air samples at Joint Base Balad turned up some
nasty stuff: Particulate matter--chemicals that form from the
incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other organic
substances--Volatile Organic Compounds such as acetone and benzene.
Benzene is known to cause leukemia and dioxins associated with Agent
Orange.
Our veterans have slowly begun to raise the alarm as they learn why,
after returning home, they are short of breath, or experiencing
headaches or other symptoms and in some cases developing cancer.
Many other independent organizations have also urged action on this
issue, including the American Lung Association which has stated that:

Emissions from burning waste contain fine particulate
matter, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic
compounds and various irritant gases such as nitrogen oxides
that can scar the lungs.

The registry created by this amendment will help our medical and
scientific experts better analyze who was exposed and who is suffering.
In New Mexico, service members and veterans have begun to come
forward about their medical conditions. Some, like MSG Jessey Baca, a
member of the New Mexico Air National Guard who was stationed in Balad,
Iraq, are facing serious ailments such as cancer and chronic
bronchiolitis. It is stories like Master Sergeant Baca's which have
motivated me to take action on this issue and I urge my colleagues to
hear the stories of heroes like him in all 50 States.
During my meetings with veterans and active duty members of the
military, I have truly learned how important it is that we act now.
Among active duty members there is uncertainty regarding the link
between burn pits and the illnesses that they are suffering from. This
uncertainty is discouraging service members from coming forward to have
their illness diagnosed because they are fearful about the implications
on their career.
A registry will help create the data set needed to bring certainty to
the issue because it will improve our understanding of the link between
the burn pits and illness. The information will also help DoD better
understand the link and aid their efforts to improve treatment of our
troops.
The Open Burn Pits Registry Act has bipartisan and bicameral support.
In the House, Representative Akin, a Republican, is sponsoring this
important piece of legislation with a strong bipartisan group.
I thank all the supporters and champions for our veterans suffering
from these hidden wounds and I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.

Amendment No. 1202

Mr. President, solar power increases energy security for American
military installations and our troops in the field.
With solar power, our military is less dependent on the surrounding
electricity grid or fuel supplies for generators.
As a result, the Department of Defense is a leader on utilizing solar
power--not for environmental reasons, but national security reasons.
However, if we are going to use taxpayer funds to support military
solar power--which also qualifies for solar energy tax incentives--we
must provide a level playing field for U.S. solar manufacturers.
Last year's Defense Authorization bill took an important step, by
clarifying that DOD's Buy American Act requirements apply to solar.
Previously, when solar was installed on DOD property, Buy American
would not apply because DOD only owned the power, not the panels.
While last year's bill attempted to fix this situation, it left 2
loopholes:
No. 1, first, Buy American requirements still do not apply to many
DOD facilities, including much of DOD housing, since these facilities
are leased and not technically ``owned'' by DOD. If we do not close
this loophole, several hundred megawatts of DOD taxpayer funded solar
projects could go to Chinese firms.
No. 2, last year's bill only applied Buy American when solar devices
are ``reserved for the exclusive use'' of DOD for the ``full economic
life.'' Solar power projects often sell back to the grid, so the
combined effect of both of

[[Page S7792]]

these loopholes is that Buy American does not apply to DOD-purchased
solar on DOD property.
The amendment I am offering today, on behalf of myself and Senator
Schumer, closes these loopholes and applies Buy American requirements
to all solar panels that are part of contracts with DOD.
If American taxpayer funds are used to improve our military bases'
energy security, American solar firms should have an ability to
compete.
We know that other nations like China are spending vast resources to
become leaders in the solar power market. They do not play by our trade
rules, and they are taking advantage of our taxpayer funds.
This amendment halts that practice, while maintaining all existing
provisions of the Buy American Act: nations who are in the WTO are not
discriminated against and existing exemptions such as availability and
cost still apply.
Our amendment is supported by a strong coalition of U.S. solar
manufacturers, many of which are based overseas, and U.S. workers and
labor unions.
I thank Sen. Schumer and his staff for their work on this and I urge
the Senate's support.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his remarks. I
agree with him; it was a lively debate. I also agree with him it is to
be desired that kind of debate occurs more often in the Senate. The
Senator from New Mexico has been very active in the effort to have
these kinds of debates by rules changes, which would make these kinds
of debates a lot more likely, and by other mechanisms.
To make an inquiry, did the Senator from New Mexico restore the
regular order to the Levin-McCain amendment? I missed that.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I did. Let me say to Chairman Levin, not
only lively, robust, but very informative. I learned a lot in the
process of listening to him and to Senator McCain and Senator Durbin
and the other Senators who came down about the issue. I think that is
the way the Senate works best: to have the amendments and various
provisions of the Defense authorization bill be a part of a lively and
informative debate.
I thank the Senator for that, and I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I assume, then, having watched the debate
and been informed, that the Senator from New Mexico now takes the
position that Senator Levin and I do on this issue, and his next
mission is to convince his colleague from Colorado of the correctness
of our position?
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. At this point I am still listening and
trying to ascertain as much as I can about the actual provisions of the
Defense authorization bill. But the Senator is correct. There could be
trouble in Udall Valley. There might be a split. We do not see that
yet, but there is a possibility of it.
Mr. McCAIN. One thing I have learned about the Senator from New
Mexico is that he does give all issues a fair and objective hearing. He
listens and he pays attention and he is informed in his decisions. I
thank him for taking part in this one.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I also know that when the two of my
colleagues--when the chairman and Senator McCain, the ranking member--
come together on a prevision and are able to persuade their committee
to go with it, that says something to the Senate itself, to have that
before the Senate. I want to study it very carefully. I know Senator
Graham was down here, who has been very active on this issue and has a
tremendous amount of experience. I look forward to the continuing
debate, and I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico again
for the comments, but also tell him how very much impressed I have been
right from the first day I heard him with his openmindedness on
subjects. It is very important that we keep open minds, and he has
shown just how to do that. We appreciate that on an issue this complex,
particularly on the Defense bill.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, our staff is working on various amendments
that we could get approved by both sides. We think there are a number
of those on which we can get agreement to make progress today. While we
are going through that process, I would like to point out the front
page of this morning's Wall Street Journal, I am sorry to note, may be
a harbinger of events that will happen in the future, that will take
place in the future, which will be unfortunate for the United States of
America and indeed tragic for Iraq.
The front page of the Wall Street Journal today says ``Standoff Over
U.S. Airbase in Iraq.''

A tense standoff between local police and the Iraqi Army
played out on Thursday at the gate of the U.S. airbase in the
northern city of Kirkuk, where a dispute over land and oil
threatens national stability and unity as U.S. forces
withdraw.
The territorial conflict, between the central government in
Baghdad and the semiautonomous Kurdistan region, is just one
flash point that some American and Iraqi officials say could
boil over after the full pullout of U.S. troops at the end of
December.
Fears of a clash between Iraqi troops and Kurdish forces
were heightened on Thursday when the Kurdish-dominated police
in Kirkuk blocked senior Iraqi Army commanders from entering
the airbase, where they said they were planning to take over
the facility from the U.S. military.
The Army officials brought reporters from Iraqi State-owned
television to document the handover, in what appeared to be
an effort to show the nation that Baghdad was in charge. The
central government, headed by Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki,
is increasingly eager to project its power ahead of the U.S.
pullout.

This is about a volatile region, particularly in the area around
Kirkuk, which is also symptomatic of the entire northern Iraq border
between Kurdistan, the semiautonomous region of Iraq, and the rest of
Iraq. The area is inhabited by different ethnic groups that range from
Turkmen to Arab to other nationalities who all inhabit the area. One of
the reasons some of us wanted to have a residual force remain in Iraq--
one of actually three major reasons--was because of the tensions in
this area which have already bubbled up on several occasions. In fact,
there was a point some months ago where two forces were--the Pershmaga,
the Kurdish military, and the Iraqi military--close to a shooting
situation. The U.S. forces intervened. Obviously, they are not going to
be there. Obviously, already before they have even left there has been
a tense standoff at one of the major airbases in Iraq.
I greatly fear--I pray not, but I greatly fear that we will see more
and more of these kinds of tensions between the Kurdish area and the
rest of Iraq. A lot of it has to do with oil. A lot of it has to do
with who is going to control the oil revenues in the area. Other parts
go back to the era of Saddam Hussein, where he moved out Kurdish
individuals and others and moved in people who were loyal to him. There
are still enormous land disputes in the area as well. Suffice to say,
it is a place of great tension. I continue to be deeply worried about
this kind of tension which could lead to armed conflict, but also over
time, in the view of some, could lead to an actual breakup of Iraq into
Kurdish areas, Sunni areas, and even two different Shia areas of Iraq.

I am sorry to see this. I am sorry this is happening and that there
are more people who are predicting greater tensions in the area, but I
have to say, I am surprised. I am not surprised. The sad thing about
all this--I had a rather, shall I say, spirited exchange with the
Secretary of Defense the other day in the hearing that was held in the
Armed Services Committee. This isn't a policy matter, this is a not an
issue of whether we should have French fries served in school lunches.
This is an issue we have shed the blood of well over 4,400 young
Americans. I greatly fear that the opportunity that was purchased with
their expenditure of American blood and treasure may go all for naught
because of our failure to maintain a residual force in Iraq which, I
repeat, was always envisioned when the

[[Page S7793]]

agreement for U.S. withdrawal was made by the previous administration--
by the way, an agreement I disagreed with at that time.
So I hope that when Prime Minister Maliki comes to Washington next
month some of these issues can be ironed out, that we can have greater
cooperation. But I don't think there is any doubt that right now up in
the area of Kirkuk, they are paying much attention to the statements
that may be made by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. I wish to commend Senator Levin
and Senator McCain for their leadership in bringing this piece of
legislation to the floor. All my colleagues in the Armed Services
Committee have done a remarkable job and have done it with great
discipline and dedication and concern for the men and women of our
Armed Forces and the defense of the Nation.
This is the 50th consecutive Defense authorization bill that the
Senate has considered, and I hope we will soon be able to send it to
the President for his signature. We owe this to our service men and
women who are devoting themselves, and indeed their families also, to
the protection of the United States.
We made difficult decisions in putting together this bill, especially
in these challenging economic times. We were able to find $26 billion
in savings from the original budget request the President submitted
earlier this year. But I am confident this bill provides a budget that
allows the Department of Defense to combat current threats, plan for
future threats and provide for the welfare and protection of those men
and women and their families who serve this Nation.
I am pleased that at the start of the debate on this important
measure, that we were able to take up and pass Senator Ayotte's
amendment on strategic airlift, which I was pleased to cosponsor. I
was, indeed, very impressed with Senator Ayotte's thorough
understanding of this issue, her ability to seize on a point and make
sure it is fully understood. We were able to also bring together
leaders of our services, the Department of Defense, TRANSCOM, and the
Air Force, so that this decision was based on a very thorough analysis.
We owe a great deal of thanks to Senator Ayotte for her extraordinary
performance in this regard.
I am also working on several other amendments that would provide
additional assistance, not just to the overall structure of the Defense
Department but also to our military personnel. These deal with
protecting the individual service men and women from exploitation by
businesses and by other financial entities. We have taken some steps
going forward with the creation of the new Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau's Office of Service Members Affairs, headed by Holly
Petraeus, but we have to do more. I hope we can in this bill.
I am also proposing amendments that would address some of the
inconsistencies in the policies of National Guard dual-status
technicians. A further area of concern is better coordination between
the mental health care provided by the Department of Defense and the
community providers, particularly for members of the National Guard and
Reserve and their families. They often don't have the opportunity to be
close to a major military installation and so coordination with local
community providers is so critical to helping these members and their
families. I hope, again, we can work together to get these provisions
included in the legislation.
Let me highlight a few of the measures in the overall legislation
that are very important. It authorizes a 1.6-percent across-the-board
pay raise and reauthorizes over 30 types of bonuses and special pays
for our men and women in uniform. This is critical in meeting the needs
of our military personnel.
The legislation also authorizes the full funding of the DOD's Mine
Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle, the MRAP program, which provides
for the sustainment of MRAPs and M-ATVs to protect our troops on the
ground. Again, having recently returned about 3 weeks ago from
Afghanistan, these are critical weapon systems. My colleagues on the
committee who also frequently travel into these war zones will attest
to that fact. I am pleased we included this provision in the
legislation.
The proposed legislation also authorizes $11.2 billion for the Afghan
Security Forces Fund to train and equip the Afghan Army and police.
This is a $1.6 billion reduction from the President's request. The
CENTCOM commander, General Mattis, and Lieutenant General Caldwell, who
was the commander on the ground, determined that this reduction could
be made because of the efficiencies being achieved by the NATO training
mission in Afghanistan.
We have to be much more efficient going forward in terms of
resources, and we also have to prepare for the long term support, not
alone but with our international partners, of the creation and
sustainment of the Afghan National Security Forces. It represents
probably the most significant component, long term, of stabilizing
Afghanistan. We cannot do it alone. There has to be political will and
capacity. As we develop this military force, we also have to think
ahead about how we are, not alone but together with our allies, going
to ensure it is properly resourced in order to be a contributing factor
in the stability of Afghanistan.

This year, once again, I also had the privilege of serving as the
chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee alongside Senator Wicker, whom I
wish to thank for his thoughtful and significant contribution to the
legislation. The Seapower Subcommittee is focused on the needs of the
Navy, Marine Corps, and the strategic mobility forces. The subcommittee
put particular emphasis on supporting Marine and naval forces engaged
in combat operations, improving efficiencies, and applying the savings
to higher priority programs.
The subcommittee specifically included requested funding for two
Virginia-class submarines, the DDG-1000 Program, the Aircraft Carrier
Replacement Program, the DDG-51 Aegis Destroyer Program, the Littoral
Combat Ship (LCS) Program, the LHA Amphibious Assault Ship, the Joint
High Speed Vessel, the Mobile Landing Platform, and the P-8 maritime
patrol aircraft. All these weapons systems are important aspects of
Navy and Marine projection power throughout the world.
I am particularly pleased, obviously, about the continued support for
the Virginia-class submarine program and the DDG-1000, which are
integral parts not only of our national security but of the economy of
New England.
The subcommittee also included language that would require the
Department of Navy to restructure plans to replace the canceled
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle system for the Marine Corps and to
complete an analysis of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle alternatives
before launching into a Marine Personnel Carrier acquisition program.
Essentially, the Marine Corps is restudying their ability to move
marines from ship to shore and then from shore inland to exploit the
beachhead, and that careful study is necessary before they make a
commitment for future programs for equipment.
We also included language that would permit the Navy to use multiyear
procurement authority to buy common cockpits and avionic systems for
the Navy's H-60 helicopters in the most efficient manner.
Let me conclude by once again thanking Senator Wicker, particularly
for his help with respect to the Seapower Subcommittee, and thanking
all my colleagues. I think we have a good piece of legislation before
us. I hope in the process of amending it, we can improve the bill, and
I look forward to sending such a bill to the President for his
signature.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank the Senator from Rhode
Island, my dear friend, for all the work he does on our committee and
the other work he does for the Senate. He is an invaluable member of
our Armed

[[Page S7794]]

Services Committee, and I just want to not let this moment pass without
acknowledging that.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendments Nos. 1171, 1172, and 1173

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Corker, I ask
unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment and
call up the following amendments en bloc: amendment No. 1171, terrorist
activities in Pakistan; amendment No. 1172, coalition support in
Pakistan; and amendment No. 1173, Sense of the Senate regarding NATO.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Corker,
proposes amendments en bloc numbered 1171, 1172, and 1173.

The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 1171

(Purpose: To prohibit funding for any unit of a security force of
Pakistan if there is credible evidence that the unit maintains
connections with an organization known to conduct terrorist activities
against the United States or United States allies)

At the end of subtitle B of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1230. PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE FOR PAKISTAN SECURITY
FORCES WITH CONNECTIONS TO TERRORIST
ORGANIZATIONS.

None of the amounts authorized to be appropriated by this
or any other Act may be made available to any unit of the
security forces of Pakistan if the Secretary of Defense
determines that the United States Government has credible
evidence that the unit maintains connections with an
organization known to conduct terrorist activities against
the United States or United States allies.

amendment no. 1172

(Purpose: To require a report outlining a plan to end reimbursements
from the Coalition Support Fund to the Government of Pakistan for
operations conducted in support of Operation Enduring Freedom)

At the end of subtitle B of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1230. REPORT ON ENDING COALITION SUPPORT FUND
REIMBURSEMENTS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
FOR OPERATIONS CONDUCTED IN SUPPORT OF
OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM.

(a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of State and the Special
Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, shall submit a
report to the congressional defense committees and the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives
a report outlining a plan to end reimbursements from the
Coalition Support Fund to the Government of Pakistan for
operations conducted in support of Operation Enduring
Freedom.
(b) Elements.--The report required under subsection (a)
shall include the following elements:
(1) A characterization of the types of reimbursements
requested by the Government of Pakistan.
(2) An assessment of the total amount reimbursed to the
Government of Pakistan, by fiscal year, since the beginning
of Operation Enduring Freedom.
(3) The percentage and types of reimbursement requests made
by the Government of Pakistan for which the United States
Government has denied payment.
(4) An assessment of whether the operations conducted by
the Government of Pakistan in support of Operation Enduring
Freedom and reimbursed from the Coalition Support Fund have
materially impacted the ability of terrorist organizations to
threaten the stability of Afghanistan and Pakistan and to
impede the operations of the United States in Afghanistan.
(5) Recommendations for, and a timeline to implement, a
plan to end reimbursements from the Coalition Support Fund to
the Government of Pakistan.
(c) Form.--The report required under subsection (a) shall
be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a
classified annex.

amendment no. 1173

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization)

At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1243. SENSE OF SENATE ON THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY
ORGANIZATION.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
historically set a target commitment for member states to
spend two percent of their gross domestic product on their
defense expenditures.
(2) In 2010, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
identified only 5 member states meeting this target for
defense expenditures, including the United States, Albania,
France, Greece, and the United Kingdom, leaving 23 member
states short of meeting the target.
(3) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made the following
statement on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on
October 14, 2010, in a conversation with reporters: ``[m]y
worry is that the more our allies cut their capabilities, the
more people will look to the United States to cover whatever
gaps are created. . . And at a time when we're facing
stringencies of our own, that's a concern for me''.
(4) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in an interview
with the BBC on October 15, 2010, stated that ``NATO has been
the most successful alliance for defensive purposes in the
history of the world, I guess, but it has to be maintained.
Now each country has to be able to make its appropriate
contributions''.
(5) On March 30, 2011, Admiral James G. Stavridis stated in
a hearing before the Committee on Armed Services of the House
of Representatives that ``[w]e need to be emphatic with our
European allies that they should spend at least the minimum
NATO 2 percent''.
(6) In a speech delivered in Brussels on June 10, 2011,
Secretary of Defense Gates further stated that ``[i]n the
past, I've worried openly about NATO turning into a two-
tiered alliance: Between members who specialize in `soft'
humanitarian, development, peacekeeping, and talking tasks,
and those conducting the `hard' combat missions. Between
those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens
of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of
NATO membership - be they security guarantees or headquarters
billets - but don't want to share the risks and the costs.
This is no longer a hypothetical worry. We are there today.
And it is unacceptable''.
(7) In that same speech on June 10, 2011, Secretary of
Defense Gates added that ``I am the latest in a string of
U.S. defense secretaries who have urged allies privately and
publicly, often with exasperation, to meet agreed-upon NATO
benchmarks for defense spending. However, fiscal, political
and demographic realities make this unlikely to happen
anytime soon, as even military stalwarts like the U.K have
been forced to ratchet back with major cuts to force
structure. Today, just five of 28 allies - the U.S., U.K.,
France, Greece, along with Albania - exceed the agreed 2% of
GDP spending on defense''.
(8) Secretary of Defense Gates also stated that ``[t]he
blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and
patience in the U.S. Congress - and in the American body
politic writ large - to expend increasingly precious funds on
behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the
necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be
serious and capable partners in their own defense. Nations
apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume
the growing security burden left by reductions in European
defense budgets''.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--
(1) to commend the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for
historically providing an extension to the United States
security capabilities; and
(2) to call upon the President--
(A) to engage each of the member states of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization in a dialogue about the long-
term health of the North Atlantic Alliance and strongly
encourage each of the member states to make a serious effort
to protect defense budgets from further reductions, better
allocate and coordinate the resources presently available,
and recommit to spending at least two percent of gross
domestic product on defense; and
(B) to examine and report to Congress on recommendations
that will lead to a stronger North Atlantic Alliance in terms
of military capability and readiness across the 28 member
states, with particular focus on the smaller member states.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.

Amendments Nos. 1117, 1187, and 1211

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendments be temporarily set aside to call up, on behalf of Senator
Bingaman, amendment No. 1117; and on behalf of Senator Gillibrand,
amendments Nos. 1187 and 1211.
Before the clerk reports, I also ask unanimous consent that Senator
Gillibrand be added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1092, the Levin-
McCain counterfeit parts amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

[[Page S7795]]

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Senators
Bingaman and Gillibrand, proposes amendments en bloc numbered
1117, 1187, and 1211.

The amendments are as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 1117

(Purpose: To provide for national security benefits for White Sands
Missile Range and Fort Bliss)

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

SEC. __. WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE AND FORT BLISS.

(a) Withdrawal.--
(1) In general.--Subject to valid existing rights and
paragraph (3), the Federal land described in paragraph (2) is
withdrawn from--
(A) entry, appropriation, and disposal under the public
land laws;
(B) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
(C) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials,
and geothermal leasing laws.
(2) Description of federal land.--The Federal land referred
to in paragraph (1) consists of--
(A) the approximately 5,100 acres of land depicted as
``Withdrawal Area'' on the map entitled ``White Sands
Military Reservation Withdrawal'' and dated May 3, 2011;
(B) the approximately 37,600 acres of land depicted as
``Parcel 1'', ``Parcel 2'', and ``Parcel 3'' on the map
entitled ``Dona Ana County Land Transfer and Withdrawal'' and
dated April 20, 2011; and
(C) any land or interest in land that is acquired by the
United States within the boundaries of the parcels described
in subparagraph (B).
(3) Limitation.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the land
depicted as ``Parcel 3'' on the map described in paragraph
(2)(B) is not withdrawn for purposes of the issuance of oil
and gas pipeline rights-of-way.
(b) Reservation.--The Federal land described in subsection
(a)(2)(A) is reserved for use by the Secretary of the Army
for military purposes in accordance with Public Land Order
833, dated May 21, 1952 (17 Fed. Reg. 4822).
(c) Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction.--Effective on
the date of enactment of this Act, administrative
jurisdiction over the approximately 2,050 acres of land
generally depicted as ``Parcel 1'' on the map described in
subsection (a)(2)(B)--
(1) is transferred from the Secretary of the Army to the
Secretary of the Interior (acting through the Director of the
Bureau of Land Management); and
(2) shall be managed in accordance with--
(A) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
(B) any other applicable laws.
(d) Legal Description.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
publish in the Federal Register a legal description of the
Federal land withdrawn by subsection (a).
(2) Force of law.--The legal description published under
paragraph (1) shall have the same force and effect as if
included in this Act, except that the Secretary of the
Interior may correct errors in the legal description.
(3) Reimbursement of costs.--The Secretary of the Army
shall reimburse the Secretary of the Interior for any costs
incurred by the Secretary of the Interior in implementing
this subsection with regard to the Federal land described in
subsection (a)(2)(A).

AMENDMENT NO. 1187

(Purpose: To expedite the hiring authority for the defense information
technology/cyber workforce)

At the end of title XI, add the following:

SEC. 1108. EXPEDITED HIRING AUTHORITY FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY/CYBER WORKFORCE.

(a) Expedited Hiring Authority.--Chapter 81 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:

``Sec. 1599e. Information technology/cyber workforce:
expedited hiring authority

``(a) Authority.--For purposes of sections 3304, 5333, and
5753 of title 5, the Secretary of Defense--
``(1) may designate any category of Information Technology/
Cyber workforce positions in the Department of Defense as
positions for which there exists a shortage of candidates or
for which there is a critical hiring need; and
``(2) may use the authorities provided in those sections to
recruit and appoint qualified persons directly to positions
so designated, and should appoint veterans to those positions
to the maximum extent possible.
``(b) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit
an annual report to the congressional defense committees
detailing the number of people hired under the authority of
this section, the number of people so hired who transfer to a
field outside the category of Information Technology/Cyber
workforce, and the number of veterans who apply for, and are
hired, for positions under this authority.
``(c) Sunset.--The Secretary may not appoint a person to a
position of employment under this section after September 30,
2017.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:

``1599e. Information technology/cyber workforce: expedited hiring
authority.''.

AMENDMENT NO. 1211

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance
to State National Guards to provide counseling and reintegration
services for members of reserve components of the Armed Forces ordered
to active duty in support of a contingency operation, members returning
from such active duty, veterans of the Armed Forces, and their
families)

At the end of subtitle H of title V, add the following:

SEC. 577. SUPPORT FOR NATIONAL GUARD COUNSELING AND
REINTEGRATION SERVICES.

(a) Assistance Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may
provide assistance to a State National Guard to support
programs to provide pre-deployment and post-deployment
outreach, reintegration, and readjustment services to the
following persons:
(1) Members of reserve components of the Armed Forces who
reside in the State or are members of the State National
Guard regardless of place of residence and who are ordered to
active duty in support of a contingency operation.
(2) Members described in paragraph (1) upon their return
from such active duty.
(3) Veterans (as defined in section 101(2) of title 38,
United States Code).
(4) Dependents of persons described in paragraph (1), (2),
or (3).
(b) Elements of Programs.--Programs supported under
subsection (a) shall use direct person-to-person outreach and
other relevant activities to ensure that eligible persons
receive all the services and support available to them during
pre-deployment, deployment, and reintegration periods.
(c) Merit-Based or Competitive Decisions.--A decision to
commit, obligate, or expend funds with or to a specific State
National Guard under subsection (a) shall--
(1) be based on merit-based selection procedures in
accordance with the requirements of sections 2304(k) and 2374
of title 10, United States Code, or on competitive
procedures; and
(2) comply with other applicable provisions of law.
(d) State Defined.--In this section, the term ``State''
means each of the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(e) Funding.--
(1) Funds available.--The amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 301 and available for operation and
maintenance for the Army National Guard as specified in the
funding table in section 4301 is hereby increased by
$70,000,000, with the amount of the increase to be available
for assistance authorized by this section.
(2) Offsets.--(A) The amount authorized to be appropriated
by section 301 and available for operation and maintenance
for the Army as specified in the funding table in section
4301 is hereby reduced by $33,400,000, with the amount of the
reduction to be allocated to amounts otherwise available for
the Army for recruiting and advertising.
(B) The amount authorized to be appropriated by section 301
and available for operation and maintenance for the Navy as
specified in the funding table in section 4301 is hereby
reduced by $16,200,000, with the amount of the reduction to
be allocated to amounts otherwise available for the Navy for
recruiting and advertising.
(C) The amount authorized to be appropriated by section 301
and available for operation and maintenance for the Marine
Corps as specified in the funding table in section 4301 is
hereby reduced by $11,700,000, with the amount of the
reduction to be allocated to amounts otherwise available for
the Marine Corps for recruiting and advertising.
(D) The amount authorized to be appropriated by section 301
and available for operation and maintenance for the Air Force
as specified in the funding table in section 4301 is hereby
reduced by $8,700,000, with the amount of the reduction to be
allocated to amounts otherwise available for the Air Force
for recruiting and advertising.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order on the Levin-
McCain amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is now the pending
question.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendments Nos. 1239, 1256, 1257, and 1258 En Bloc

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside. I call up en bloc 1239, 1256, 1257, and 1258.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.

[[Page S7796]]

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Merkley] proposes amendments
numbered 1239, 1256, 1257, and 1258 en bloc.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask that reading of the amendments be
dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendments are as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 1239

(Purpose: To expand the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry
scholarship to include spouses of members of the Armed Forces who die
in the line of duty)

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1088. EXPANSION OF MARINE GUNNERY SERGEANT JOHN DAVID
FRY SCHOLARSHIP.

(a) Expansion of Entitlement.--Subsection (b)(9) of section
3311 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by inserting
``or spouse'' after ``child''.
(b) Limitation and Election on Certain Benefits.--
Subsection (f) of such section is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraphs:
``(2) Limitation.--The entitlement of an individual to
assistance under subsection (a) pursuant to paragraph (9) of
subsection (b) because the individual was a spouse of a
person described in such paragraph shall expire on the
earlier of--
``(A) the date that is 15 years after the date on which the
person died; and
``(B) the date on which the individual remarries.
``(3) Election on receipt of certain benefits.--A surviving
spouse entitled to assistance under subsection (a) pursuant
to paragraph (9) of subsection (b) who is also entitled to
educational assistance under chapter 35 of this title may not
receive assistance under both this section and such chapter,
but shall make an irrevocable election (in such form and
manner as the Secretary may prescribe) under which section or
chapter to receive educational assistance.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date that is 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.

AMENDMENT NO. 1256

(Purpose: To require a plan for the expedited transition of
responsibility for military and security operations in Afghanistan to
the Government of Afghanistan)

On page 484, strike lines 8 through 24 and insert the
following:
(8) During the course of Operation Enduring Freedom,
members of the Armed forces, intelligence personnel, and the
diplomatic corps have skillfully achieved the core goal of
the United States strategy in Afghanistan, and Secretary of
Defense Leon E. Panetta has noted that al Qaeda's presence in
Afghanistan has been greatly diminished.
(9) On May 1, 2011, in support of the goal to disrupt,
dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda, President Obama authorized a
United States operation that killed Osama bin Laden, leader
of al Qaeda. While the impact of his death on al Qaeda
remains to be seen, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called
the death of bin Laden a ``game changer'' in a speech on May
6, 2011.
(10) Over the past ten years, the mission of the United
States has evolved to include a prolonged nation-building
effort in Afghanistan, including the creation of a strong
central government, a national police force and army, and
effective civic institutions.
(11) Such nation-building efforts in Afghanistan are
undermined by corruption, high illiteracy, and a historic
aversion to a strong central government in that country.
(12) The continued concentration of United States and NATO
military forces in one region, when terrorist forces are
located in many parts of the world, is not an efficient use
of resources.
(13) The battle against terrorism is best served by using
United States troops and resources in a counterterrorism
strategy against terrorist forces wherever they may locate
and train.
(14) The United States Government will continue to support
the development of Afghanistan with a strong diplomatic and
counterterrorism presence in the region.
(b) Benchmarks Required.--The President shall establish,
and may update from time to time, a comprehensive set of
benchmarks to evaluate progress being made toward the
objective of transitioning and transferring lead security
responsibilities in Afghanistan to the Government of
Afghanistan by December 31, 2014.
(c) Transition Plan.--The President shall devise a plan
based on inputs from military commanders, the diplomatic
missions in the region, and appropriate members of the
Cabinet, along with the consultation of Congress, for
expediting the drawdown of United States combat troops in
Afghanistan and accelerating the transfer of security
authority to Afghan authorities.
(d) Submittal to Congress.--The President shall include the
most current set of benchmarks established pursuant to
subsection (b) and the plan pursuant to subsection (c) with
each report on progress.

AMENDMENT NO. 1257

(Purpose: To require a plan for the expedited transition of
responsibility for military and security operations in Afghanistan to
the Government of Afghanistan)

On page 484, strike line 22 through line 24 and insert the
following:
(c) Transition Plan.--The President shall devise a plan
based on inputs from military commanders, the diplomatic
missions in the region, and appropriate members of the
Cabinet, along with the consultation of Congress, for
expediting the drawdown of United States combat troops in
Afghanistan and accelerating the transfer of security
authority to Afghan authorities.
(d) Submittal to Congress.--The President shall include the
most current set of benchmarks established pursuant to
subsection (b) and the plan pursuant to subsection (c) with
each report on progress.

AMENDMENT NO. 1258

(Purpose: To require the timely identification of qualified census
tracts for purposes of the HUBZone program, and for other purposes)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. DESIGNATION OF QUALIFIED CENSUS TRACTS.

(a) Designation.--
(1) Identification of hubzone qualified census tracts.--Not
later than 2 months after the date on which the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development receives from the Census Bureau
the data obtained from each decennial census relating to
census tracts necessary for such identification, the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall identify and
publish the list of census tracts that meet the requirements
of section 42(d)(5)(B)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
(2) Specification of effective dates of designation.--
(A) Hubzone effective date.--The Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development, after consultation with the Administrator
of the Small Business Administration, shall designate a date
that is not later than 3 months after the publication of the
list of qualified census tracts under paragraph (1) upon
which the list published under paragraph (1) becomes
effective for areas that qualify as HUBZones under section
3(p)(1)(A) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
632(p)(1)(A)).
(B) Section 42 effective date.--The Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development shall designate a date, which may
differ from the HUBZone effective date under subparagraph
(A), upon which the list of qualified census tracts published
under paragraph (1) shall become effective for purposes of
section 42(d)(5)(B)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection may
be construed to affect the method used by the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development to designate census tracts as
qualified census tracts in a year in which the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development receives no data from the
Census Bureau relating to census tract boundaries.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration shall submit to the Committee on
Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the
Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives a
report that--
(1) describes the benefits and drawbacks of using qualified
census tract data to designate HUBZones under section 3(p) of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p));
(2) describes any problems encountered by the Administrator
in using qualified census tract data to designate HUBZones;
and
(3) includes recommendations, if any, for ways to improve
the process of designating HUBZones.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I call for the regular order.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in a short while I hope we will have, and
expect that we will have, some amendments that have been cleared on
both sides that we are going to be able to offer and hopefully adopt.
What I thought I would do now is make a fairly lengthy statement
about statements which have been made relative to the detainee
provisions in S. 1867. First, I want to comment on the statements that
were made in the Statement of Administration Policy--this is a so-
called SAP. So when I refer to SAP during these comments, and I use
that term, it is the acronym which means Statement of Administration
Policy.
I am going to first quote exactly from the SAP, and then I am going
to

[[Page S7797]]

comment and show why these statements I am referring to are inaccurate.
From the SAP:

Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention
authority that exists under the authorization for Use of
Military Force.

The authorization for use of military force is referred to as the
AUMF. The quote continues:

The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the
detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect
the American people from the threat posed by al-Qaida and its
associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full
range of threats this country faces from those organizations
and individuals.

Well, Mr. President, given how important the administration says
these authorities are, it should be helpful to have them codified so
they can stand on the strongest possible footing.
The next quote:

Because the authorities codified in this section [1031]
already exist, the administration does not believe
codification is necessary and poses some risk.

The quote continues:

After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention
authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new
series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts
to protect the country.

The quote continues:

While the current language minimizes many of those risks,
future legislative action must ensure that the codification
in statute of express military detention authority does not
carry unintended consequences that could compromise our
ability to protect the American people.

Well, Mr. President, section 1031 was written by administration
officials for the purpose of codifying existing authority. The
description of persons covered is identical to the position taken by
the administration and upheld in the courts. The provision specifically
provides that nothing in the provision either limits or expands the
authority of the President or the scope of the AUMF.
It is also worth noting that the SAP does not support the argument
made by some Senators that section 1031 creates a new or unprecedented
authority. On the contrary, the Statement of Administration Policy, the
SAP, acknowledges the provision codifies existing law.
Now, this is hardly surprising since the committee accepted all of
the administration's proposed changes to section 1031.
I am continuing to quote from the Statement of Administration Policy:

The administration strongly objects to the military custody
provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate
military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects.
This unnecessary, untested and legally controversial
restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation
from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our
intelligence and law enforcement professionals.

Well, Mr. President, it is interesting that the SAP states the
amendment would ``appear to'' mandate military custody. In fact, it
does not mandate military custody and does not tie the administration's
hands because it includes a national security waiver which allows
suspects to be held in civilian custody.
Next quote:

Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to
individuals inside the United States, as some Members of
Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise
serious and unsettled legal questions and would be
inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our
military does not patrol our streets.

Well, the administration itself asked that we delete limitations in
section 1031 on the applicability of detention authority inside the
United States that would have excluded U.S. citizens and lawful
residents based on conduct taking place inside the United States to the
extent authorized by the Constitution. The exact words were ``except to
the extent authorized by the Constitution.''
If it is appropriate to authorize military detention inside the
United States under section 1031, it is not at all clear what ``serious
and unsettled legal questions'' in this narrow category of cases could
be raised by requiring such detention subject to a national security
waiver. Further, nothing in section 1032 would require or even permit
our military to ``patrol our streets.''
Section 1032 applies, by its very term, only to a person ``who has
been captured in the course of hostilities'' authorized by the AUMF.
The provision has no applicability to a person who has not already been
so captured and does not speak to the question of when or where such a
capture might be authorized.
The provision does not give the military authority to make arrests or
conduct any law enforcement functions inside the United States.
Next quote:

We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking
down the walls between intelligence, military, and law
enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild
those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing
terrorist attacks more difficult.

In answer to that, it is not clear what walls the administration
thinks the provision builds. Nothing in this provision limits the
participation of law enforcement or intelligence professionals in the
interrogation of detainees in military custody or vice versa or the
sharing of information.
Next quote:

Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of
our national security professionals to choose, based on the
evidence and the facts and the circumstances of each case,
which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best
serves our national security interests.

The provision does not limit the flexibility of the executive branch
to choose the appropriate tool for taking on terrorists. On the
contrary, the provision expressly directs the President to establish
procedures for making determinations of coverage, authorizes the
executive branch waiver of military detention requirements where they
do apply, and expressly authorizes the transfer of any detainee to
civilian custody for trial.
The next quote from the SAP:

The waiver provision fails to address these concerns,
particularly in time-sensitive operations in which law
enforcement personnel have traditionally played the leading
role.

It is not clear why the administration thinks the use of a waiver
would be problematic in time-sensitive operations. The need for a
waiver is not triggered until the executive branch determines an
individual is covered. The President has control over who makes these
determinations, how they are made, and when they are made, so the
executive branch should not be faced by a determination of coverage for
which it is not ready. And even if, for some reason, executive branch
officials were not ready to deal with their own determination, the
provision specifically provides that a determination of coverage may
not be used to interrupt ongoing surveillance, intelligence gathering,
or interrogation sessions.
The next quote from the SAP:

These problems are all the more acute because the section
defines the category of individuals who would be subject to
mandatory military custody by substituting new and untested
legislative criteria for the criteria that the Executive and
Judicial Branches are currently using for detention under
AUMF in both habeas litigation and military operations. Such
confusion threatens our ability to act swiftly and decisively
to capture, detain, and interrogate terrorism suspects, and
could disrupt the collection of vital intelligence about
threats to the American people.

The SAP is wrong. Detention under section 1032 is expressly limited
to persons for whom detention is authorized under criteria currently
used by the executive branch and the courts. The new and untested
legislative criteria about which the SAP expresses concern is language
narrowing the application of the provision to a small category of those
for whom detention is already authorized.
Also, because the provision addresses only the question of whether an
individual should be transferred to military custody after capture, it
is not clear how it could possibly threaten the ability of executive
branch officials to act swiftly and decisively to capture anybody.
Because the provision expressly states it may not be applied to
interfere with an ongoing surveillance, intelligence gathering, and
interrogations, it is not clear how it could possibly threaten the
ability of executive branch officials to interrogate terrorism suspects
or disrupt the collection of vital intelligence about threats to the
American people.
The next quote from the SAP:

Rather than fix the fundamental defects of section 1032 or
remove it entirely, as the administration and the chairs of
several congressional committees with jurisdiction over

[[Page S7798]]

these matters have advocated, the revised text merely directs
the President to develop procedures to ensure the myriad
problems that would result from such a requirement do not
come to fruition.

The administration reviewed the language directing the President to
develop procedures and they made several suggestions for improvements
to that language. The committee adopted all of the administration's
suggestions. The remaining change suggested by the administration,
which the committee did not adopt, was a proposal to limit the
application of the provision to persons captured abroad. This
difference does not constitute a myriad of problems which are complex
or hard to understand.
This is the last comment they make on that section:

Requiring the President to devise such procedures concedes
the substantial risks created by mandating military custody,
without providing an adequate solution. As a result, it is
likely that implementing such procedures would inject
significant confusion into counterterrorism operations.

The language referred to was included to address concerns expressed
by the administration. That does not in any way constitute an
acknowledgment that the concerns were valid. Whether these concerns
were valid or not, they have now been resolved by specific language in
the revised provision.
Continuing:

The certification and waiver, required by section 1033
before a detainee may be transferred from Guantanamo Bay to a
foreign country, continue to hinder the Executive Branch's
ability to exercise its military, national security, and
foreign relations activities. While these provisions may be
intended to be somewhat less restrictive than the analogous
provisions in current law, they continue to pose unnecessary
obstacles, effectively blocking transfers that would advance
our national security interests, and would, in certain
circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers
principles. The Executive Branch must have the flexibility to
act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries
regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers.

The provision is not only ``intended to be somewhat less
restrictive'' than provisions that are included in previous
authorization and appropriations acts signed by the President, it is
less restrictive. Unlike last year's bill, this provision includes a
waiver, which allows the administration to proceed with a transfer even
if the certification requirements cannot be met.
Congress has expressed strong concerns about recidivism among Gitmo
detainees who have been released in the past. It cannot be in our
national security interests to ``act swiftly'' if we fail to provide
adequate safeguards against terrorists rejoining the fight against us.
In discussions on this issue, administration officials have made a
single priority request--that the provision be made a 1-year limitation
instead of a permanent limitation. And the committee agreed to that
change.

Section 1034's ban--

And I am now continuing the quote from SAP--

on the use of funds to construct or modify a detention
facility in the United States is an unwise intrusion on the
military's ability to transfer its detainees as operational
needs dictate.

This provision is the same as the provisions included in last year's
authorization and appropriations acts which were signed by the
President. In discussions on this issue, administration officials made
a single priority request--that the provision be made a 1-year
limitation instead of a permanent limitation. The committee agreed to
that change.
The next quote from the SAP:

Section 1035 conflicts with the consensus-based interagency
approach to detainee reviews required under Executive Order
No. 13567, which establishes procedures to ensure that
periodic review decisions are informed by the most
comprehensive information and considered views of all
relevant agencies.

Section 1035 does not conflict with the Executive order of the
interagency review process established in the Executive order; rather,
it requires the issuance of procedures to implement the review process
required by the Executive order.
The Executive order states that a Gitmo detainee will not be released
if the interagency process results in a unanimous recommendation
against release. The Executive order states that a Gitmo detainee will
be released if the interagency process results in a unanimous
recommendation for release. But it is silent as to what happens if the
process does not result in a unanimous recommendation.
The provision in the bill addresses that issue by providing that no
Gitmo detainee will be released without the consent of the Secretary of
Defense. This does not contradict the Executive order; it is a truism,
since nobody can be released without agreement of all of the agencies.
In discussions with the committee, administration officials did not
even raise this provision as a priority issue.
Finally, on the Statement of Administration Policy, the SAP:

Section 1036, in addition to imposing onerous requirements,
conflicts with procedures for detainee reviews in the field
that have been developed based on many years of experience by
military officers and the Department of Defense.

The only new requirement imposed by section 1036 is the requirement
for a military judge and legal representation for any detainee who will
be held in long-term custody. In discussions with the committee, the
administration did not object to this new requirement. On the contrary,
the only change requested by the administration in this provision was
to strike the words ``long-term.'' The committee did not agree to this
proposed change because it would have been onerous to impose this
requirement in the case of all detainees, including those who are
captured and released or held on a short-term basis.
Mr. President, I now would like to move to my comments on some of the
statements of the senior Senator from California. The first comment of
Senator Feinstein that I wish to address is the one where she said:
``Section 1031 needs to be reviewed to consider whether it is
consistent with the September 18, 2001, authorization for use of
military force.''

On this one, the committee accepted all of the administration's
language changes which were written to ensure that the provision is
consistent with the AUMF. The provision specifically states it does not
``limit or expand the authority of the President on the scope of the
AUMF.'' The SAP on the provision states that ``the authorities codified
in this section already exist'' under the AUMF.
The next quote from the Senator from California is the following.
Section 1031:

. . . would authorize the indefinite detention of American
citizens without charge or trial. Do we want to go home and
tell the people of America that we're going to hold them if
such a situation comes up without any review, without any
habeas?

The committee accepted all of the administration's proposed changes
to section 1031, and as the administration has acknowledged, the
provision does nothing more than codify existing law. Indeed, as
revised pursuant to administration recommendations, the provision
expressly ``affirms'' an authority that already exists. The Supreme
Court held in the Hamdi case that existing law authorizes the detention
of American citizens under the law of war in the limited circumstances
spelled out here, so this is nothing new.
The initial bill reported by the committee included language
expressly precluding ``the detention of citizens or lawful resident
aliens of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within
the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution
of the United States.''
The administration asked that this language be removed from the bill.
Mr. President, 1031 does not refer to habeas and in no way limits
habeas, nor could it. No American can be held in military detention
without habeas review and no non-American can be held in military
detention inside the United States without habeas. For non-Americans
outside the United States, the bill requires the administration to
establish review procedures, including, for the first time, a military
judge and access to a military lawyer for the status determination.
The next quote of the Senator from California is the following. Under
Section 1032:

. . . any noncitizen al-Qaida operative captured in the
United States would be automatically turned over to military
custody. Military custody for captured terrorists may make
sense in some cases, but certainly not all.

Mr. President, Section 1032 does not mandate military custody. It
does not

[[Page S7799]]

tie the administration's hands because--and this is critically
important--it includes a national security waiver which explicitly
allows any suspect to be held in civilian custody. Nothing is
automatic. The administration would have the discretion to waive
military detention and hold a detainee in civilian custody if it
decided to do so.
The next quote in the case of Najibullah Zazi:

If the mandatory military custody in the armed service bill
was law--

The committee bill was law--

all of the surveillance activities, all of what the FBI did
would have to be transferred immediately to the military. . .
. Then the government would have been forced to split up co-
defendants, even in cases where they otherwise could be
prosecuted as part of the same conspiracy.
Zazi was a permanent legal resident. His co-conspirators
were both U.S. citizens. They would be prosecuted on
terrorist charges in Federal criminal court, but Zazi himself
would be transferred to military custody. Two different
detention and prosecution systems would play out and could
well complicate a unified prosecution.

It is not accurate to say everything the FBI did in the Zazi case
would have had to be ``transferred immediately to the military.''
First, it is not at all clear Zazi was covered by the provision because
we don't know that he was al-Qaida, and in any event there is an
exclusion because he is a lawful resident alien of the United States.
Second, until a coverage determination was made, no transfer would be
required and the President would decide how and when that determination
would be made.
Finally, even if Zazi were somehow determined to be covered, the
requirement could have been waived and Zazi could have been kept in
civilian custody in the discretion of the executive branch.
Also, as to this statement that the executive branch would be forced
to split up codefendants in the Zazi case, even if he was covered by
the provision or in any other case, that is because the provision
includes a waiver that would have allowed him to be held in civilian
custody from the outset if the executive branch officials decided to do
so and also because the provision expressly authorizes the transfer of
any military detainee to civilian custody for trial in the Federal
courts even without a waiver. So executive branch officials are always
able to consolidate cases should they decide to do so in the Federal
courts.

The next statement which the Senator made was the following:

The Department of Justice has said that approximately one-
third of terrorists charged in Federal court in 2010 would be
subject to mandatory military detention, absent a waiver from
the Secretary of Defense.

Taking the Justice Department at its word, there have been
approximately 300 terrorist cases in Federal court over the last 10
years or about 30 a year. One-third of that number would be just 10
cases a year in which the executive branch officials would have to make
determinations of coverage and, if necessary, exercise their waiver
authority.
Even that number appears to be exaggerated. Cases of attempted al-
Qaida attacks on American soil have been highly publicized and receive
extensive scrutiny, understandably, in Congress. We are not aware of
more than half a dozen cases, total, over the last decade. The reason
the debate on this issue always seems to come back to the same handful
of cases appears to be there only are a handful of cases that are
covered by this provision potentially.
In her next quote:

The administration contends that the mandatory military
custody is unwise because our allies will not extradite
terror suspects to the United States for interrogation and
prosecution or even provide evidence about suspected
terrorists if they will be sent to a military brig or
Guantanamo.

This provision expressly states that the waiver authority may be used
to address these concerns and to assure an ally that a suspect will not
be held in military custody if transferred to the United States and if
that assurance is necessary to obtain that transfer. Administration
officials suggested a wording change to preclude misinterpretation of
this provision and the committee adopted the very wording proposed by
the administration.
The next quote of the Senator from California is that Section 1033:

. . . essentially establishes a de facto ban on transfers of
detainees out of Guantanamo, even for the purpose of
prosecution in United States courts or in other countries.

There is no limitation at all in the bill on the transfer of Gitmo
detainees to the United States for trial or for any other purpose. With
regard to the transfer to other countries, Section 1033 is less
restrictive than current law, which was signed by the President.
The next quote I would address is the following. Section 1033:

. . . requires the Secretary of Defense to make a series of
certifications that are unreasonable and candidly unknowable
before any detainee is transferred out of Guantanamo. Again,
an example, the administration proposed eliminating the
requirement that the Secretary of Defense certified that the
foreign country from whence the detainee will be sent to is
not quote `facing a threat that is likely to substantially
affect its ability to exercise its control over the
individual.'

The same language was included in last year's authorization and
appropriations bills that were signed by the President. We added a
waiver provision this year to make it easier to transfer detainees. In
discussion with the committee, the administration made a single
priority request on this issue; that the provision be made a 1-year
limitation instead of a permanent limitation, and the committee agreed
to that change.
Finally, the last quote of the Senator from California from yesterday
that I am going to address is the following:

In March, the President issued an executive order that laid
out the process for reviewing each detainee's case to make
sure that indefinite detention continues to be an appropriate
and preferred course. Section 1035 essentially reverses the
interagency process created by the President's order.

This was the same allegation made by the statement of administration
policy. It is erroneous, and I addressed the answer to that allegation
in my remarks a little earlier today, relative to the statement of
administration policy, the SAP, so I am not going to comment further.
But I would direct everyone back to those comments on the statement of
administration policy similar to that statement of the Senator from
California, which I addressed at that time.
I appreciate the patience of our Presiding Officer. This was a long
statement, but I think it is essential we understand there are issues
that need to be debated and should be debated, but there is nothing but
confusion created on an issue that is already complex when
misstatements are made about what is in a bill of the committee and
what is not in the bill of a committee.
The words in the committee bill are words that are clear. They need
to be debated, but they should not be exaggerated or misinterpreted.
This is an important debate. We had a good debate yesterday, and I
expect we will complete this debate on Monday so we can vote on these
detention provisions and amendments relative thereto of Senator Udall
hopefully on Monday night.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1087

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside, and amendment No. 1087, the Leahy FOIA
amendment, be called up and then be set aside.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes an amendment
numbered 1087.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To improve the provisions relating to the treatment of
certain sensitive national security information under the Freedom of
Information Act)

Strike section 1044 and insert the following:

SEC. 1044. TREATMENT UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT OF
CERTAIN SENSITIVE NATIONAL SECURITY
INFORMATION.

(a) Critical Infrastructure Security Information.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense may exempt
Department of Defense critical infrastructure security
information from disclosure under section 552 of title 5,
United States Code, upon a written determination that--
(A) the disclosure of such information would reveal
vulnerabilities in such infrastructure that, if exploited,
could result in the disruption, degradation, or destruction
of Department of Defense operations, property, or facilities;
and

[[Page S7800]]

(B) the public interest in the disclosure of such
information does not outweigh the Government's interest in
withholding such information from the public.
(2) Information provided to state or local first
responders.--Critical infrastructure security information
covered by a written determination under this subsection that
is provided to a State or local government to assist first
responders in the event that emergency assistance should be
required shall be deemed to remain under the control of the
Department of Defense.
(b) Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance System.--
The Secretary of Defense may exempt information contained in
any data file of the Military Flight Operations Quality
Assurance system of a military department from disclosure
under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, upon a
written determination that the disclosure of such information
in the aggregate (and when combined with other information
already in the public domain) would reveal sensitive
information regarding the tactics, techniques, procedures,
processes, or operational and maintenance capabilities of
military combat aircraft, units, or aircrews. Information
covered by a written determination under this subsection
shall be exempt from disclosure under such section 552 even
when such information is contained in a data file that is not
exempt in its entirety from such disclosure.
(c) Delegation.--The Secretary of Defense may delegate the
authority to make a determination under subsection (a) or (b)
to any civilian official in the Department of Defense or a
military department who is appointed by the President, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(d) Transparency.--Each determination of the Secretary, or
the Secretary's designee, under subsection (a) or (b) shall
be made in writing and accompanied by a statement of the
basis for the determination. All such determinations and
statements of basis shall be available to the public, upon
request, through the office of the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Public Affairs.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``Department of Defense critical
infrastructure security information'' means sensitive but
unclassified information that could substantially facilitate
the effectiveness of an attack designed to destroy equipment,
create maximum casualties, or steal particularly sensitive
military weapons including information regarding the securing
and safeguarding of explosives, hazardous chemicals, or
pipelines, related to critical infrastructure or protected
systems owned or operated by or on behalf of the Department
of Defense, including vulnerability assessments prepared by
or on behalf of the Department, explosives safety information
(including storage and handling), and other site-specific
information on or relating to installation security.
(2) The term ``data file'' means a file of the Military
Flight Operations Quality Assurance system that contains
information acquired or generated by the Military Flight
Operations Quality Assurance system, including the following:
(A) Any data base containing raw Military Flight Operations
Quality Assurance data.
(B) Any analysis or report generated by the Military Flight
Operations Quality Assurance system or which is derived from
Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance data.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I offer an amendment to the National
Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, that would address an overbroad
exemption to the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, contained in the
bill. This amendment is supported by a broad coalition of open
government groups from across the political spectrum. I hope that the
Senate will adopt it.
For 45 years, the Freedom of Information Act has been a cornerstone
of open government and a hallmark of our democracy, ensuring that the
American people have access to their government's records. My amendment
will help ensure that FOIA remains a viable tool for access to
information that impacts the health and safety of the American public.
I am concerned that the exemption included in the NDAA would allow
the Department of Defense to keep secret important information that
Americans need to know to protect their own health and safety. For
example, there have been alarming reports about the Department of
Defense keeping citizens in the dark about health hazards, such as
groundwater contamination on military facilities, by claiming that this
information was a matter of national security. While I certainly
understand the need for the government to keep certain sensitive
information confidential, I believe this exemption goes too far.
This amendment adds a public interest balancing test to the Secretary
of Defense's determination about whether to withhold critical
infrastructure information from the public. This change will help
ensure that truly sensitive information is protected, while allowing
the public to obtain important information about potential health and
safety concerns. An essentially identical provision is contained in the
House-passed version of this bill.
The amendment I offer today will also revise the language in section
1044 related to Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance Systems to
ensure that truly sensitive flight information is protected, while
maintaining the public's interest in obtaining information about the
safety of military aircraft.
This amendment strikes an appropriate balance between safeguarding
the ability of the Department of Defense to perform its vital missions
and the public's right to know. I hope that all Senators will support
this commonsense amendment and that the Senate will adopt it without
delay.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of a letter in support of this
amendment be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

November 17, 2011.
Dear Senators: On behalf of the undersigned organizations,
we are writing to urge you to support an amendment offered by
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to fix an over-broad and ill-
defined provision relating to ``critical infrastructure
information,'' in Section 1044 of the National Defense
Authorization Act that could prevent the public from having
access to critical health and security information.
Section 1044, as written in the bill passed by the Senate
Armed Services Committee, grants the Secretary of Defense, or
his delegate, the authority to expand protections from public
disclosure for any information that could result in the
``disruption, degradation, or destruction'' of Department of
Defense (DoD) operations, property, or facilities. The
language defining ``critical infrastructure information'' is
exceedingly broad, encapsulating information that is crucial
for the public to understand public health and safety risks
and information already protected under one of the Freedom of
Information Act's (FOIA) other exemptions.
We believe that the provision is intended to address agency
concerns about protecting information since the Supreme Court
threw out the broad use of FOIA Exemption Two in Milner v.
Department of Navy. Granting DoD carte-blanche to withhold
information under an exceedingly broad and ill-defined rubric
of ``critical infrastructure information'' is not the right
step, especially given that DoD has misused such authority to
hide information in the past.
Between 1957 and 1987, the United States Marine Corps
knowingly allowed as many as one million Marines and their
family members at Camp Lejeune to be exposed to a host of
toxic chemicals, including known human carcinogens benzene
and vinyl chloride. Civilian employees who worked on the base
and people who live in the communities around the base near
Jacksonville, NC, are now reporting a high incidence of
cancers. For years, the Marine Corps kept this secret,
blocking many attempts to uncover the truth--even after the
first news of water contamination broke in 1987. Many FOIA
requests for information about the contamination were denied,
sometimes using Exemption Two in a way that is no longer
allowable after this year's Milner decision. The entire truth
about the incident only came to light in part from
information accidentally (and temporarily) posted on the
internet by the Marine Corps.
We support language in Senator Leahy's proposed amendment
that helps protect against such cover-ups by requiring DoD to
weigh whether there is an over-riding public interest in
disclosing the information and further protects public health
and safety by tightening the definition of ``critical
infrastructure security information'' to make it clear that
the Secretary may withhold only information that could
substantially increase effectiveness of a terrorist attack.
The Leahy Amendment also would slightly modify another
exemption to FOIA in Section 1044 for information in the data
files of the Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance
System, which we support, though we would prefer it to be
further narrowed or stricken altogether.
We urge you to pass the Leahy Amendment to narrow the
overly-broad Section 1044, and welcome an opportunity to
discuss this issue with you further. To reach our groups, you
or your staff may contact Patrice McDer-mott, Director of
OpenTheGovernment.org, at 202-332-6736 or
pmcdermottriOpenthegovernmentorg or Angela Canterbury,
Director of Public Policy at the Project On Government
Oversight, at 202-347-1122 or acanterburygpogo.org.
Sincerely,
3P Human Security; American Association of Law Libraries;
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression; American
Library Association; American Society of News Editors;
Association of Research Libraries; Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry's Camp Lejeune Community
Assistance Panel; Center for International Policy;
Californians Aware; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington--CREW; Defending Dissent Foundation; Environmental
Working Group; Essential Information; Federation of American

[[Page S7801]]

Scientists; Feminists for Free Expression; Freedom of
Information Center at the Missouri School of Journalism;
Friends of the Earth; Fund for Constitutional Government;
Government Accountability Project--GAP.
Heart of America Northwest; Just Foreign Policy; Liberty
Coalition; National Association of Social Workers, North
Carolina Chapter; National Coalition Against Censorship;
National Freedom of Information Coalition; Northern
California Association of Law Libraries; OMB Watch;
OpenTheGovernment.org; Project On Government Oversight--POGO;
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility--PEER;
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; Society of
Professional Journalists; Southwest Research and Information
Center; Special Libraries Association; Sunlight Foundation;
Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive
Environment); Washington Coalition for Open Government

Amendment No. 1186

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the
Leahy-Grassley amendment No. 1186, Fighting Fraud to Protect Taxpayers
Act, and it then be set aside.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for himself and Mr.
Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 1186.

(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text
of Amendments.'')
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to have joined once again with
Senator Grassley to offer the bipartisan Fighting Fraud to Protect
Taxpayers Act as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization
Act. Combating fraud is a vital issue on which we have a long track
record of working together, with great success. In these trying
economic times, cracking down on fraud, which has harmed so many
hardworking Americans, is more important than ever.
Fraud in military contracting and procurement is a persistent problem
which costs taxpayers millions and hurts our military men and women.
This amendment will help the critically important effort to crack down
on fraud in the military and elsewhere, and so including this amendment
with the Department of Defense authorization bill makes good sense. I
urge Senators from both parties to support this amendment.
One of the first major bills the last Congress passed was the Leahy-
Grassley Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act. That bill gave fraud
investigators and prosecutors additional tools and resources to better
hold those who commit fraud accountable and has led to significant
successes. Our work is not done though. Our amendment reflects the
ongoing need to invest in enforcement to better protect hardworking
taxpayers from fraud.
In the last fiscal year alone, the Department of Justice recovered
well over $6 billion through fines, penalties, and recoveries from
fraud cases--far more than it costs to investigate and prosecute these
matters. The recovery of these vast sums of money demonstrates that
investment in fraud enforcement pays for itself many times over.
The centerpiece provision of the Fighting Fraud to Protect Taxpayers
Act capitalizes on this rate of return by ensuring that a percentage of
money recovered by the government through fines and penalties is
reinvested in the investigation and prosecution of fraud cases. That
means that we can ensure more fraud enforcement, more returns to the
government, and more savings to taxpayers, all without spending new
taxpayer money.
The bill also makes other modest changes to promote accountability
and to ensure that prosecutors and investigators, including the Secret
Service, have the tools they need to combat fraud. For example, it
extends the international money laundering statute to tax evasion
crimes and increases key fines. The bill also promotes accountability
through increased reporting and transparency.
The renewed focus on fraud enforcement we have seen from Congress and
this administration has yielded significant results, but we must
continue to strengthen the tools that law enforcement has to root out
fraud. Hardworking, taxpaying Americans deserve to know that their
government is doing all it can to prevent fraud and hold those who
commit fraud accountable for their crimes. Fighting fraud and
protecting taxpayer dollars are issues Democrats and Republicans have
long worked together to address. I thank Senator Grassley for his
commitment to these issues, and ask all Senators to support this
amendment.

Amendment No. 1160 and Amendment No. 1253 En Bloc

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the pending
amendment to be set aside, and to call up amendment No. 1160 and
amendment No. 1253 en bloc.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] proposes amendments en
bloc numbered 1160 and 1253.

The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 1160

(Purpose: To provide for the closure of Umatilla Army Chemical Depot,
Oregon)

At the end of title XXVII, add the following:

SEC. 2705. CLOSURE OF UMATILLA CHEMICAL DEPOT, OREGON.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary of the Army shall close Umatilla Chemical
Depot, Oregon, not later than one year after the completion
of the chemical demilitarization mission in accordance with
the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty.
(b) BRAC Procedures and Authorities.--The closure of the
Umatilla Chemical Depot, Oregon, and subsequent management
and property disposal shall be carried out in accordance with
procedures and authorities contained in the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of
Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
(c) Compliance With Environmental Laws.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to affect or limit the application
of, or any obligation to comply with, any environmental law,
including the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et
seq.) and the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.).
(d) Retention of Property and Facilities.--The Secretary of
the Army may retain minimum essential ranges, facilities, and
training areas at Umatilla Chemical Depot totaling
approximately 7,500 acres as a training enclave for the
reserve components of the Armed Forces to permit the conduct
of individual and annual training.

amendment no. 1253

(Purpose: To provide for the retention of members of the reserve
components on active duty for a period of 45 days following an extended
deployment in contingency operations or homeland defense missions to
support their reintegration into civilian life)

At the end of subtitle B of title V, add the following:

SEC. 515. TEMPORARY RETENTION ON ACTIVE DUTY AFTER
DEMOBILIZATION OF RESERVES FOLLOWING EXTENDED
DEPLOYMENTS IN CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS OR
HOMELAND DEFENSE MISSIONS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 1209 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 12323. Reserves: temporary retention on active duty
after demobilization following extended deployments in
contingency operations or homeland defense missions

``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (d), a member of a
reserve component of the armed forces described in subsection
(b) shall be retained on active duty in the armed forces for
a period of 45 days following the conclusion of the member's
demobilization from a deployment as described in that
subsection, and shall be authorized the use of any accrued
leave.
``(b) Covered Members.--A member of a reserve component of
the armed forces described in this subsection is any member
of a reserve component of the armed forces who was deployed
for more than 269 days under the following:
``(1) A contingency operation.
``(2) A homeland defense mission (as specified by the
Secretary of Defense for purposes of this section).
``(c) Pay and Allowances.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, while a member is retained on active duty
under subsection (a), the member shall receive--
``(1) the basic pay payable to a member of the armed forces
under section 204 of title 37 in the same pay grade as the
member;
``(2) the basic allowance for subsistence payable under
section 402 of title 37; and
``(3) the basic allowance for housing payable under section
403 of title 37 for a member in the same pay grade,
geographic location, and number of dependents as the member.
``(d) Early Release From Active Duty.--(1) Subject to
paragraph (2), at the written request of a member retained on
active duty under subsection (a), the member shall be
released from active duty not later than the end of the 14-
day period commencing on the date the request was received.
If such 14-day

[[Page S7802]]

period would end after the end of the 45-day period specified
in subsection (a), the member shall be released from active
duty not later than the end of such 45-day period.
``(2) The request of a member for early release from active
duty under paragraph (1) may be denied only for medical or
personal safety reasons. The denial of the request shall
require the affirmative action of an officer in a grade above
O-5 who is in the chain of command of the member. If the
request is not denied before the end of the 14-day period
applicable under paragraph (1), the request shall be deemed
to be approved, and the member shall be released from active
duty as requested.
``(e) Treatment of Active Duty Under Policy on Limitation
of Period of Mobilization.--The active duty of a member under
this section shall not be included in the period of
mobilization of units or individuals under section 12302 of
this title under any policy of the Department of Defense
limiting the period of mobilization of units or individuals
to a specified period, including the policy to limit such
period of mobilization to 12 months as described in the
memorandum of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness entitled `Revised Mobilization/Demobilization
Personnel and Pay Policy for Reserve Component Members
Ordered to Active Duty in Response to the World Trade Center
and Pentagon Attacks-Section 1,' effective January 19, 2007.
``(f) Reintegration Counseling and Services.--(1) The
Secretary of the military department concerned may provide
each member retained on active duty under subsection (a),
while the member is so retained on active duty, counseling
and services to assist the member in reintegrating into
civilian life.
``(2) The counseling and services provided members under
this subsection may include the following:
``(A) Physical and mental health evaluations.
``(B) Employment counseling and assistance.
``(C) Marriage and family counseling and assistance.
``(D) Financial management counseling.
``(E) Education counseling.
``(F) Counseling and assistance on benefits available to
the member through the Department of Defense and the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
``(3) The Secretary of the military department concerned
shall provide, to the extent practicable, for the
participation of appropriate family members of members
retained on active duty under subsection (a) in the
counseling and services provided such members under this
subsection.
``(4) The counseling and services provided to members under
this subsection shall, to the extent practicable, be provided
at National Guard armories and similar facilities close the
residences of such members.
``(5) Counseling and services provided a member under this
subsection shall, to the extent practicable, be provided in
coordination with the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program of
the State concerned under section 582 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (10 U.S.C. 10101
note).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 1209 of such title is amended by adding
at the end the following new item:

``12323. Reserves: temporary retention on active duty after
demobilization following extended deployments in
contingency operations or homeland defense missions.''.

Amendment No. 1160

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this first amendment has previously passed
the Senate, and it would solve a problem created by the lawyers at the
Pentagon who, in effect, at the last minute on a critical issue for
eastern Oregon pulled the rug out from under our communities.
When we have a problem or conflict in our State, we solve it the
Oregon way, by finding consensus and building common ground. That is
why, when it became apparent 20 years ago that the U.S. Army's chemical
depot in Umatilla, OR would be closing once all the chemical weapons
were destroyed, the community leaders gathered all of the critical
organizations together and began the process of planning what to do
with the land once the facility closed.
The depot straddles two counties, several cities, and historic tribal
lands. So suffice it to say, there are a lot of folks at home in my
State who are interested in what happens to the land.
As progress was made in destroying the weapons at Umatilla, we were
able to find consensus. The Federal Government helped. More than $1
million in grants was made available to move the project along. When
the facility was listed in the 2005 BRAC recommendations for closure,
the Pentagon eventually recognized the organizations that were involved
in building this consensus in an official local reuse authority.
Everything appeared on track, until last summer. That was, in effect,
the time when at the last moment the Pentagon changed the rules.
After decades of planning and $1 million was spent pulling together
an extraordinary communitywide consensus, a lawyer at the Pentagon
decided to reinterpret the law and declared that the 2005 BRAC report,
which became law when Congress didn't pass a resolution of disapproval,
didn't matter. He decided that the Umatilla depot would be closed
outside of the BRAC authority because the last of the chemical weapons
wouldn't be destroyed until after the 6-year limit for completion of
BRAC actions.
What this lawyer either didn't know, or chose to ignore, is this was
precisely the intention of the BRAC Commission when they put the depot
on the closure list. The BRAC report discusses the fact that the
mission of destroying the chemical weapons wouldn't be completed until
after deadline.
On page 239 of the report, the Commission found Secretary Rumsfeld's
assertion that the chemical demilitarization would be complete by the
second quarter of 2001 was optimistic. The Commission wrote:

An examination of status information for the depot's
mission completion and subsequent closure revealed that dates
may slip beyond the six-year statutory period for completing
BRAC actions.

Therefore, the Commission took the Secretary of Defense's
recommendation: ``Close Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR'' and changed it
to: ``On completion of the chemical demilitarization mission, in
accordance with treaty operations, close Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR.''
These facts make it clear that the Commission did not, as this
Pentagon lawyer claimed, make a conditional recommendation that the
facility only be closed if the chemical demilitarization mission is
completed by September of 2011. Rather, the Commission acknowledged
that the closure will have to happen when the demilitarization mission
is complete, even if that is after September 2011. That decision by the
Commission became law.
It is also important to note that the Commission was aware that the
demilitarization mission had a deadline of its own. Under the terms of
the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty, Umatilla had to complete the
mission by April 29, 2012. The fact is, they actually beat the
deadline.
The depot should be closed under BRAC so that the will of the
community in the form of this local reuse authority and the will of
Congress and the BRAC law will be taken into account. The Pentagon has
to implement the law as it is, not as it wants it to be. But since the
lawyers at the Pentagon seem to think there is some ambiguity, I seek
to clarify it for them with my amendment. The amendment would require
the Pentagon to follow the BRAC commission's report and close the
Umatilla depot under BRAC.
Once again, I would like to note that this has already passed the
Senate once. I am very appreciative of Chairman Levin, Senator McCain,
and all our colleagues who are involved, and I thank them.

Amendment No. 1253

Briefly--and I appreciate the courtesy of Chairman Levin on this
matter--I want to discuss my second amendment, which I call the Soft
Landing Act. I think we all recognize the extraordinary contributions
that are made by our Guard and Reserve. They do tour after tour after
tour, and we all understand that never in our Nation's history has the
American military relied more on the Guard and Reserve than it has in
the last 10 years. More than 800,000 members of the Guard and Reserve
have been called to Active Duty since 9/11. As I indicated, they are
serving repeated tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I strongly believe that, for the period from when a Guard member is
holding a rifle to the time when they are holding a child back at home
in beautiful Oregon, there is not sufficient time being given in order
to have what I call a soft landing--an opportunity to reintegrate and
get your life back in order and get back into the community. What we
have is a very abrupt period where a soldier faces the trauma of combat
and comes right back to the community and really does not get an
adequate time to readjust. Literally in a matter of days, these
guardsmen go from holding guns in the chaos of a combat zone to holding
their children in the serenity of their own homes. It is a difficult
transition.

[[Page S7803]]

I want to make the point that it is a very different transition than
most of our Active-Duty troops have. Many of our Active-Duty troops
come back to communities that are close to facilities, close to bases.
There is a variety of support services. Many of the guardsmen come back
to communities that do not have the support of a large base.
It seems to me that the amount of personal and professional
requirements that are placed on these patriotic, courageous Americans
who serve in the Guard and Reserve warrants our making it possible for
them to have what I call a softer landing getting back into their home
communities.
I am very appreciative that Chairman Levin has given me the
opportunity to discuss this briefly. He and I and his staff have talked
about this before.
I will close by saying that to have all these men and women who have
served with great valor in the Guard and Reserve coming home--we all
understand they already face an unacceptably high unemployment rate. We
know that in many instances they feel strongly about taking the time to
get mental health services, to get back together again with their
families, and very often the time period simply is insufficient for
Guard members who come home. And right now, the reality can be pretty
harsh. They go and serve their country. Their families are concerned
about them being in harm's way for months on end, and then they come
back with no job and no source of income to be able to support their
families.
What this legislation does is provide a soft landing for Guard and
Reserve members by allowing returning guardsmen and reservists to take
up to 45 days--it is not a long period of time--to come back, get home,
get their lives in order, and still get paid. My view is that this is
part of the promise we have made in this country to take care of our
troops. They did their best for us. We ought to do our best for them.
I am hopeful that the soft landing amendment, amendment No. 1253,
will be included when this legislation passes here in the Senate.
I again express my appreciation to Chairman Levin. I know he is
speaking on an important matter. I thank him for working on both of
these amendments, and I look forward to working with him on these
matters. He is our authority on these issues. I appreciate his
courtesy.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Oregon. We
are happy to work with him. He is very deeply into these and so many
other issues. His contribution is well known to all of us in the
Senate. We are happy to work with him on these matters.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from New
Hampshire.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman of the
Armed Services Committee for such a thorough analysis of the detainee
provisions represented in section 1031 through 1034 of the Defense
authorization bill. This is a very important part of the Defense
authorization bill, and I certainly appreciate the thoughtful analysis
that the chairman did.
I would say that his thoughtful and detailed analysis addressed all
the red herrings that have been raised about these particular
provisions. Because if you read carefully the language in the
provisions that were addressed by the Armed Services Committee, they do
provide the flexibility that the administration says they have sought
in making the best decisions on how to treat detainees, particularly
those who become members of al-Qaida and come to our country to commit
an attack against our country. We have to make sure we have the right
provisions in place to protect Americans and the flexibility so the
executive branch officials are able to decide what is the best track to
handle a particular case or member of al-Qaida who comes to our country
to, unfortunately, attack us.
I also wish to remind this body that these provisions of the Defense
Authorization Act were passed out of the Senate Armed Services
Committee on an overwhelming bipartisan basis. In fact, the entire
Defense Authorization Act was voted out twice unanimously by the Armed
Services Committee, including on Monday of this week, when we again
voted out the entire provisions of this act unanimously.
So the particular provisions the chairman just discussed were the
result of extensive discussions not only within the committee but also
based upon testimony we heard over months from military officials
regarding concerns they had about the lack of clarity in our detention
policy, and that is where we came to the provisions in 1031 through
1034.
I wish to also remind this body there were many of us who would have
gone much further in terms of how we would handle members of al-Qaida
who come to our country to commit attacks against our citizens or those
who would commit attacks against our citizens or soldiers overseas and
our coalition partners. I brought forth an amendment on the CJS
appropriations minibus that would have prohibited funding altogether
for civilian trials of this same category for terrorists in the United
States. So I would have liked to have gone much further. But I respect
the amendment the committee voted out, which, in this instance,
addressed the administration's concerns of allowing the administration
a national security waiver to decide how to handle these cases whether
they wanted to take a military track or a civilian track based on the
national security interests of our country, which is, of course, what
has to be foremost in these cases.
I wish to again remind everyone of the problem we have, which is that
the priority, when we are dealing with a member of al-Qaida who is
seeking to attack our country, has to be intelligence gathering. We
have to make sure we give our executive branch agencies the tools they
need to be able to gather information to know about future attacks and
to protect our country.
What happens now in our civilian system is, if someone is arrested
here, if they are in the civilian system, they are given rights that
are part of our constitutional system, which is Miranda rights, for
example. If they are in custody and there is interrogation, they have
to be told they have the right to remain silent, that they have a right
to a lawyer, and that they have a right to speedy presentment. These
types of rights are incredibly important to our civilian system.
When we have a terrorist who is a member of al-Qaida, who is a
foreigner, and who comes to this country to attack our country, the
first thing they hear should not be ``you have the right to remain
silent.'' We have to allow our executive branch officials the ability
to make intelligence gathering the first priority. This amendment
allows that and gives the executive branch the ability to decide in
which system they want to treat them and to be able to prioritize
intelligence gathering so we can protect Americans and make sure if
someone who is a member of al-Qaida comes to our country to attack us,
we can gather information without immediately having to tell them ``you
have the right to remain silent.''
That is what is so important with this amendment. It was a bipartisan
compromise. As I said, there are Members of the Senate, including
myself, who would have liked to have gone much further. But we
addressed so many of the concerns of the administration they came up
with to make sure they had, with these provisions, the ability to not
have to interrupt an interrogation, to conduct the interrogation as
they saw fit, to make sure they could conduct ongoing surveillance, and
to decide whether a military or civilian track was best based on our
national security interests.
I will say just one thing with respect to the transfer provisions and
the concerns that have been raised about the provisions set forth for
transferring detainees from Guantanamo. This is an area that cried out
for some clarification, and it is important that the standard the
committee came up with is in statute. Actually, as the chairman
mentioned, the reason the committee addressed this is because our
defense officials raised some concerns about what the waiver provisions
should be from Guantanamo. This has been an area of interest of mine
because of where we are right now with the Guantanamo detainees.
Unfortunately, the reality is that 27 percent of those who have been
released from Guantanamo have gotten

[[Page S7804]]

back into the fight and are back trying to kill us, our troops, and our
coalition partners. This is an area where it was very important to have
clear standards: where transfer would only be appropriate in the
instances where we could ensure there wouldn't be recidivism so that we
could protect our troops and our partners from having to see the very
same individuals we had already had in custody at Guantanamo. So the
provisions set forth here are very important to have that statutory
standard for when transfers can be made and how they should be handled.
In fact, I would add, when we think about some of the detainees who
have gotten back into theater whom we had in our custody at Guantanamo,
they are conducting suicide bombings, recruiting radicals, and training
them to kill Americans and our allies. Some of the former Gitmo
detainees--and I think unfortunately it is a little bit of a badge of
honor now to get back into theater and to be engaged in fighting again.
Said al-Shihri and Abdul Zakir represent two examples of former
Guantanamo detainees who returned to the fight and assumed leadership
positions in terrorist organizations that are dedicated to killing
Americans and our allies. Said al-Shihri has worked his way up to be
No. 2 in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. We had him in our custody
and, unfortunately, he was released. Abdul Zakir now serves as a top
Taliban military commander and a senior leader in the Taliban Quetta
Shura again fighting us and our allies.
Again, I am concerned that in the world of terrorists it has become a
badge of honor to be released from Guantanamo and then to get back into
the fight against us. So I just wanted to put in perspective what we
heard from our senior defense officials over a period of months in the
Armed Services Committee as to why it is important to have a standard
that allows the Department of Defense, under limited circumstances and
based on protecting our country, to transfer the detainees, but only
when we have addressed the issue of recidivism and they are assured
that these individuals aren't going to get back in theater and try to
kill American soldiers or our allies. That is why this provision is in
here, and I am very pleased it is in here to make sure we address this
important issue to keep Americans protected and our allies protected.

I will repeat again that this was a bipartisan compromise. This
morning the chairman very thoroughly went through each of the issues
raised in the Statement of Administration Policy. Also, in my view, he
thoroughly knocked down many of the red herrings that were raised about
this provision on the Senate floor yesterday by Senators who are
seeking to strike this provision from the Defense Authorization Act.
It is important that this body pass this Defense authorization. It is
important for not only these provisions, but also so many of the
provisions of this Defense authorization that give our troops the tools
they need, as we tell them we are here to support them, to make sure we
move forward with the Defense authorization, including these important
provisions that address how we handle detainees.
Again, I wish to thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee
for his leadership on this issue. I know he has worked very hard in
meeting with the administration, meeting with those of us on the other
side of the aisle who actually wanted to go much further in coming up
with a very strong, important piece of legislation that will protect
Americans and move us forward and provide some clarity in an area where
we need clarity to make sure our executive branch officials have the
tools they need to gather intelligence to protect Americans from the
terrorist attacks because, unfortunately, those who are members of al-
Qaida still seek to kill us for what we believe, not for anything we
have done, and we can't forget that.
So I thank the chairman.

Amendments Nos. 1179, 1230, 1137, 1138, 1247, 1246, 1229, 1230 as
Modified, 1249, 1071, 1220, 1132, 1248, 1250, and 1118 En Bloc

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of other
Republican Senators to temporarily set aside the pending amendment and
call up the following amendments en bloc: amendment No. 1179 on behalf
of Senator Graham; amendment No. 1230 on behalf of Senator McCain;
amendment No. 1137 on behalf of Senator Heller related to the U.S.
Embassy in Israel; also for Senator Heller, amendment No. 1138 related
to the repatriation of U.S. military remains from Libya; for Senator
McCain, amendment No. 1247 related to further restrictions on the use
of defense funds on Guam; for Senator McCain, amendment No. 1246
related to a commission for U.S. military force structure in the
Pacific; for Senator McCain, amendment No. 1229 related to a
cybersecurity agreement between the Department of Defense and the
Department of Homeland Security; for Senator McCain, amendment No.
1230, as modified, related to the annual adjustment in enrollment fees
for TRICARE Prime; for Senator McCain, amendment No. 1249 related to
cost-plus contracting--and this is also an amendment that I am
cosponsoring; for Senator McCain, amendment No. 1071 related to the
oversight of the evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle; for Senator McCain,
amendment No. 1220 related to a GAO report of Alaskan Native
Corporation contracting; for Senator McCain, amendment No. 1132 related
to a Statement of Budgetary Resource Auditability; for Senator McCain,
amendment No. 1248 related to authorizing ship repairs in the Northern
Marianas; for Senator McCain, amendment No. 1250 related to a report on
the probation of the F-35B program; for Senator McCain, amendment No.
1118 to modify the availability of surcharges collected by commissary
stores.
I have to make a clarification on an amendment I previously offered
on behalf of Senator McCain: amendment No. 1230, as modified, Senator
McCain's amendment on TRICARE.
I ask unanimous consent from the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee to allow the Senator from Alabama to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, before the Chair recognizes our friend from
Alabama, let me thank the Senator from New Hampshire not just for her
kind and warm remarks, but also for the great contribution she has made
to our committee. It has been an extraordinary launch for her, if I may
put it that way. I think--and I know our Presiding Officer would agree
with me on this because he has been a witness as well--it has been a
major contribution.
I thank the Senator. She has the kind of experience and is so
committed to the security of this country that the Senator is already
venerable as a member of our committee.
I yield the floor.
Ms. AYOTTE. I thank the chairman. He is very kind, and it has been
wonderful to serve under his leadership on the Armed Services
Committee, of which I would say, one of the great experiences in the
Senate is that the Armed Services Committee--in a time when people see
so much partisan--works on a very strong, bipartisan basis to ensure
our country is protected.
With that, I would yield to my colleague who also serves on the Armed
Services Committee, whom I have great respect for, Senator Sessions
from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments the Senator
from New Hampshire has offered will be considered to have been read and
will be considered in the order they have been offered.
The amendments en bloc are as follows:

amendment no. 1179

(Purpose: To specify the number of judge advocates of the Air Force in
the regular grade of brigadier general)

At the end of subtitle A of title V, add the following:

SEC. 505. NUMBER OF JUDGE ADVOCATES OF THE AIR FORCE IN THE
REGULAR GRADE OF BRIGADIER GENERAL.

Section 8037 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new
subsection (f):
``(f) Four officers of the Air Force designated as judge
advocates shall hold the regular grade of brigadier
general.''.

amendment no. 1137

(Purpose: To provide for the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of
Israel and the relocation to Jerusalem of the United States Embassy in
Israel)

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

[[Page S7805]]

SEC. 1088. RECOGNITION OF JERUSALEM AS THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL
AND RELOCATION OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSY TO
JERUSALEM.

(a) Statement of Policy.--It is the policy of the United
States to recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the
state of Israel, both de jure and de facto.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the
rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected as
they have been by Israel since 1967;
(2) every citizen of Israel should have the right to reside
anywhere in the undivided city of Jerusalem;
(3) the President and the Secretary of State should
publicly affirm as a matter of United States policy that
Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of the State of
Israel;
(4) the President should immediately implement the
provisions of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law
104-45) and begin the process of relocating the United States
Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem; and
(5) United States officials should refrain from any actions
that contradict United States law on this subject.
(c) Amendment of Waiver Authority.--The Jerusalem Embassy
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-45) is amended--
(1) by striking section 7; and
(2) by redesignating section 8 as section 7.
(d) Identification of Jerusalem on Government Documents.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any official
document of the United States Government which lists
countries and their capital cities shall identify Jerusalem
as the capital of Israel.

amendment no. 1138

(Purpose: To provide for the exhumation and transfer of remains of
deceased members of the Armed Forces buried in Tripoli, Libya)

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1088. EXHUMATION AND TRANSFER OF REMAINS OF DECEASED
MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES BURIED IN TRIPOLI,
LIBYA.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall take
whatever actions may be necessary to--
(1) exhume the remains of any deceased members of the Armed
Forces of the United States buried at a burial site described
in subsection (b);
(2) transfer such remains to an appropriate forensics
laboratory to be identified;
(3) in the case of any remains that are identified,
transport the remains to a veterans cemetery located in
proximity, as determined by the Secretary, to the closest
living family member of the deceased individual or at another
cemetery as determined by the Secretary;
(4) for any member of the Armed Forces whose remains are
identified, provide a military funeral and burial; and
(5) in the case of any remains that cannot be identified,
transport the remains to Arlington National Cemetery for
interment at a an appropriate grave marker identifying the
United States Navy Sailors of the USS Intrepid who gave their
lives on September 4, 1804, in Tripoli, Libya.
(b) Burial Sites Described.--The burial sites described in
this subsection are the following:
(1) The mass burial site containing the remains of five
United States sailors located in Protestant Cemetery in
Tripoli, Libya.
(2) The mass burial site containing the remains of eight
United States sailors located near the walls of the Tripoli
Castle in Tripoli, Libya.
(c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the effective
date of this section, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report describing the status of the actions under this
section. The report shall include an estimate of the date of
the completion of the actions undertaken, and to be
undertaken, under this section.
(d) Effective Date.--This section takes effect on the date
on which Operation Unified Protector of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO), or any successor operation,
terminates.
(e) Available Funds.--The Secretary shall carry out this
section using amounts authorized to be appropriated for the
Department of Defense by Acts enacted before the date of the
enactment of this Act.

amendment no. 1247

(Purpose: To restrict the authority of the Secretary of Defense to
develop public infrastructure on Guam until certain conditions related
to Guam realignment have been met)

Beginning on page 534, strike line 8 and all that follows
through page 535, line 17, and insert the following:
(a) Restriction on Use of Funds.--None of the funds
authorized to be appropriated under this title, or amounts
provided by the Government of Japan for military construction
activities on land under the jurisdiction of the Department
of Defense, may be obligated or expended to implement the
realignment of United States Marine Corps forces from Okinawa
to Guam as envisioned in the United States-Japan Roadmap for
Realignment Implementation issued May 1, 2006, until--
(1) the Commandant of the Marine Corps provides the
congressional defense committees the Commandant's preferred
force lay-down for the United States Pacific Command Area of
Responsibility;
(2) the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional
defense committees a master plan for the construction of
facilities and infrastructure to execute the Commandant's
preferred force lay-down on Guam, including a detailed
description of costs and a schedule for such construction;
(3) the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional
defense committees that tangible progress has been made
regarding the relocation of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma;
and
(4) a plan coordinated by all pertinent Federal agencies is
provided to the congressional defense committees detailing
descriptions of work, costs, and a schedule for completion of
construction, improvements, and repairs to the non-military
utilities, facilities, and infrastructure on Guam affected by
the realignment of forces.
(b) Restriction on Development of Public Infrastructure.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary of Defense is prohibited from using the
authority provided by section 2391 of title 10, United States
Code, to carry out any grant, cooperative agreement, or
supplement of funds available under Federal programs
administered by agencies other than the Department of Defense
provided under this section that will result in the
development (including repair, replacement, renovation,
conversion, improvement, expansion, acquisition, or
construction) of public infrastructure on Guam until the
requirements under subsection (a) are satisfied.
(2) Public infrastructure defined.--In this section, the
term ``public infrastructure'' means any utility, method of
transportation, item of equipment, or facility under the
control of a public entity or State or local government that
is used by, or constructed for the benefit of, the general
public.

amendment no. 1246

(Purpose: To establish a commission to study the United States Force
Posture in East Asia and the Pacific region)

Strike section 1079 and insert the following:

SEC. 1079. COMMISSION TO STUDY UNITED STATES FORCE POSTURE IN
EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC REGION.

(a) Independent Assessment.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall establish a
commission to conduct an independent assessment of America's
security interests in East Asia and the Pacific region. The
commission shall be supported by an independent, non-
governmental institute which is described in section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt
from tax under section 501(a) of such Code, and has
recognized credentials and expertise in national security and
military affairs with ready access to policy experts
throughout the country and from the region.
(2) Elements.--The commission established pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall assess the following elements:
(A) A review of current and emerging United States national
security interests in the East Asia and Pacific region.
(B) A review of current United States military force
posture and deployment plans, with an emphasis on the current
plans for United States force realignments in Okinawa and
Guam.
(C) Options for the realignment of United States forces in
the region to respond to new opportunities presented by
allies and partners.
(D) The views of noted policy leaders and regional experts,
including military commanders in the region.
(b) Members of the Commission.--
(1) Composition.--For purposes of conducting the assessment
required by paragraph (a), the commission established shall
include eight members as follows:
(A) Two appointed by the chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives.
(B) Two appointed by the chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate.
(C) Two appointed by the ranking member of the Committee on
Armed Services of the House of Representatives.
(D) Two appointed by the ranking member of the Committee on
Armed Services of the Senate.
(2) Qualifications.--Individuals appointed to the
commission shall have significant experience in the national
security or foreign policy of the United States.
(3) Deadline for appointment.--Appointments of the members
of the commission shall be made not later than 60 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(4) Chairman and vice chairman.--The commission shall
select a Chairman and Vice Chairman from among it members.
(5) Tenure; vacancies.--Members shall be appointed for the
life of the commission. Any vacancy in the commission shall
not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner
as the original appointment.
(6) Meetings.--
(A) Initial meeting.--Not later than 14 days after the date
on which all members of the commission have been appointed,
the commission shall hold its first meeting.
(B) Calling of the chairman.--The commission shall meet at
the call of the Chairman.
(C) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the commission
shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may
hold hearings.

[[Page S7806]]

(c) Report.--Not later than 270 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the commission shall provide to the
Secretary of Defense an unclassified report, with a
classified annex, containing its findings. Not later than 90
days after the date of receipt of the report, the Secretary
of Defense, after consultation with the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, shall transmit the report to the
congressional defense committees, together with such comments
on the report as the Secretary considers appropriate.
(d) Powers.--
(1) Hearings.--The commission may hold such hearings, sit
and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and
receive such evidence as the commission considers advisable
to carry out this section.
(2) Information sharing.--The commission may secure
directly from any Federal department or agency such
information as the commission considers necessary to carry
out this section. Upon request of the Chairman of the
commission, the head of such department or agency shall
furnish such information to the commission.
(3) Administrative support.--Upon request of the
commission, the Administrator of General Services shall
provide to the commission, on a reimbursable basis, the
administrative support necessary for the commission to carry
out its duties under this section.
(4) Mails.--The commission may use the United States mails
in the same manner and under the same conditions as other
departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
(5) Gifts.--The commission may accept, use, and dispose of
gifts or donations of services or property.
(e) Personnel Matters.--
(1) Compensation of members.--Each member of the commission
who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government
shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent
of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of
the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day (including travel time) during
which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties
of the commission under this section. All members of the
commission who are officers or employees of the United States
shall serve without compensation in addition to that received
for their services as officers or employees of the United
States.
(2) Travel.--Members of the commission shall be allowed
travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence,
at rates authorized for employees of agencies under
subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code,
while away from their homes or regular places of business in
the performance of services for the commission under this
section.
(3) Staffing.--
(A) Executive director.--The Chairman of the commission
may, without regard to the civil service laws and
regulations, appoint and terminate an executive director and
such other additional personnel as may be necessary to enable
the commission to perform its duties under this section. The
employment of an executive director shall be subject to
confirmation by the commission.
(B) Staff.--The commission may employ a staff to assist the
commission in carrying out its duties.
(C) Compensation.--The Chairman of the commission may fix
the compensation of the executive director and other
personnel without regard to chapter 51 and subchapter III of
chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, relating to
classification of positions and General Schedule pay rates,
except that the rate of pay for the executive director and
other personnel may not exceed the rate payable for level V
of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
(4) Details.--Any employee of the Department of Defense or
the Department of State may be detailed to the commission
without reimbursement, and such detail shall be without
interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege.
(5) Temporary and intermittent services.--The Chairman of
the commission may procure temporary and intermittent
services under section 3109(b) of title 5, United States
Code, at rates for individuals which do not exceed the daily
equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for
level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such
title.
(f) Security.--
(1) Security clearances.--Members and staff of the
commission, and any experts and consultants to the
commission, shall possess security clearances appropriate for
their duties with the commission under this section.
(2) Information security.--The Secretary of Defense shall
assume responsibility for the handling and disposition of any
information relating to the national security of the United
States that is received, considered, or used by the
commission under this section.
(g) Termination of Panel.--The Panel shall terminate 45
days after the date on which the Panel submits its final
report under subsection (c).

amendment no. 1229

(Purpose: To provide for greater cybersecurity collaboration between
the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security)

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1088. CYBERSECURITY COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY.

(a) Interdepartmental Collaboration.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary
of Homeland Security shall provide personnel, equipment, and
facilities in order to increase interdepartmental
collaboration with respect to--
(A) strategic planning for the cybersecurity of the United
States;
(B) mutual support for cybersecurity capabilities
development; and
(C) synchronization of current operational cybersecurity
mission activities.
(2) Efficiencies.--The collaboration provided for under
paragraph (1) shall be designed--
(A) to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
requirements formulation and requests for products, services,
and technical assistance for, and coordination and
performance assessment of, cybersecurity missions executed
across a variety of Department of Defense and Department of
Homeland Security elements; and
(B) to leverage the expertise of each individual Department
and to avoid duplicating, replicating, or aggregating
unnecessarily the diverse line organizations across
technology developments, operations, and customer support
that collectively execute the cybersecurity mission of each
Department.
(b) Responsibilities.--
(1) Department of homeland security.--The Secretary of
Homeland Security shall identify and assign, in coordination
with the Department of Defense, a Director of Cybersecurity
Coordination within the Department of Homeland Security to
undertake collaborative activities with the Department of
Defense.
(2) Department of defense.--The Secretary of Defense shall
identify and assign, in coordination with the Department of
Homeland Security, one or more officials within the
Department of Defense to coordinate, oversee, and execute
collaborative activities and the provision of cybersecurity
support to the Department of Homeland Security.

amendment no. 1230, as modified

(Purpose: To modify the annual adjustment in enrollment fees for
TRICARE Prime)

On page 220, strike line 13 and all that follows through
page 221, line 6, and insert the following:
``(c) Cost-of-living Adjustment in Enrollment Fee.--(1)(A)
Whenever after September 30, 2011, and before October 1,
2012, the Secretary of Defense increases the retired pay of
members and former members of the armed forces pursuant to
section 1401a of this title, the Secretary shall increase the
amount of the fee payable for enrollment in TRICARE Prime by
an amount equal to the percentage of such fee payable on the
day before the date of the increase of such fee that is equal
to the percentage increase in such retired pay. In
determining the amount of the increase in such retired pay
for purposes of this subparagraph, the Secretary shall use
the amount computed pursuant to section 1401a(b)(2) of this
title.
``(B) Effective as of October 1, 2013, the Secretary shall
increase the amount of the fee payable for enrollment in
TRICARE Prime on an annual basis by a percentage equal to the
percentage of the most recent annual increase in the National
Health Expenditures per capita, as published by the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
``(C) Any increase under this paragraph in the fee payable
for enrollment shall be effective as of October 1 following
the date on which such increase is made.
``(2) The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register
the amount of the fee payable for enrollment in TRICARE Prime
whenever increased pursuant to this subsection.''.
(b) Clarification of Application for 2013.--For purposes of
determining the enrollment fees for TRICARE Prime for 2013
under the first sentence of section 1097a(c) of title 10,
United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), the amount
of the enrollment fee in effect during 2012 shall be deemed
to be the following:
(1) $260 for individual enrollment.
(2) $520 for family enrollment.

amendment no. 1249

(Purpose: To limit the use of cost-type contracts by the Department of
Defense for major defense acquisition programs)

At the end of subtitle A of title VIII, add the following:

SEC. 808. LIMITATION ON USE OF COST-TYPE CONTRACTS.

(a) Prohibition With Respect to Production of Major Defense
Acquisition Programs.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
modify the acquisition regulations of the Department of
Defense to prohibit the Department from entering into cost-
type contracts for the production of major defense
acquisition programs (MDAPs).
(2) Exception for joint urgent operational needs.--The
prohibition under subsection (a) shall not apply in the case
of a particular cost-plus contract if the Under Secretary for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics--
(A) certifies, in writing, with reasons, and on the basis
of a validation of a joint urgent operational need by the
Joint Requirements Oversight Council, that a cost-type
contract is needed to provide capability required to satisfy
a joint urgent operational need; and

[[Page S7807]]

(B) provides the certification to the congressional defense
committees not later than 30 business before issuing a
solicitation for the production of a major defense
acquisition program.
(b) Conditions With Respect to Development of Major Defense
Acquisition Programs.--Section 818(d) of the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(Public Law 109-364; 120 Stat. 2329; 10 U.S.C. 2306 note) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(3) all reasonable efforts have been made to define the
requirements sufficiently to allow for the use of a fixed-
price contract for the development of the major defense
acquisition program; and
``(4) despite these efforts, the Department of Defense
cannot define requirements sufficiently to allow for the use
of a fixed-price contract for the development of the major
defense acquisition program.''.
(c) Reporting of Cost-type Development Contracts.--Not
later than 30 business days before issuing a solicitation for
the development of a major defense acquisition program, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional
defense committees notice of the proposed award and the
written determinations required under paragraphs (1) and (4)
of section 818(d) of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, as amended by
subsection (b), and the reasons supporting the
determinations.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Major defense acquisition program.--The term ``major
defense acquisition program'' has the meaning given the term
in section 2430(a) of title 10, United States Code.
(2) Production of a major defense acquisition program.--The
term ``production of a major defense acquisition program''
means the production, either on a low-rate initial production
or full-rate production basis, and deployment of a major
system that is intended to achieve operational capability
that satisfies mission needs, or any activity otherwise
defined as Milestone C, or Key Decision Point C in the case
of a space program, under Department of Defense Instruction
5000.02 or related authorities.
(3) Development of a major defense acquisition program.--
The term ``development of a major defense acquisition
program'' means the development of a major defense
acquisition program or related increment of capability, the
completion of full system integration, the development of an
affordable and executable manufacturing process, the
demonstration of system integration, interoperability,
safety, and utility, or any activity otherwise defined as
Milestone B, or Key Decision Point B in the case of a space
program, under Department of Defense Instruction 5000.02 or
related authorities.

AMENDMENT NO. 1071

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to report on all
information with respect to the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
program that would be required if the program were designated as a
major defense acquisition program not in the sustainment phase)

At the end of subtitle E of title VIII, add the following:

SEC. 889. OVERSIGHT OF AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS WITH
RESPECT TO EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE
PROGRAM.

The Secretary of Defense shall--
(1) redesignate the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
program as a major defense acquisition program not in the
sustainment phase under section 2430 of title 10, United
States Code; or
(2) require the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program--
(A) to provide to the congressional defense committees all
information with respect to the cost, schedule, and
performance of the program that would be required to be
provided under sections 2431 (relating to weapons development
and procurement schedules), 2432 (relating to Select
Acquisition Reports, including updated program life-cycle
cost estimates), and 2433 (relating to unit cost reports) of
title 10, United States Code, with respect to the program if
the program were designated as a major defense acquisition
program not in the sustainment phase; and
(B) to provide to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics--
(i) a quarterly cost and status report, commonly known as a
Defense Acquisition Executive Summary, which serves as an
early-warning of actual and potential problems with a program
and provides for possible mitigation plans; and
(ii) earned value management data that contains
measurements of contractor technical, schedule, and cost
performance.

AMENDMENT NO. 1220

(Purpose: To require Comptroller General of the United States reports
on the Department of Defense implementation of justification and
approval requirements for certain sole-source contracts)

At the end of subtitle C of title VIII, add the following:

SEC. 848. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES REPORTS ON
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IMPLEMENTATION OF
JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
CERTAIN SOLE-SOURCE CONTRACTS.

Not later than 90 days after March 1, 2012, and March 1,
2013, the dates on which the Department of Defense submits to
Congress a report on its implementation of section 811 of the
Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report setting forth an
assessment of the extent to which the implementation of such
section 811 by the Department ensures that sole-source
contracts are awarded in applicable procurements only when
those awards have been determined to be in the best interest
of the Department.

AMENDMENT NO. 1132

(Purpose: To require a plan to ensure audit readiness of statements of
budgetary resources)

At the end of subtitle A of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1005. PLAN TO ENSURE AUDIT READINESS OF STATEMENTS OF
BUDGETARY RESOURCES.

(a) Planning Requirement.--The report to be issued pursuant
to section 1003(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for 2010 (Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2440; 10 U.S.C. 2222
note) and provided by not later than May 15, 2012, shall
include a plan, including interim objectives and a schedule
of milestones for each military department and for the
defense agencies, to ensure that the statement of budgetary
resources of the Department of Defense meets the goal
established by the Secretary of Defense of being validated
for audit by not later than September 30, 2014. Consistent
with the requirements of such section, the plan shall ensure
that the actions to be taken are systemically tied to process
and control improvements and business systems modernization
efforts necessary for the Department to prepare timely,
reliable, and complete financial management information on a
repeatable basis.
(b) Semiannual Updates.--The reports to be issued pursuant
to such section after the report described in subsection (a)
shall update the plan required by such subsection and explain
how the Department has progressed toward meeting the
milestones established in the plan.

AMENDMENT NO. 1248

(Purpose: To expand the authority for the overhaul and repair of
vessels to the United States, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands)

At the end of subtitle C of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1024. AUTHORITY FOR OVERHAUL AND REPAIR OF VESSELS IN
COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS.

Section 7310(a) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``United States
or Guam'' and inserting ``United States, Guam, or the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands''; and
(2) by striking ``United States or Guam'' both places it
appears and inserting ``United States, Guam, or the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands''.

AMENDMENT NO. 1250

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the
probationary period in the development of the short take-off, vertical
landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter)

At the end of subtitle D of title I, add the following:

SEC. 158. REPORT ON PROBATIONARY PERIOD IN DEVELOPMENT OF
SHORT TAKE-OFF, VERTICAL LANDING VARIANT OF THE
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER.

Not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on the development
of the short take-off, vertical landing variant of the Joint
Strike Fighter (otherwise known as the F-35B Joint Strike
Fighter) that includes the following:
(1) An identification of the criteria that the Secretary
determines must be satisfied before the F-35B Joint Strike
Fighter can be removed from the two-year probationary status
imposed by the Secretary on or about January 6, 2011.
(2) A mid-probationary period assessment of--
(A) the performance of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter based
on the criteria described in paragraph (1); and
(B) the technical issues that remain in the development
program for the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter.
(3) A plan for how the Secretary intends to resolve the
issues described in paragraph (2)(B) before January 6, 2013.

AMENDMENT NO. 1118

(Purpose: To modify the availability of surcharges collected by
commissary stores)

At the end of subtitle E of title III, add the following:

SEC. 346. MODIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY OF SURCHARGES
COLLECTED BY COMMISSARY STORES.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1)(A) of section 2484(h) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking clauses
(i) and (ii) and inserting the following new clauses:
``(i) to replace, renovate, expand, improve, repair, and
maintain commissary stores and central product processing
facilities of the defense commissary system;

[[Page S7808]]

``(ii) to acquire (including acquisition by lease),
convert, or construct such commissary stores and central
product processing facilities as are authorized by law;
``(iii) to equip the physical infrastructure of such
commissary stores and central product processing facilities;
and
``(iv) to cover environmental evaluation and construction
costs related to activities described in clauses (i) and
(ii), including costs for surveys, administration, overhead,
planning, and design.''.
(b) Source and Availability of Certain Funds.--Such section
is further amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(6)(A) There shall be credited to the `Surcharge
Collections, Sales of Commissary Stores, Defense Commissary'
account on the books of the Treasury receipts from sources or
activities identified in the following:
``(i) Paragraph (5).
``(ii) Subsections (c), (d), and (g).
``(iii) Subsections (e), (g), and (h) of section 2485 of
this title.
``(B)(i) Funds may not be appropriated for the account
referred to in subparagraph (A), or appropriated for transfer
into the account, unless such appropriation or transfer is
specifically authorized in an Act authorizing appropriations
for military activities of the Department of Defense.
``(ii) Funds appropriated for or transferred into the
account in accordance with clause (i) may not be merged with
amounts within the account.
``(iii) Funds appropriated for or transferred into the
account in accordance with clause (i) shall not be available
to acquire, convert, construct, or improve a commissary store
or central product processing facility of the defense
commissary system unless specifically authorized in an Act
authorizing military construction for the Department of
Defense.''.

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator from Alabama, our friend, would yield for
one second.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. We are then on the regular order; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The regular order will
be restored.
Mr. LEVIN. So the regular order is the Levin-McCain amendment; is
that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I do believe the Defense authorization
bill has been moved in the way more legislation needs to be handled in
the Congress. I am confident that is in large part due to the
leadership of Senator Levin, who is a professional, skilled lawyer, who
knows the big picture and the small details of the legislation. It has
been a pleasure to work with him over the years. I have learned a great
deal about our defense from him and how legislation is enacted. So I
want to express my appreciation for that.
And I thank Senator McCain, who brings a vast knowledge of defense
and military issues, and who is courageous in defending what he
believes the legitimate interests of the United States are. That has
been a real pleasure.
I will join Senator Levin in thanking Senator Ayotte for her
leadership. Her contributions to our committee have been immediate, and
that is reflected in the fact that Senator McCain has asked her to
manage the floor today for him. I also appreciate the Senator's work on
the budget and the effort we have made there.

Amendments Nos. 1182, 1183, 1184, 1185, and 1274 en Bloc

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the
pending amendment and call up the following amendments en bloc:
amendment No. 1182, dealing with Army brigade combat teams; amendment
No. 1183, dealing with the nuclear triad; amendment No. 1184, dealing
with naval surface vessels; amendment No. 1185, dealing with missile
defense; and amendment No. 1274, dealing with the detention of enemy
combatants.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, those amendments are
considered pending in that order.
The amendments en bloc are as follows:

amendment no. 1182

(Purpose: To prohibit the permanent stationing of more than two Army
Brigade Combat Teams within the geographic boundaries of the United
States European Command)

At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1049. PROHIBITION ON PERMANENT STATIONING OF MORE THAN
TWO ARMY BRIGADE COMBAT TEAMS WITHIN UNITED
STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND.

(a) In General.--Effective as of January 1, 2016, the
number of Army Brigade Combat Teams that may be permanently
stationed within the geographic boundaries of the United
States European Command (EUCOM) may not exceed two brigade
combat teams.
(b) Military Construction.--No military construction
project may be commenced or undertaken for or in connection
with or support of the permanent stationing of more than two
Army Brigade Combat Teams within the geographic boundaries of
the United States European Command.

amendment no. 1183

(Purpose: To require the maintenance of a triad of strategic nuclear
delivery systems)

At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1049. MAINTENANCE OF A TRIAD OF STRATEGIC NUCLEAR
DELIVERY SYSTEMS.

The Secretary of Defense shall take appropriate actions to
maintain for the United States a range of strategic nuclear
delivery systems appropriate for the current and anticipated
threats faced by the United States, including a triad of sea-
based, land-based, and air-based strategic nuclear delivery
systems.

amendment no. 1184

(Purpose: To limit any reduction in the number of surface combatants of
the Navy below 313 vessels)

At the end of subtitle C of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1024. LIMITATION ON REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF SURFACE
COMBATANTS OF THE NAVY BELOW 313 VESSELS.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The 2011 Shipbuilding Plan of the Navy contemplates a
baseline of 313 surface combatants in the Navy.
(2) The national security of the United States requires
that the shipbuilding activities of the Navy ensure a Navy
composed of at least 313 surface combatants.
(3) It is in the national interest that the future-years
defense programs of the Department of Defense provide for a
Navy composed of at least 313 surface combatants.
(b) Limitation.--The Secretary of the Navy may not carry
out any reduction in the number of surface combatants of the
Navy below 313 surface combatants unless the Secretary, after
consultation with the commanders of the combatant commands,
certifies to Congress that the Navy will continue to possess
the capacity to support the requirements of the combatant
commands after such reduction.

amendment no. 1185

(Purpose: To require a report on a missile defense site on the East
Coast of the United States)

At the end of subtitle C of title II, add the following:

SEC. 234. REPORT ON MISSILE DEFENSE SITE ON THE EAST COAST OF
THE UNITED STATES.

(a) Finding.--Congress finds that the Obama Administration
plans to limit or cancel the deployment of the European
Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) to missile defense.
(b) Report.--In light of the finding in subsection (a), the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report setting forth an assessment of
the feasibility and advisability of establishing a missile
defense site on the East Coast of the United States.

amendment no. 1274

(Purpose: To clarify the disposition under the law of war of persons
detained by the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to the
Authorization for Use of Military Force)

On page 360, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
(5) Notwithstanding disposition under paragraph (2) or (3),
further detention under the law of war until the end of
hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of
Military Force.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to share a few general comments
about where we are. All of us have been confronting, whether we want to
or not--I think some of us more realistically than others--the debt
situation this Nation faces. We are, indeed, borrowing 40 cents of
every $1 we spend. That is an unsustainable path. We have already had 3
consecutive years of deficits exceeding $1 trillion, and we are
projected to have another trillion-dollar deficit next year.
The debt under President Obama has now increased by 42 percent in the
first 3 years of his term in office. It is an unsustainable course. We
have to do better.
The National Defense Authorization Act represents our committee's
vision for defense in the future. We have done something about the
spending problem America has. As we calculate the numbers, we are down
from $548 billion--in actual money spent on the Defense Department last
year--to $527 billion this year, an actual reduction, in noninflation-
adjusted dollars, of over $20 billion, which represents about a 5-
percent reduction, a 4-percent reduction in defense spending.

[[Page S7809]]

That is what all of our accounts should be doing. But, indeed, that
is not happening. In the other aspects of discretionary spending--
defense being the largest portion of discretionary spending in the
Congress--the other agencies and departments are not showing a
reduction at all. Indeed, they are showing an increase, even after
nondefense discretionary spending increased 24 percent in the first 2
years under President Obama.
Some think the base defense budget has been surging--and it has been
increasing over the last decade--but it has increased 84 percent over
the past decade. I will note that Medicaid, for example, has increased
over 100 percent. Food stamps are now up to $80 billion this year. It
is four times what it was in 2001, from $20 billion to about $80
billion.
So defense has not been surging out of proportion, I would suggest,
to the other spending programs in our government. In fact, it has been
increasing, even in this decade long of war against terrorism, at a
rate that is not excessive, in my view. It has been a pretty
significant increase under realistic controls and not out of proportion
to what we are concerned about. However, it is looking to be hammered a
great deal more in the future, disproportionate, again, to what is
happening in other spending accounts.
The Defense Department now is working on a total reduction in
spending of $489 billion more, which is about 10 percent of what we
would expect to spend in the next 10 years. That is because of the
Budget Control Act we passed in August that required reductions in
spending in discretionary accounts. The choices so far have been to
reduce defense spending far more than the other accounts.
In addition, if the deficit committee--the 12 supercommittee
members--if they do not reach an accord, we all need to understand
there will be an automatic sequester. Many people thought--and I think
Senators probably thought--if that were to be done, it would be done
across the board in an equal way. Not so. If that happens, $600 billion
additional would be taken out of defense, and items such as food
stamps, Medicaid, the earned income tax credit, Social Security--all of
those would have no reductions. So it would amount to almost a 20-
percent reduction in the Defense Department in real dollars over 10
years.
It should not have been that way. The agreement should not have
targeted the Defense Department in such a Draconian way. We cannot
allow that to happen.
All accounts need to be tightened. Every agency and department has to
tighten its belt, including the Defense Department, but not
disproportionately so.
Admiral Mullen said, if this were to occur, it would ``hollow us
out,'' it could break the Defense Department and our military; so did
Leon Panetta, President Obama's Secretary of Defense. He said it was
basically an unacceptable situation, and he agreed with Admiral Mullen,
who was sitting beside him at the time of that testimony, and in
response to questions I asked of him.
When I asked him about it--the hearing was on another subject--he
responded with passion, Secretary Panetta did, and expressed deep
concern about the course of our Defense Department if these cuts were
to take place.
I will quote former Secretary Robert Gates, who served President Bush
and President Obama. Recently, he said this:

I think, frankly, the creation of this supercommittee was a
complete abdication of responsibility on the part of the
Congress. It basically says, ``this is too hard for us. Give
us a BRAC. Give us a package where all I have to do is vote
it up or vote it down and I don't have to take any personal
responsibility for any of the tough decisions.'' So now we're
left with this sword of Damocles hanging over the government,
hanging over defense, and if these cuts are automatically
made, I think that the results for our national security will
be catastrophic.

That is what the former Secretary of Defense, a most respected
Secretary, said not long ago. So I think that is fundamentally correct,
that we are proceeding on a path that disproportionately impacts the
Defense Department and would be damaging in a way that is not necessary
and should not happen.
A lot of these other programs have been surging out of control with
problems after problems--whether it is Solyndra loans that were made,
apparently knowing the company is going under--those kinds of things we
need to focus on. To suggest they cannot have any cuts, and all the
cuts have to fall on defense, or a disproportionate number of them, is
a mistake.
I am a firm believer that the Defense Department, and every
department of our government, has to tighten its belt, and we cannot
continue with business as usual, and we should be having reductions in
spending in every single bill that is coming before us. But I am afraid
the only bill that will actually show an actual reduction in spending
is the Defense bill, when we have men and women in harm's way right now
on guard to defend our country.
I feel we need to get our act together. I am hopeful this committee
of 12 can reach an accord that would not hammer the Defense Department
additionally from the huge cuts they are already being asked to make
over the next 10 years. Maybe they can help us begin to get on a path
to fiscal responsibility. But I am doubtful they are going to make a
big change. Hopefully, they will make some agreement, but it does not
look hopeful we will have the kind of financial alteration of spending
in America that is necessary to get our country on the right path.
After all, Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
said last year that the greatest threat to our national security is our
debt. We are already seeing how it impacts us when you see these cuts
being discussed and being threatened.
I want to thank Senator Ayotte--a former prosecutor, attorney general
of New Hampshire--for jumping in right away into the very critical
issue of detainees and how they should be treated in the United States.
In the short time she has been here, she is making a big difference on
that.
I was involved in it on the Judiciary Committee. I have been involved
in it on the Armed Services Committee. I am basically exhausted with
it. I remain flabbergasted. I think you are right, Senator Ayotte. This
is progress I believe you have made in these negotiations, but I think
we have gone too far in many of these ideas already. It does not make
common sense.
Let me say a couple of things about it. When a person is at war
against the United States and they are captured in combat activities
against the United States, they are able to be detained. They do not
have to be tried. They do not have to be given Miranda rights. They
have to comply with the Geneva Conventions about food and the right to
communicate, and, within limits, they can be interrogated. All of those
things are part of the Geneva Conventions. And they are to be detained
until the war is over. That is so fundamentally logical. Why in the
world would a person who is fighting an enemy and could have killed the
enemy at one moment and captures them the next moment then be required,
while the war is still ongoing, to release them so they can shoot you
again and attack you again?
This is perfectly logical. It is part of the history of war, and it
has long been established that when you capture enemy combatants, you
can detain them until the conflict is over. But we have had this
obsessive desire and attack by some that the people who have been
captured need to be released, and they insisted that they be released.
So they started with the least dangerous members, and they have
released, I guess now, a majority of the people who have been detained.
And among the least dangerous members who have been released, as
Senator Ayotte says, we now have 27 percent who have been identified as
in the war, attacking us now, and one of them is one of the top leaders
in al-Qaida. This was never necessary.
Guantanamo is a perfectly logical place to hold these individuals,
and how it became such a political issue--and President Obama
campaigned on it, and Attorney General Eric Holder was out there
complaining about it. Then he gets in as the Attorney General of the
United States, and they commence to make some serious errors, in my
opinion.
One of the biggest errors was to create a presumption that somebody
who has been apprehended attacking the United States should be treated
in civilian courts. I know Senator Ayotte

[[Page S7810]]

just said this earlier, but people need to know. If you are going to
try someone in civilian court, you have to give them the Miranda
immediately because when they come before the judge, if they made an
admission without Miranda, it cannot be used against them. And you have
to tell them immediately that they are entitled to a lawyer. When you
capture people in a war, you don't give them lawyers. That has never
been a part of the rules of war. And they are guaranteed presentment,
the right to speedy trial in Federal court within 70 days. They are
entitled to a preliminary hearing. So all of the other bad guys and
terrorists now have an opportunity to know that you have captured their
co-conspirator, perhaps, and are aware of the circumstances and may
scatter in a way that you would not want to occur.
So these are realistic things. So if there is a presumption--first of
all, I would say all of the cases should be tried in military
commissions, if they are tried, and not in civilian court. But
certainly the presumption should be that they would be in military
commissions because if the presumption, as Attorney General Holder has
declared, is that it is civilian, then you have to do the warning.
I remember in one of my hearings, Senator Lindsey Graham, a JAG
officer in the Air Force--still trains as a reservist--grilled I
believe it was Attorney General Holder and asked him: Well, what would
happen if bin Laden were captured? Would you give him Miranda rights?
And he could not answer the question. He would not answer the question
because under his presumption, if Osama bin Laden were apprehended, he
should be given Miranda rights.
So that is the nub of the problem we have been wrestling with, and we
have had a lot of political rhetoric, in my opinion, attacked President
Bush time and time again. They did not conduct everything perfectly,
but many of the attacks on President Bush, his Department of Justice,
and his military were unfair.
Do you know that not a single person in Guantanamo was ever
waterboarded, that the U.S. military never participated in that? These
were intel interrogations done under limited circumstances to a very
few people. Whether they should have been done or not, we can all argue
and disagree, but the idea that the U.S. military, the Defense
Department, was systematically torturing and abusing prisoners is
absolutely untrue. No military under such difficult circumstances has
performed so well.
Another subject. One of my amendments deals with a subject I have had
an opportunity to be engaged in for some years. Around 2002, 2003, or
2004, I led a congressional delegation to Europe dealing with the
extent of our forces in Europe, how many we have deployed there, and
the opportunity we had and maybe the need we have to bring home some of
those forces.
We were going through a BRAC process in the United States, closing
bases and consolidating bases. That process did not apply officially to
Europe and bases around the world. And a number of us were engaged in
that. I recall that Senator Saxby Chambliss and Mike Enzi traveled with
us to Europe, and we examined--went to Germany and Italy and Spain, and
we saw the bases that were important to the United States, bases that
we really needed and we had good support from our allies on and that
would be enduring bases. And there was a plan in place to reduce the
deployment in areas where it was less important.
So as a matter of background, I would share these thoughts. Since
2004, the Defense Department has had a plan to transfer two of its four
combat brigades in Europe back to the United States as part of a larger
post-Cold War realignment. However, in April of this year---April of
this year--the Department of Defense announced it would maintain three
combat brigades and the fourth would not leave Europe until 2015.
Earlier this year, Admiral Stavridis told the Senate Armed Services
Committee that roughly 80,000 troops remain in Europe. Moving a brigade
combat team back to the United States would have cut U.S. forces by
5,000 personnel.
A 2010 plan developed by a congressionally appointed committee found
that cutting one-third of the U.S. military presence in Europe and the
Pacific would save billions of dollars over 10 years. I do believe
significant cost savings can be realized. In addition to these savings,
stationing these troops in the United States would have a stimulative
effect on State and local economies, with these soldiers and families
living in their local economies and being able to stay with their
families more easily and reducing the number of extensive movements of
personnel and families to deploy in different places around the world.
So I believe we need stay on track with this plan.

A February 2011 GAO report found that DOD posture planing guidance
does not require the EUCOM--the European Command--to include
comprehensive cost data in its theater posture plan. As a result, DOD
does not have critical information that can be used by decision-makers
as they deliberate posture requirements.
The GAO analysis showed that of the approximately $17 billion
obligated to the services to support installations in Europe between
2006 and 2009, approximately $13 billion--78 percent--was for operation
and maintenance costs. Now, those countries want our people there. It
brings American money to their economy--just like we would like to have
a brigade combat in Alabama, New Hampshire, or some other places. It is
good for the economy.
NATO and European allies, however, are not meeting their defense
spending obligations. Many of our allies do not meet the EU standard.
The United States should not be continuing to subsidize NATO and
European allies' defense spending. They need to participate some more.
I believe there are significant savings that could be found by
bringing both of these brigade combat teams to the United States, as
has been planned.
I would ask, is Europe more threatened today than it was 2, 3, 4, 6
years ago? I do not think so. They do not think so. Europeans committed
to 2 percent of their GDP to be committed to defense, but many of those
nations are down to 1 percent. They are not even fulfilling their 2
percent goal. The United States is at 4 percent of GDP on defense,
almost.
I think the Europeans need to be prepared to understand that they
cannot live off the United States. There is a great book by Kagan
called ``Paradise and Power.'' It is very insightful, a very insightful
book. It says, in a sense: Europeans are comfortable. Why? Because they
are under the umbrella of American power. They have been comfortable
with that. They do not feel threatened. They are not paying their fair
share of the defense burden. And they do not like it when we want to
bring home troops. Give me a break. It is time to do something about
that.
I believe all of our allies around the world, whether in the Pacific
or in Europe or in other areas of the globe, ought to work with us in
partnership so that we can be most effective in providing some
stability around the world. But the idea that the United States can
unilaterally fund a security force for the whole world is unrealistic.
It can't be sustained.
I just cannot possibly see how we need this many troops in Europe at
this point in history. I believe it would be good for our economy to
have those troops back home in the United States. You can have the
bases there that we could surge and meet any challenge in short order.
I believe that is the right approach.
I see my friend, Senator Enzi. We traveled together on that trip to
Europe a number of years ago to examine the bases that we felt should
be permanent and the ones that should be closed.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I would like to give my thanks to the
Senator from Alabama for his comments about the concerns he has about
our detainee policy and about how important it is that we have the
right policies in place to protect Americans so that we can prioritize
gathering intelligence.
I also wanted to share in his concerns about what is happening with
the supercommittee in terms of the impact on our national security.
There is no question that there are areas where we can do much better
and be more effective with taxpayer dollars on defense

[[Page S7811]]

spending. But we cannot subjugate our national security for our failure
around here to do our job and to have courage to take on the entire
budget and bring ourselves on a path of fiscal responsibility.
So I know the Senator from Alabama has been a great leader in this
area, and I appreciate his comments in that regard.

Amendment No. 1249

Mr. President, I also wanted to speak briefly on an amendment that
has already been made pending that Senator McCain and I are
cosponsoring together.
Over the last year, as a new Member of the Senate and the Senate
Armed Services Committee, one of the concerns I have had is the way we
do contracting at the Department of Defense. My overall impression has
been that a third year law student could negotiate much better terms
for the United States than we have been negotiating for the country. In
some of the negotiations with our defense contracts we end up on the
hook when contractors don't perform or it takes longer than they
indicate, and we seem to always bear the financial burden of that.
When we look at the fiscal state of the country and where we are, we
need to reform that process. That is what drew my interest to this
issue. Senator McCain has long worked on this issue of reforming our
acquisition process, and I have great respect for the work he has done
there. So we have offered on this National Defense Authorization Act
amendment No. 1249, which would prevent millions of dollars in wasteful
contract cost overruns from the Department of Defense on major defense
acquisition programs and help to ensure that our warfighters have the
weapons and systems they need to protect our Nation but doing so within
budget and on time frames that contractors commit to for our needs to
make sure we have what we need to protect our country.
According to the Government Accountability Office, in a March 2011
report entitled ``Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapons
Programs,'' from fiscal year 2010 collectively, we ran more than $400
billion over budget and were an average of almost 2 years behind
schedule for major defense acquisitions programs.
Today, half of the Department of Defense major defense acquisition
programs do not meet cost performance goals. Eighty percent of our
major defense acquisition programs have an increase in unit costs from
initial estimates that were given. While there can be many factors that
explain the cost overruns, the cost-type contracts have been a
significant contributing factor in why we have these overruns both for
production and development of our major defense acquisition programs.
We have to address these cost overruns, particularly at a time when we
are asking our Department of Defense to reduce spending. We need to get
the maximum bang for our buck and hold contractors accountable when
they do not perform what we have contracted them for. We need to make
sure the terms of our contracts are good for the United States and are
fiscally responsible, and that is what this amendment would do.
It would prohibit the use of cost-type contracts for the production
of major defense acquisition contracts and limit the use of cost-type
contracts for major defense acquisition development contracts. This
represents the core investment in our Nation's military, and as these
costs increase, and as the Department of Defense faces the looming
prospect of major budget cuts over the next decade, we have to address
this now for our troops and for our national security. We have to get
this right.
I am hoping for and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment we
are bringing forward. Again, I would say on behalf of Senator McCain,
who has done so much work in this area, reforming our acquisition
process and getting this right is so important to what we are asking
our military to do right now, which is to do more with less.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Amendments Nos. 1146, 1147, 1148, 1204, 1294, 1293, 1206, and 1292

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the
following amendments, the first four on behalf of Senator Jack Reed,
Nos. 1146, 1147, 1148, and 1204; a fifth for Senator Reed, amendment
No. 1294; No. 1293, a Levin amendment; No. 1206, a Boxer amendment; and
No. 1292, a Menendez amendment; and I then ask unanimous consent that
we return to the regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 1146

(Purpose: To provide for the participation of military technicians
(dual status) in the study on the termination of military technician as
a distinct personnel management category)

On page 114, strike line 2 and insert the following:

the study; and
(8) ensure the involvement and input of military
technicians (dual status), including through their exclusive
representatives in the case of military technicians (dual
status) who are members of a collective bargaining unit.

amendment no. 1147

(Purpose: To prohibit the repayment of enlistment or related bonuses by
certain individuals who become employed as military technicians (dual
status) while already a member of a reserve component)

At the end of subtitle B of title V, add the following:

SEC. 515. PROHIBITION ON REPAYMENT OF ENLISTMENT OR RELATED
BONUSES BY CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED AS
MILITARY TECHNICIANS (DUAL STATUS) WHILE
ALREADY A MEMBER OF A RESERVE COMPONENT.

(a) Prohibition.--Section 10216 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(h) Prohibition on Repayment of Certain Enlistment and
Related Bonuses.--The Secretary concerned may not require an
individual who becomes employed as a military technician
(dual status) while the individual is already a member of a
reserve component to repay an enlistment, reenlistment, or
affiliation bonus provided to the individual in connection
with the individual's enlistment or reenlistment before such
employment if the individual becomes so employed in the same
occupational specialty for which such bonus was provided.''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act,
and shall apply with respect to individuals first becoming
employed as a military technician (dual status) on or after
that date.

amendment no. 1148

(Purpose: To provide rights of grievance, arbitration, appeal, and
review beyond the adjutant general for military technicians)

At the end of subtitle B of title V, add the following:

SEC. 515. RIGHTS OF GRIEVANCE, ARBITRATION, APPEAL, AND
REVIEW BEYOND THE ADJUTANT GENERAL FOR MILITARY
TECHNICIANS.

(a) Rights in Adverse Actions Not Related to Military
Service.--Section 709 of title 32, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subsection (f)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law and under'' and
inserting ``Under''; and
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``a right of appeal'' and
inserting ``subject to subsection (j), a right of appeal'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(j)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (f)(4) or any other
provision of law, a technician and a labor organization that
is the exclusive representative of a bargaining unit
including the technician shall have the rights of grievance,
arbitration, appeal, and review extending beyond the adjutant
general of the jurisdiction concerned and to the Merit
Systems Protection Board and thereafter to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in the same manner
as provided in sections 4303, 7121, and 7701-7703 of title 5,
with respect to a performance-based or adverse action
imposing removal, suspension for more than 14 days, furlough
for 30 days or less, or reduction in pay or pay band (or
comparable reduction).
``(2) The rights in paragraph (1) shall not apply to
actions relating to military service.
``(3) This subsection does not apply to a technician who is
serving under a temporary appointment or in a trial or
probationary period.''.
(b) Adverse Actions Covered.--Subsection (g) of such
section is amended by striking ``, 3502, 7511, and 7512'' and
inserting ``and 3502''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 7511(b) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (5); and
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (10) as
paragraphs (5) through (9), respectively.

[[Page S7812]]

amendment no. 1204

(Purpose: To authorize a pilot program on enhancements of Department of
Defense efforts on mental health in the National Guard and Reserves
through community partnerships)

At the end of subtitle C of title VII, add the following:

SEC. 723. PILOT PROGRAM ON ENHANCEMENTS OF DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE EFFORTS ON MENTAL HEALTH IN THE
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES THROUGH COMMUNITY
PARTNERSHIPS.

(a) Pilot Program Authorized.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense may carry out a
pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of
enhancing the efforts of the Department of Defense in
research, treatment, education, and outreach on mental health
and substance use disorders and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
in members of the National Guard and Reserves, their family
members, and their caregivers through community partners
described in subsection (c).
(2) Duration.--The duration of the pilot program may not
exceed three years.
(b) Grants.--In carrying out the pilot program, the
Secretary may award not more than five grants to community
partners described in subsection (c). Any grant so awarded
shall be awarded using a competitive and merit-based award
process.
(c) Community Partners.--A community partner described in
this subsection is a private non-profit organization or
institution (or multiple organizations and institutions)
that--
(1) engages in each of the research, treatment, education,
and outreach activities described in subsection (d); and
(2) meets such qualifications for treatment as a community
partner as the Secretary shall establish for purposes of the
pilot program.
(d) Activities.--Amounts awarded under a grant under the
pilot program shall be utilized by the community partner
awarded the grant for one or more of the following:
(1) To engage in research on the causes, development, and
innovative treatment of mental health and substance use
disorders and Traumatic Brain Injury in members of the
National Guard and Reserves, their family members, and their
caregivers.
(2) To provide treatment to such members and their families
for such mental health and substance use disorders and
Traumatic Brain Injury.
(3) To identify and disseminate evidence-based treatments
of mental health and substance use disorders and Traumatic
Brain Injury described in paragraph (1).
(4) To provide outreach and education to such members,
their families and caregivers, and the public about mental
health and substance use disorders and Traumatic Brain Injury
described in paragraph (1).
(e) Requirement for Matching Funds.--
(1) Requirement.--The Secretary may award a grant under
this section to an organization or institution (or
organizations and institutions) only if the awardee agrees to
make contributions toward the costs of activities carried out
with the grant, from non-Federal sources (whether public or
private), an amount equal to not less than $3 for each $1 of
funds provided under the grant.
(2) Nature of non-federal contributions.--Contributions
from non-Federal sources for purposes of paragraph (1) may be
in cash or in-kind, fairly evaluated. Amounts provided by the
Federal Government, or services assisted or subsidized to any
significant extent by the Federal Government, may not be
included in determining the amount of contributions from non-
Federal sources for such purposes.
(f) Application.--An organization or institution (or
organizations and institutions) seeking a grant under this
section shall submit to the Secretary an application
therefore in such a form and containing such information as
the Secretary considers appropriate, including the following:
(1) A description how the activities proposed to be carried
out with the grant will help improve collaboration and
coordination on research initiatives, treatment, and
education and outreach on mental health and substance use
disorders and Traumatic Brain Injury among the Armed Forces.
(2) A description of existing efforts by the applicant to
put the research described in (c)(1) into practice.
(3) If the application comes from multiple organizations
and institutions, how the activities proposed to be carried
out with the grant would improve coordination and
collaboration among such organizations and institutions.
(4) If the applicant proposes to provide services or
treatment to members of the Armed Forces or family members
using grant amounts, reasonable assurances that such services
or treatment will be provided by a qualified provider.
(5) Plans to comply with subsection (g).
(g) Exchange of Medical and Clinical Information.--A
community partner awarded a grant under the pilot program
shall agree to any requirements for the sharing of medical or
clinical information obtained pursuant to the grant that the
Secretary shall establish for purposes of the pilot program.
The exchange of medical or clinical information pursuant to
this subsection shall comply with applicable privacy and
confidentiality laws.
(h) Dissemination of Information.--The Secretary of Defense
shall share with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
information on best practices in research, treatment,
education, and outreach on mental health and substance use
disorders and Traumatic Brain Injury identified by the
Secretary of Defense as a result of the pilot program.
(i) Report.--Not later than 180 days before the completion
of the pilot program, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and to Congress, a
report on the pilot program. The report shall include the
following:
(1) A description of the pilot program, including the
community partners awarded grants under the pilot program,
the amount of grants so awarded, and the activities carried
out using such grant amounts.
(2) A description of any research efforts advanced using
such grant amounts.
(3) The number of members of the National Guard and
Reserves provided treatment or services by community partners
using such grant amounts, and a summary of the types of
treatment and services so provided.
(4) A description of the education and outreach activities
undertaken using such grant amounts.
(5) A description of efforts to exchange clinical
information under subsection (g).
(6) A description and assessment of the effectiveness and
achievements of the pilot program with respect to research,
treatment, education, and outreach on mental health and
substance use disorders and Traumatic Brain Injury.
(7) Such recommendations as the Secretary of Defense
considers appropriate in light of the pilot program on the
utilization of organizations and institutions such as
community partners under the pilot program in efforts of the
Department described in subsection (a).
(8) A description of the metrics used by the Secretary in
making recommendations under paragraph (7).
(j) Available Funds.--Funds for the pilot program shall be
derived from amounts authorized to be appropriated for the
Department of Defense for Defense Health Program and
otherwise available for obligation and expenditure.
(k) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``family
member'' and ``caregiver'', in the case of a member of the
National Guard or Reserves, have the meaning given such terms
in section 1720G(d) of title 38, United States Code, with
respect to a veteran.

amendment no. 1294

(Purpose: To enhance consumer credit protections for members of the
Armed Forces and their dependents)

At the end of subtitle H of title V, add the following:

SEC. 577. ENHANCEMENT OF CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTIONS FOR
MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND THEIR
DEPENDENTS.

(a) Prohibited Actions.--Subsection (e) of section 987 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (9); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new
paragraphs:
``(7) the creditor charges the borrower a fee for overdraft
service (as that term is defined by the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq.) and implementing
regulations) in connection with a withdrawal from an
automated teller machine or a one-time debit card
transaction;
``(8) the creditor charges the borrower a fee for overdraft
service (as so defined) where such fee is triggered as the
result of the institution having posted the borrower's
transactions in order from largest to smallest; or''.
(b) Regulations.--Subsection (h)(3) of such section is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``at least every two years'' after
``consult''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(H) The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.''.
(c) Consumer Credit.--Subsection (i)(6) of such section is
amended by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``Such term shall also include credit under an open end
consumer credit plan (as defined by section 103 of the Truth
in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602) and implementing
regulations), except that the Secretary of Defense may
exclude credit under such a plan that provides for amortizing
payments over a period of at least 92 days.''.

amendment no. 1293

(Purpose: To authorize the transfer of certain high-speed ferries to
the Navy)

At the end of subtitle C of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1024. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN HIGH-SPEED FERRIES TO THE
NAVY.

(a) Transfer From MARAD Authorized.--The Secretary of the
Navy may, from funds available for the Department of Defense
for fiscal year 2012, provide to the Maritime Administration
of the Department of Transportation an amount not to exceed
$35,000,000 for the transfer by the Maritime Administration
to the Department of the Navy of jurisdiction and control
over the vessels as follows:
(1) M/V HUAKAI.
(2) M/V ALAKAI.
(b) Use as Department of Defense Sealift Vessels.--Each
vessel transferred to the Department of the Navy under
subsection (a) shall be administered as a Department of
Defense sealift vessel (as such term

[[Page S7813]]

is defined in section 2218(k)(2) of title 10, United States
Code).

amendment no. 1206

(Purpose: To implement common sense controls on the taxpayer-funded
salaries of defense contractors)

Strike section 842 of division A and insert the following:

SEC. 842. LIMITATION ON DEFENSE CONTRACTOR COMPENSATION.

Section 2324(e)(1)(P) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(P) Costs of compensation of contractor and subcontractor
employees for a fiscal year, regardless of the contract
funding source, to the extent that such compensation exceeds
the annual amount paid to the President of the United States
in accordance with section 102 of title 3.''.

amendment no. 1292

(Purpose: To require the President to impose sanctions with respect to
the Central Bank of Iran if the President determines that the Central
Bank of Iran has engaged in conduct that threatens the national
security of the United States or allies of the United States)

At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1243. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE
CENTRAL BANK OF IRAN.

Section 104 of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions,
Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8513)
is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (h) and (i) as subsections
(i) and (j), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following new
subsection:
``(h) Imposition of Sanctions With Respect to the Central
Bank of Iran.--
``(1) Determination required.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012, the President shall determine whether the
Central Bank of Iran has engaged in conduct that threatens
the national security of the United States or allies of the
United States, taking into consideration whether the Bank
has--
``(i) facilitated activities of the Government of Iran that
threaten global or regional peace and security;
``(ii) sought to evade multilateral sanctions directed
against the Government of Iran on behalf of that Government;
``(iii) engaged in deceptive financial practices or
mechanisms to facilitate illicit transactions with non-
Iranian financial institutions;
``(iv) conducted transactions prohibited by binding
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council or allowed
itself to be used to permit conduct prohibited by such
resolutions;
``(v) conducted transactions on behalf of persons
designated by the United States for the imposition of
sanctions pursuant to the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.);
``(vi) provided financial services in support of, or
otherwise facilitated, the ability of Iran to--

``(I) acquire or develop chemical, biological, or nuclear
weapons, or related technologies;
``(II) construct, equip, operate, or maintain nuclear
enrichment facilities; or
``(III) acquire or develop ballistic missiles, cruise
missiles, or destabilizing types and amounts of conventional
weapons; or

``(vii) facilitated a transaction or provided financial
services for--

``(I) Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps; or
``(II) a financial institution whose property or interests
in property are blocked pursuant to the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) in
connection with--

``(aa) Iran's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
or delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction; or
``(bb) Iran's support for acts of international terrorism.
``(B) Submission to congress.--The President shall submit
in writing to the appropriate congressional committees the
determination made under subparagraph (A) and the reasons for
the determination.
``(2) Imposition of sanctions.--Subject to paragraphs (4),
(5), and (6), if the President determines under paragraph
(1)(A) that the Central Bank of Iran has engaged in conduct
described in that paragraph, the President shall--
``(A) prohibit, or impose strict conditions on, the opening
or maintaining in the United States of a correspondent
account or a payable-through account by a foreign financial
institution that the President determines has knowingly
conducted any significant financial transaction with the
Central Bank of Iran; and
``(B) impose sanctions pursuant to the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) with
respect to the Central Bank of Iran.
``(3) Additional sanctions.--In addition to the sanctions
required to be imposed under paragraph (2), and subject to
paragraph (4), the President may impose such other targeted
sanctions with respect to the Central Bank of Iran as the
President determines appropriate to terminate the engagement
of the Central Bank of Iran in conduct described in paragraph
(1)(A) and activities described in subsection (c)(2).
``(4) Exception for sales of food, medicine, and medical
devices.--The President may not impose sanctions under this
subsection on a person for engaging in a transaction with the
Central Bank of Iran for the sale of food, medicine, or
medical devices to Iran.
``(5) Applicability of prohibitions and conditions on
accounts.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
paragraph (2)(A) applies with respect to financial
transactions commenced on or after the date that is 60 days
after the date on which the President makes the determination
required by paragraph (1)(A).
``(B) Petroleum transactions.--Paragraph (2)(A) applies
with respect to financial transactions for the purchase of
petroleum or petroleum products through the Central Bank of
Iran commenced on or after the date that is 180 days after
the date on which the President makes the determination
required by paragraph (1)(A).
``(6) Waiver.--The President may waive the application of
paragraph (2) for a period of 180 days, and renew such a
waiver for additional periods of 180 days, if the President--
``(A) determines that such a waiver is necessary to the
national security interest of the United States; and
``(B) submits to the appropriate congressional committees a
report--
``(i) providing the justification for the waiver; and
``(ii) describing--

``(I) any concrete cooperation the President has received
or expects to receive as a result of the waiver; and
``(II) any assurances the President has received or expects
to receive as a result of the waiver from foreign financial
institutions that such institutions have ceased engaging in
financial transactions with the Central Bank of Iran related
to terrorism or the facilitation, acquisition, or financing
of weapons of mass destruction.''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Reno Wildfire

Mr. REID. Mr. President, Reno, NV, is a beautiful place. It is right
below the great Lake Tahoe, the beautiful Sierra Nevada Mountains. It
is a beautiful picturesque place.
I was troubled this morning to wake up and find that Reno, NV, is in
trouble because of a devastating fire. We have more than 500 acres that
have been burned, and we have a number of homes that have been
destroyed. The problem we have is, because of these beautiful Sierra
Nevada mountains that are towering over Reno, we get devastating winds,
and those winds are blowing now. The winds are at 60 miles an hour
while they are trying to control this fire. It is ravaging everything
in its path.
So my thoughts are certainly with the families who have lost their
homes and the thousands of residents who have been evacuated. The
Pinehaven and Caughlin Ranch neighborhoods at this time have been
particularly affected. But this terrible fire is raging across these
acres in Reno and Washoe County. We have fire crews from all over the
region that are trying to stop this disaster, trying to get this
rampaging fire under control, but the winds are so strong that
helicopters can't take off. So there is a lot of help that should be
available that isn't because the winds are so difficult and because, as
I said, the helicopters can't get off the ground.
Of course, I called my son Leif as soon as I heard about this. The
phone was answered by my little granddaughter Nina, who was trying to
explain to me what was going on. Her dad--my son--had been called to
his best friend's home to try to help him. He had been ordered to
evacuate. They have no water. Alfredo Alonso's home has no water
because there is a well and the electricity is out so he can't pump
water. But my son couldn't make it there because the police stopped
him. They wanted no one coming into the neighborhood because they are
evacuating everyone. But my son and his children--my four
grandchildren--seem to be well, and they are quite a ways away from the
fire.
Of course, I express my appreciation to the brave firefighters who
have been working around the clock to contain the blaze and to the
dedicated first responders who acted so quickly to protect lives and
assist in the evacuation.
Mr. President, it is times such as this we understand what happens to
local governments when they have to lay off people--firefighters,
police officers. It has happened all over Nevada and all over this
country. We were here, as you remember, a week or two ago trying to get
assistance for places such as Reno and other communities in America for
their fire and police, but the bill was defeated. But these people who
are working are shorthanded, so they are

[[Page S7814]]

working long hours there. It is impossible to say how many lives they
have already saved, but they have.
So my heart, and all our hearts, go out to the firefighters as they
carry on with this difficult work to control the flames and protect the
communities. I will continue to follow the progress of this fire, and,
of course, I will assist Mayor Bob Cashell and members of the Reno City
Council and the Washoe County Commission with anything they think I can
do to help. I support Governor Sandoval's decision to request a Federal
emergency declaration, as firefighters and first responders are doing
their utmost to contain things.
So Reno and all of Washoe County can depend on my support in any way
they think I can help, and I will continue, as I have indicated, and I
indicate for the second time, to monitor this situation very closely.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, first of all, let me say to the
majority leader that our thoughts and prayers go out to folks in
Nevada, and we certainly hope this emergency situation is rectified in
the near term.
In Georgia, we had about 400,000 acres destroyed by a forest fire
back earlier this summer, and it is always a tragedy. Loss of property
is one thing, but injury and potential loss of life, obviously, is very
much a part of that, and our hearts go out to all the residents. Our
thanks go out to these brave men and women who are fighting those fires
out there, as they did in my State, to get them under control.

Amendment No. 1304

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be
set aside and that my amendment, which is at the desk, be made pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss] for himself and
Mr. Isakson, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Coburn,
proposes an amendment numbered 1304.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require a report on the reorganization of the Air Force
Materiel Command)

Strike section 324 and insert the following:

SEC. 324. REPORTS ON DEPOT-RELATED ACTIVITIES.

(a) Report on Depot-level Maintenance and Recapitalization
of Certain Parts and Equipment.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Defense
Logistics Agency (DLA), in consultation with the military
departments, shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on the status of the DLA Joint Logistics
Operations Center's Drawdown, Retrograde and Reset Program
for the equipment from Iraq and Afghanistan and the status of
the overall supply chain management for depot-level
activities.
(2) Elements.--The report required under paragraph (1)
shall include the following elements:
(A) An assessment of the number of backlogged parts for
critical warfighter needs, an explanation of why those parts
became backlogged, and an estimate of when the backlog is
likely to be fully addressed.
(B) A review of critical warfighter requirements that are
being impacted by a lack of supplies and parts and an
explanation of steps that the Director plans to take to meet
the demand requirements of the military departments.
(C) An assessment of the feasibility and advisability of
working with outside commercial partners to utilize flexible
and efficient turn-key rapid production systems to meet
rapidly emerging warfighter requirements.
(D) A review of plans to further consolidate the ordering
and stocking of parts and supplies from the military
departments at depots under the control of the Defense
Logistics Agency.
(3) Flexible and efficient turn-key rapid production
systems defined.--For the purposes of this subsection,
flexible and efficient turn-key rapid production systems are
systems that have demonstrated the capability to reduce the
costs of parts, improve manufacturing efficiency, and have
the following unique features:
(A) Virtual and flexible.--Systems that provide for
flexibility to rapidly respond to requests for low-volume or
high-volume machined parts and surge demand by accessing the
full capacity of small- and medium-sized manufacturing
communities in the United States.
(B) Speed to market.--Systems that provide for flexibility
that allows rapid introduction of subassemblies for new parts
and weapons systems to the warfighter.
(C) Risk management.--Systems that provide for the
electronic archiving and updating of turn-key rapid
production packages to provide insurance to the Department of
Defense that parts will be available if there is a supply
chain disruption.
(b) Report on Air Force Materiel Command Reorganization.--
(1) Restriction on reorganization activities.--With respect
to the planned reorganization of the Air Force Materiel
Command announced on November 2, 2011, the Secretary of the
Air Force shall make no changes related to organizational
alignment, reporting officials, or any other change related
to oversight or the duties of system program managers,
sustainment program managers, or product support managers who
reside at installations where Air Logistics Centers or depots
are located until 60 days after the report required under
paragraph (2) is submitted to the congressional defense
committees.
(2) Report.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a report
containing an analysis of alternatives for alignment and
reporting of Air Force System Program Managers and Product
Support Managers.
(B) Elements.--The report required under subparagraph (A)
shall--
(i) focus on the impacts to Air Force life cycle
management, sustainment, readiness, and overall support to
the warfighter that would likely be realized through the
various alternatives;
(ii) address legal, financial, and other relevant issues;
(iii) identify criteria for evaluating alternatives;
(iv) include a list of alternatives, including analysis and
recommendations relating to the alternatives;
(v) describe cost and savings factors; and
(vi) focus on how the Air Force should be best organized to
conduct life cycle management and sustainment, with overall
readiness being the highest priority.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to voice my support for the 2012
National Defense Authorization Act, S. 1867. This is one of the most
important bills the Senate considers each year, and this is the ninth
Defense authorization bill I have been involved in drafting since being
elected to the Senate. It sets funding levels and implements policies
for the Department of Defense and provides pay raises for our men and
women in uniform.
After extended debate, this bill, which authorizes $662 billion for
the Department of Defense and national security-related aspects of the
Department of Energy, was passed unanimously out of the Senate Armed
Services Committee. The committee was in a difficult situation this
year, considering our Nation's fiscal crisis. As I have firmly believed
all along, everything, including defense spending, must be on the table
to address our fiscal circumstances.
In the midst of intense budget negotiations, I am pleased we can
offer and debate a bill that addresses the real need to reduce
government spending in a responsible and calculated manner. As several
of my colleagues have already stated on the Senate floor, the National
Defense Authorization Act cuts a considerable amount from the defense
budget, as requested by the President. It is $27 billion less than the
administration requested and $43 billion less than the amount
appropriated for 2011. These were very difficult decisions to make, but
it was the fiscally responsible thing to do given our Nation's fiscal
situation.
I am pleased the committee was able to make these cuts without
jeopardizing our national security. Given the unstable state of affairs
around the world, now is not the time to slash important programs that
help our military carry out their responsibilities. We still have
widespread enemies and interests around the world. With this in mind,
the bill authorizes $3.2 billion for DOD's Mine Resistant Ambush
Protected Vehicle fund; authorizes $10.3 billion for U.S. Special
Operations Command, an increase of 6 percent above fiscal year 2011
levels; and authorizes more than $2.4 billion for DOD's counter-
improvised explosive device activities.
In recent months, we have seen what a remarkable impact a small,
elite force of U.S. soldiers can have, and I am pleased this bill
authorizes a deserved funding increase for U.S. Special Operations
Command in order to expand their resources, training, technology, and
equipment to accomplish their missions. Along with funding, this bill
will extend the authority of Special Operations Forces to provide
support to operations fighting against terrorism around the world.
Regarding our ongoing operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere
overseas, the bill allocates $11.2 billion for training and equipping
the Afghan security forces commensurate with recommendations from the
Commander of

[[Page S7815]]

U.S. Central Command, and fully supports the budget request of $1.75
billion in Coalition Support Funds to reimburse key partner nations
supporting U.S. military operations in Operation Enduring Freedom.
I am also pleased that I will be leaving later on today, along with
Senator Burr, and heading to Afghanistan to visit our troops and to
visit with our commanders on the ground, both from an intelligence
standpoint as well as an operational standpoint. This is the fourth
Thanksgiving I have had the opportunity to be on the ground with our
troops and to look them in the eye, with their boots on the ground, and
tell them how much we, as policymakers, but more importantly we, as
Americans, appreciate the great sacrifice each and every one of them is
making and how much we appreciate the great job they are doing of
protecting America and protecting Americans.
This bill also authorizes $500 million for counterterrorism,
capacity-building activities, including targeted efforts in east Africa
and Yemen, and fully supports the budget request of $524 million to
support the activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq in
overseeing and implementing foreign military sales to the Iraqi
security forces.
Keeping in mind the strategic value of our nuclear deterrent and our
ongoing need to modernize and maintain our nuclear triad, the bill
authorizes $1.1 billion to continue to develop the Ohio-class
replacement program, the SSBN(X), to modernize the sea-based leg of the
nuclear deterrent system.
The U.S. military requires the capability to counter a growing amount
of nontraditional threats. In this bill, we strengthen our forces on
the threat of cyber warfare and the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and their means of delivery. It is no secret that American
computer networks are the victim of attempted hacking from state and
non-state actors around the world on a regular basis. With funds
authorized in this bill, the Department of Defense will be able to
better guard against the threat of cyber attacks.
I am also pleased that in this bill we were able to focus on the
well-being of our brave men and women fighting on the front lines for
our freedom overseas, as well as their devoted family members back at
home who make sacrifices every single day. The bill authorizes $100.6
billion for military personnel, including costs of pay, allowances,
bonuses, death benefits, and permanent change of station moves. The
bill also authorizes a 1.6-percent across-the-board pay raise for our
service men and women as well as authorizes over 30 types of bonuses
and special pays aimed at encouraging enlistment, re-enlistment, and
continued service by Active-Duty and Reserve component military
personnel. Our attention remains on improving the quality of life of
the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families, as well as
Department of Defense civilian personnel, through fair pay, policies,
and benefits, including first-rate health care, while addressing the
needs of wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers and their families.
Let me also briefly address the amendment I have just filed. I have
been working for the last several weeks with my colleagues, Senators
Isakson, Hatch, Lee, Inhofe, and Coburn, on an issue related to the
reorganization of the Air Force Materiel Command.
Let me first say that I support this reorganization. It is the first
major reorganization of the Materiel Command by the Air Force in some
60 years. I support the Air Force's need and desire to make themselves
more efficient and more effective, and for the most part, I believe the
proposed reorganization will do that.
In these tight budget times, when we are all going to have to accept
streamlined budgets and resources, some loss of jobs and positions is,
unfortunately, inevitable, and I realize that. However, there is one
issue with respect to this proposed reorganization that I think we are
all having a hard time understanding and that relates to how the
reorganization may affect the way the Air Force organizes for
sustainment of weapon systems.
The proposed reorganization would take some of the key personnel who
are helping to orchestrate these sustainment efforts and put them in a
separate chain of command from their partners in carrying out those
sustainment efforts. This is hard to understand. And, in a time when
our Air Force is working harder than ever and keeping their aircraft in
the fleet longer than ever, it is hard to imagine how a change such as
the Air Force is proposing here will help sustainment of weapon
systems.
We are working with the Air Force on this issue, and we are still in
negotiations, but this is an issue for which we have yet to receive a
satisfactory explanation, and we have not reached a conclusion of this
issue. I think the Air Force needs to clearly understand that there is
a risk here. There is a risk that this reorganization may have some
unintended consequences specifically related to the readiness of our
Air Force. This is serious. We have not seen any explanation for how
the Air Force arrived at their proposed course of action on this
specific issue or why they think it will improve readiness. I would
also note that the way the Air Force is seeking to reorganize in this
respect goes against some of the basic principles and recommendations
of a recent, very thorough report on this specific issue.
It is with these issues in mind that we are filing this amendment. I
very much look forward to the Air Force's explanations on this issue
and to having this reorganization be executed in a way that allows the
Air Force to conserve personnel and resources, organize more
efficiently, and sustain weapon systems to support the warfighter in
the most effective way possible.
In conclusion, I am extremely proud of the hard work the Armed
Services Committee Members and staff have done to put together this
Defense authorization bill. I would particularly like to compliment our
leadership, Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain, on the job they
have done and their willingness to work with Members of the Committee
on our specific issues--issues such as the one Senator Ayotte and I
discussed on the floor yesterday, along with Senator Graham, Senator
McCain, and Senator Levin, regarding detainee policy, of which we have
none at the present time and to which folks such as Senator Ayotte have
given a great deal of thought and have come up with some very logical
ways in which we can address this issue of detainees so that we can get
actionable intelligence from those detainees and, at the same time,
ensure they are treated in ways that are respectful to our system of
jurisprudence on the military side as well as on the civilian side.
I want to also say that we have had a couple of hiccups along the
way, but staff on both sides, the majority and minority, have addressed
those hiccups, and we have been working very closely to try to ensure
that the issues we raised with staff after the bill was filed have been
addressed and are in the process of being taken care of.
As a reflection of the extremely tight budget environment, we have
taken responsible reductions in spending; however, we maintain our
commitment to the Armed Forces by providing funds and authorizations to
protect our national security and support our men and women on the
front lines, as well as their dedicated families here in America.
I look forward to the remainder of the debate on this bill when we
return after our Thanksgiving break.
To all of our men and women who wear the uniform of the United States
of America, Happy Thanksgiving.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for his
leadership on the Armed Services Committee and also for the important
work he has been doing as the vice chair of the Intelligence Committee
to make sure our country is protected. He is particularly knowledgeable
on these issues of how we treat detainees, and we did have a detailed
colloquy on the floor. His insight has been so important in making sure
we have the right policies in place to protect America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Enzi pertaining to the introduction of S. 1909
are located in today's Record under Statements on Introduced Bills and
Joint Resolutions.)

[[Page S7816]]

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The National Debt

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I was sorry to hear the supercommittee is in
trouble, that they might not be able to agree. Then this morning's
Washington Post front page headline was ``Debt Panel Failure Won't
Cause Catastrophe.''
Every day we do not find a solution, every day we spend is a
catastrophe. We have maxed out our credit cards. Here is one way that
came to my attention. I was traveling in Wyoming and I checked into the
hotel for the night. The person checking me in, very embarrassed, said:
I am sorry, but it will not take your credit card. It was a Federal
credit card.
I said: Goodness, we are in more trouble than I thought. I gave them
my personal credit card and that went right through so I am not sure
where we are. But I know we have maxed out our credit cards and not
just that but also the symbolic credit cards that we have. We have as
much debt as we probably can sustain and as debt comes due across the
world for other countries, it is going to be tougher and tougher to be
able to sell more debt.
We are kind of in the same situation as Greece and Italy, except for
two things. No. 1 is we are a big, flexible country that has pulled
itself out of terrible situations time and time again, and we will do
it this time too. We also own our own money supply. That helps.
When constituents ask what can they expect, I always start the
conversation by saying you should expect to get no more than what the
2008 level was. We increased things considerably after that with the
stimulus bill and that increased some bases. We have to get back down
to 2008, just as a beginning.
I have to say the President has had a chance to change direction. I
have to congratulate the President for naming a deficit commission. I
even like the people he named to it, with Senator Simpson from Wyoming
and Erskine Bowles heading up that committee. I think they did some
tremendous work. I think we should pay more attention to what they had
to say.
I had a little disappointment when the President did his State of the
Union speech following their report. He had an opportunity to repaint
the same bleak picture that committee painted and America would have
understood better. Although from traveling across our country, and
particularly in Wyoming, I know the people there understand it better
than Congress does. But he could have changed it by repainting that
picture and then he could have followed it up with a solution which
would have been his budget. Instead, his budget was another stimulus
plan. It has been voted on by Congress. It was not voted for by
Congress, it was voted on by Congress, and it was voted 97 to nothing--
it was defeated. I think the deficit commission report would have done
much better.
Congress has also had the chance to change direction--and in some
cases we have. We have kind of eliminated earmarks. There are still
some of them that are slipped in, but we kind of eliminated them. We
have a couple new problems. Now we add demonstration projects. We have
always had demonstration projects, but now we do it as a substitute for
earmarks and that is where we allow maybe five States to have an
opportunity to do a particular program to see if it works. So we fund
it in a minimal amount--that still is millions. The difficulty is that
at the end of the period of time for that demonstration project, they
all work. They are all spectacular. They all would save America if we
just put it in every single State and funded it from the Federal
Government.
It can't happen. We are out of money. There are lots of good ideas
out there, lots of good ideas that would help. When those ideas are
proved--the idea with the demonstration is that it would demonstrate
well enough how good it is that somewhere at the local level that
project would be picked up and done or forgotten. But, no, we do make
them a national program and we do fund them forever in chunks of time.
Another thing we are doing is that we propose a project and, because
we like the word ``pay-for,'' because we should pay for whatever we are
doing, we put up a project, we put a 2-year limit on the project, and
then we pick a pay-for by showing some program that, if it were
eliminated for 10 years, might bring in that amount of revenue. We
cannot pay for a 2-year program with 10 years' worth of revenue because
somebody is going to spend the rest of that anyway and it may never be
collected. A Congress can change its mind all the time. We have to quit
using gimmicks and we have to quit adding new programs. What part of
maxed out credit cards don't we understand? We have to quit buying
votes with dollars we do not have.
We do have to address mandatory spending. Social Security and
Medicare have been a problem for a long time. I remember when I first
came to Congress, President Clinton was the President and he called for
a special conference on Social Security. We had 1 day where we got to
be initiated into what all the problems were--fantastic speakers.
We had a second day where Members of the House and Congress met in
smaller committees to work on pieces of the Social Security problem. We
came up with a plan and President Clinton looked at the plan and met
with us as a group and said: If all of you are willing to put your
fingerprint on this, we will do it. We can only do it if everybody puts
their fingerprint on it so both parties are responsible for it, and
everybody in the room agreed to do that.

Unfortunately, we were distracted a little bit by something called
Monica Lewinsky, and that bill never came up anywhere.
The situation we are in right now is passing bills to fail. Each side
has a tendency to put up a bill that has something good in it, packaged
with something they like but the other side doesn't like. It is going
to get defeated on the basis of what each side doesn't like and the
good part is left out. That is not going to get anything done for us.
We have tried the stimulus bill. We got negligible effects on jobs.
It did escalate the basis for budgets and it was the use of one-time
money. That has created some problems for it. We hear that 30,000
teachers and firefighters are going to be laid off. That comes from
safety money and education money that went to the States. It was one-
time money. They cannot use one-time money for a continuing contract.
If a State did, yes, they are having to lay off people because the
stimulus is not being repeated each and every year.
Are there solutions? Yes, there are solutions. I am optimistic about
the solutions. I do recognize everything has to be on the table and we
should all reread the deficit commission report. We have to ask
constituents to suggest their own programs to reduce.
In the spring, we will be inundated by a whole lot of people who will
be ready to have us support the program that makes a difference in
their life and the life of the community. I always ask them how we are
going to pay for it? They always suggest somebody else's program to
cancel. There are never any suggestions of how to consolidate within
their own program and do it. They have to do it and each of us in
Congress needs to evaluate our own programs. Not all of them can be
sacred cows. I wish to congratulate Senator Rubio and Senator Coons for
a jobs creation bill they have put together. They have taken the
diverse bills from both sides of the aisle and several others and
looked to see if there was any common thread. All they did was pick out
the common thread from each of those and put them into a bill. If both
sides and others in Congress like it, why would that not pass and pass
quickly?
I congratulate our Congresswoman Lummis, from Wyoming. She is on the
Appropriations Committee. I think that is the first time we have ever
had anybody on the Appropriations Committee. She gets into the details
of the budget. In fact, she has gotten into details of the budget down
to very small

[[Page S7817]]

amounts, so much that she has been told she is not going to be invited
on any trips with any of the rest of them. That is probably what we
need right now, and I congratulate her on her attention to detail.
Another thing we have to do is make sure the bills go to committee. I
have been a committee chairman. I have been a ranking member. I know
when a bill goes to committee, that is where we can get into the
details of the bill, and we can do nuances. When a bill comes to the
floor of the Senate, and it came from the President to the leader and
then to us, the amendments we put in are not very workable as far as
reaching agreement from both sides. They are kind of an up-or-down
vote. They are very political, and that kind of stymies what we are
trying to do.

We have to quit doing comprehensive bills. We can do them in stages.
We can do parts of them. They can be very major parts, but they can be
done in parts.
I remember reading a book about the compromise of 1850. Henry Clay
put himself in the hospital trying to pass this huge compromise. When
he did, some of his friends took the bill, broke it into parts, four
parts, and got all the parts passed. Now, there were only four people
in all of the Senate at that time who voted for all the parts, but all
the parts passed. There should be a lesson in there for us. I do follow
an 80-percent rule; I found we can agree on 80 percent of the issues.
If we stick to that 80 percent, we can pick any one issue and we can
solve 80 percent of that problem. We can solve 100 percent if we can
get everybody to think of an alternative way to do that, one sticky
part that we have polarized for years.
Another thing we need to do is eliminate duplication. Senator Coburn
and I took a look at the primary department that comes under the
jurisdiction of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.
We found $9 billion in duplication. Because it is duplication, we
cannot eliminate $9 billion because there are some who would stay and
do the same thing the other group was doing. It stimulated Dr. Coburn
enough that he looked at all the programs. In all of the programs he
found $900 billion worth of duplication.
Duplication is not like fraud, waste, and abuse. Fraud, waste, and
abuse, we don't know how much is out there. We catch a piece at a time,
and we speculate on how much there is. But duplication is specific
because it is already in the budget.
We can look at what they are paid right now, and if we eliminate
that, it is a specific amount. When he talks about $900 billion worth
of duplication, it is $900 billion worth of duplication. We ought to be
able to get rid of at least $450 billion of that. Half of it could be
duplication. It is twice as much of what we effectively need.
Why did we find $9 billion in one agency and $900 billion by looking
at all of them? When we go outside the jurisdiction, we find--this one
always kind of interests me--financial literacy programs in virtually
every department and agency in this Federal Government. If we really
have financial literacy, would we be in the position we are in now? I
don't think so. So that is a whole lot of duplication. It is
duplicating each and every agency. If we have only one jurisdiction
over one agency, that is the only place we can eliminate it.
When I got here there were 119 preschool programs. I took a look at
them, and there were quite a few of them that were failing according to
their own evaluation--not my evaluation, their own evaluation. We were
able to get that down to 69 programs. There are 69 preschool programs
at the present time. Here is the interesting part of that: Only eight
of those are under the Department of Education. Sixty-one of them are
in other departments. It seems like we could have consolidation and
maybe some elimination of duplication.
Also, we have the States and the local governments coming to us and
saying: We are out of money. We need money, and we don't have any
money. We cannot afford to help them that way.
I have put in a bill to help them collect the sales tax already due
them, and this is the marketplace fairness bill that would take care of
their infrastructure and their jobs. So I hope everyone will take a
look at that.
Finally, another solution would be the Buy Back America Bonds that I
spoke about just a little while ago. If everybody bought some bonds,
that could reduce the amount of debt held by foreign countries; that
would help us and then that would reduce the amount of spending by an
equal amount. There are solutions out there. It is time we got busy on
them.
I thank the supercommittee for their work and ask everybody to pay
attention to whatever they come up with.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Amendments Nos. 1259, 1260, 1261, 1262, 1263, 1080, 1296, 1151, 1152,
1209, 1210, 1236, and 1255

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside and that the following amendments be called up
en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. They are, Senator Sherrod Brown, 1259, 1260, 1261, 1262,
1263; Senator Leahy, 1080; Senator Wyden, 1296; Senator Pryor, 1151,
1152; and Senator Bill Nelson, 1209, 1210, 1236, and 1255.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments en bloc are as follows:

amendment no. 1259

(Purpose: To link domestic manufacturers to defense supply chain
opportunities)

At the end of subtitle C of title III, add the following:

SEC. 325. LINKING DOMESTIC MANUFACTURERS TO DEFENSE SUPPLY
CHAIN OPPORTUNITIES.

The Secretary of Defense is authorized to work with the
Hollings Manufacturing Partnership Program and other
manufacturing-related local intermediaries designated by the
Secretary to develop a multi-agency comprehensive plan to
expand domestic defense and industrial base supply chains
with involvement from other applicable Federal agencies or
industry consortiums--
(1) to identify United States manufacturers currently
producing, or capable of producing, defense and industrial
base equipment, component parts, or similarly performing
products; and
(2) to work with partners to identify and address gaps in
domestic supply chains.

amendment no. 1260

(Purpose: To strike section 846, relating to a waiver of ``Buy
American'' requirements for procurement of components otherwise
producible overseas with specialty metal not produced in the United
States)

Strike section 846.

amendment no. 1261

(Purpose: To extend treatment of base closure areas as HUBZones for
purposes of the Small Business Act)

At the end of title XXVII, add the following:

SEC. 2705. SMALL BUSINESS HUBZONES.

Section 152(a)(2) of the Small Business Reauthorization and
Manufacturing Assistance Act of 2004 (15 U.S.C. 632 note) is
amended by inserting before the period at the end ``,
beginning on the date of enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012''.

amendment no. 1262

(Purpose: To clarify the meaning of ``produced'' for purposes of
limitations on the procurement by the Department of Defense of
specialty metals within the United States)

At the end of subtitle E of title VIII, add the following:

SEC. 889. ADDITIONAL DEFINITION RELATING TO PRODUCTION OF
SPECIALTY METALS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.

Section 2533b(m) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(11) The term `produced', as used in subsections (a) and
(b), means melted, or processed in a manner that results in
physical or chemical property changes that are the equivalent
of melting. The term does not include finishing processes
such as rolling, heat treatment, quenching, tempering,
grinding, or shaving.''.

amendment no. 1263

(Purpose: To authorize the conveyance of the John Kunkel Army Reserve
Center, Warren, Ohio)

At the end of subtitle C of title XXVIII, add the
following:

SEC. 2823. LAND CONVEYANCE, JOHN KUNKEL ARMY RESERVE CENTER,
WARREN, OHIO.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey to the Western Reserve Port Authority of Vienna, Ohio
(in this section referred to as the ``Port Authority''), all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a
parcel of real property, including any improvements thereon,
consisting of approximately 6.95 acres and containing the
John Kunkel Army Reserve Center located at 4967 Tod Avenue in
Warren, Ohio, for the purpose of permitting the Port
Authority to use the parcel for development of a port
facility and for other public purposes.

[[Page S7818]]

(b) Inclusion of Personal Property.--The Secretary of the
Army may include as part of the conveyance under subsection
(a) personal property located at the John Kunkel Army Reserve
Center that--
(1) the Secretary of Transportation recommends would be
appropriate for the development or operation of a port
facility at the site; and
(2) the Secretary of the Army agrees is excess to the needs
of the Army.
(c) Interim Lease.--Until such time as the real property
described in subsection (a) is conveyed to the Port
Authority, the Secretary of the Army may lease the property
to the Port Authority.
(d) Consideration.--
(1) Conveyance.--The conveyance under subsection (a) shall
be made without consideration as a public benefit conveyance
for port development if the Secretary of the Army determines
that the Port Authority satisfies the criteria specified in
section 554 of title 40, United States Code, and regulations
prescribed to implement such section. If the Secretary
determines that the Port Authority fails to qualify for a
public benefit conveyance, but the Port Authority still
desires to acquire the property, the Port Authority shall pay
to the United States an amount equal to the fair market value
of the property to be conveyed. The fair market value of the
property shall be determined by the Secretary.
(2) Lease.--The Secretary of the Army may accept as
consideration for a lease of the property under subsection
(c) an amount that is less than fair market value if the
Secretary determines that the public interest will be served
as a result of the lease.
(e) Payment of Costs of Conveyance.--
(1) Payment required.--The Secretary shall require the Port
Authority to reimburse the Secretary to cover costs (except
costs for environmental remediation of the property) to be
incurred by the Secretary, or to reimburse the Secretary for
costs incurred by the Secretary, to carry out the conveyance
under subsection (a), including survey costs, costs for
environmental documentation, and any other administrative
costs related to the conveyance.
(2) Treatment of amounts received.--Amounts received as
reimbursement under paragraph (1) shall be credited to the
fund or account that was used to cover those costs incurred
by the Secretary in carrying out the conveyance. Amounts so
credited shall be merged with amounts in such fund or
account, and shall be available for the same purposes, and
subject to the same conditions and limitations, as amounts in
such fund or account.
(f) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the property to be conveyed under subsection
(a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the
Secretary of the Army and the Port Authority. The cost of
such survey shall be borne by the Port Authority.
(g) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary of the
Army may require such additional terms and conditions in
connection with the conveyance as the Secretary considers
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

amendment no. 1080

(Purpose: To clarify the applicability of requirements for military
custody with respect to detainees)

On page 361, line 9, insert after ``a person who is
described in paragraph (2) who is captured'' the following:
``abroad or on a United States military facility''.

amendment no. 1296

(Purpose: To require reports on the use of indemnification agreements
in Department of Defense contracts)

At the end of subtitle C of title VIII, add the following:

SEC. 848. REPORTS ON USE OF INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENTS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 137 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 2335. Reports on use of indemnification agreements

``(a) In General.--Beginning October 1, 2011, not later
than 90 days after the date on which any action described in
subsection (b)(1) occurs, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the congressional defense committees and the
Committees on the Budget of the House of Representatives and
the Senate a report on such action.
``(b) Action Described.--(1) An action described in this
paragraph is the Secretary of Defense--
``(A) entering into a contract that includes an
indemnification agreement; or
``(B) modifying an existing indemnification agreement in
any contract.
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any contract awarded
in accordance with--
``(A) section 2354 of this title; or
``(B) the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et
seq.).
``(c) Matters Included.--For each contract covered in a
report under subsection (a), the report shall include--
``(1) the name of the contractor;
``(2) the actual cost or estimated potential cost involved;
``(3) a description of the items, property, or services for
which the contract is awarded; and
``(4) a justification of the contract including the
indemnification agreement.
``(d) National Security.--The Secretary may omit any
information in a report under subsection (a) if the
Secretary--
``(1) determines that the disclosure of such information is
not in the national security interests of the United States;
and
``(2) includes in the report a justification of the
determination made under paragraph (1).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 137 of such title is amended by adding
at the end the following new item:

``2335. Reports on use of indemnification agreements.''.

amendment no. 1151

(Purpose: To authorize a death gratuity and related benefits for
Reserves who die during an authorized stay at their residence during or
between successive days of inactive duty training)

At the end of subtitle C of title VI, add the following:

SEC. 634. DEATH GRATUITY AND RELATED BENEFITS FOR RESERVES
WHO DIE DURING AN AUTHORIZED STAY AT THEIR
RESIDENCE DURING OR BETWEEN SUCCESSIVE DAYS OF
INACTIVE DUTY TRAINING.

(a) Death Gratuity.--
(1) Payment authorized.--Section 1475(a)(3) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by inserting before the
semicolon the following: ``or while staying at the Reserve's
residence, when so authorized by proper authority, during the
period of such inactive duty training or between successive
days of inactive duty training''.
(2) Treatment as death during inactive duty training.--
Section 1478(a) of such title is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (8) as
paragraphs (5) through (9), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph (4):
``(4) A person covered by subsection (a)(3) of section 1475
of this title who died while on authorized stay at the
person's residence during a period of inactive duty training
or between successive days of inactive duty training is
considered to have been on inactive duty training on the date
of his death.''.
(b) Recovery, Care, and Disposition of Remains and Related
Benefits.--Section 1481(a)(2) of such title is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (E) and (F) as
subparagraphs (F) and (G), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new
subparagraph (E):
``(E) staying at the member's residence, when so authorized
by proper authority, during a period of inactive duty
training or between successive days of inactive duty
training;''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on January 1, 2010, and shall apply with
respect to deaths that occur on or after that date.

amendment no. 1152

(Purpose: To recognize the service in the reserve components of the
Armed Forces of certain persons by honoring them with status as
veterans under law)

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1088. PROVISION OF STATUS UNDER LAW BY HONORING CERTAIN
MEMBERS OF THE RESERVE COMPONENTS OF THE ARMED
FORCES AS VETERANS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 38, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 107 the following new
section:

``Sec. 107A. Honoring as veterans certain persons who
performed service in the reserve components

``Any person who is entitled under chapter 1223 of title 10
to retired pay for nonregular service or, but for age, would
be entitled under such chapter to retired pay for nonregular
service shall be honored as a veteran but shall not be
entitled to any benefit by reason of this section.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 107 the following new item:

``107A. Honoring as veterans certain persons who performed service in
the reserve components.''.

amendment no. 1209

(Purpose: To repeal the requirement for reduction of survivor annuities
under the Survivor Benefit Plan by veterans' dependency and indemnity
compensation)

At the end of subtitle C of title VI, add the following:

SEC. ___. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT OF REDUCTION OF SURVIVOR
BENEFITS PLAN SURVIVOR ANNUITIES BY DEPENDENCY
AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION.

(a) Repeal.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended as follows:
(A) In section 1450, by striking subsection (c).
(B) In section 1451(c)--
(i) by striking paragraph (2); and
(ii) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(2) and (3), respectively.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Such subchapter is further
amended as follows:
(A) In section 1450--
(i) by striking subsection (e);

[[Page S7819]]

(ii) by striking subsection (k); and
(iii) by striking subsection (m).
(B) In section 1451(g)(1), by striking subparagraph (C).
(C) In section 1452--
(i) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ``does not apply--''
and all that follows and inserting ``does not apply in the
case of a deduction made through administrative error.''; and
(ii) by striking subsection (g).
(D) In section 1455(c), by striking ``, 1450(k)(2),''.
(b) Prohibition on Retroactive Benefits.--No benefits may
be paid to any person for any period before the effective
date provided under subsection (f) by reason of the
amendments made by subsection (a).
(c) Prohibition on Recoupment of Certain Amounts Previously
Refunded to SBP Recipients.--A surviving spouse who is or has
been in receipt of an annuity under the Survivor Benefit Plan
under subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, United States
Code, that is in effect before the effective date provided
under subsection (f) and that is adjusted by reason of the
amendments made by subsection (a) and who has received a
refund of retired pay under section 1450(e) of title 10,
United States Code, shall not be required to repay such
refund to the United States.
(d) Repeal of Authority for Optional Annuity for Dependent
Children.--Section 1448(d) of such title is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Except as provided in
paragraph (2)(B), the Secretary concerned'' and inserting
``The Secretary concerned''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``Dependent children.--'' and all that
follows through ``In the case of a member described in
paragraph (1),'' and inserting ``Dependent children annuity
when no eligible surviving spouse.--In the case of a member
described in paragraph (1),''; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (B).
(e) Restoration of Eligibility for Previously Eligible
Spouses.--The Secretary of the military department concerned
shall restore annuity eligibility to any eligible surviving
spouse who, in consultation with the Secretary, previously
elected to transfer payment of such annuity to a surviving
child or children under the provisions of section
1448(d)(2)(B) of title 10, United States Code, as in effect
on the day before the effective date provided under
subsection (f). Such eligibility shall be restored whether or
not payment to such child or children subsequently was
terminated due to loss of dependent status or death. For the
purposes of this subsection, an eligible spouse includes a
spouse who was previously eligible for payment of such
annuity and is not remarried, or remarried after having
attained age 55, or whose second or subsequent marriage has
been terminated by death, divorce or annulment.
(f) Effective Date.--The sections and the amendments made
by this section shall take effect on the later of--
(1) the first day of the first month that begins after the
date of the enactment of this Act; or
(2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in the
calendar year in which this Act is enacted.

amendment no. 1210

(Purpose: To require an assessment of the advisability of stationing
additional DDG-51 class destroyers at Naval Station Mayport, Florida)

At the end of subtitle C of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1024. ASSESSMENT OF STATIONING OF ADDITIONAL DDG-51
CLASS DESTROYERS AT NAVAL STATION MAYPORT,
FLORIDA.

(a) Navy Assessment Required.--
(1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall
conduct an analysis of the costs and benefits of stationing
additional DDG-51 class destroyers at Naval Station Mayport,
Florida.
(2) Elements.--The analysis required by paragraph (1) shall
include, at a minimum, the following:
(A) Consideration of the negative effects on the ship
repair industrial base at Naval Station Mayport caused by the
retirement of FFG-7 class frigates and the procurement delays
of the Littoral Combat Ship, including, in particular, the
increase in costs (which would be passed on to the taxpayer)
of reconstituting the ship repair industrial base at Naval
Station Mayport following the projected drastic decrease in
workload.
(B) Updated consideration of life extensions of FFG-7 class
frigates in light of continued delays in deliveries of the
Littoral Combat Ship deliveries.
(C) Consideration of the possibility of bringing additional
surface warships to Naval Station Mayport for maintenance
with the consequence of spreading the ship repair workload
appropriately amongst the various public and private
shipyards and ensuring the long-term health of the shipyard
in Mayport.
(b) Comptroller General of the United States Assessment.--
Not later than 120 days after the submittal of the report
required by subsection (a), the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit to Congress an assessment by the
Comptroller General of the report, including a determination
whether or not the report complies with applicable best
practices.

amendment no. 1236

(Purpose: To require a report on the effects of changing flag officer
positions within the Air Force Material Command)

At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1030. REPORT ON EFFECTS OF CHANGING FLAG OFFICER
POSITIONS WITHIN THE AIR FORCE MATERIAL
COMMAND.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force
shall conduct an analysis and submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on the effects of changing flag
officer positions within the Air Force Materiel Command
(AFMC), including consideration of the following issues:
(1) The effect on the weapons testing mission of AFMC.
(2) The potential for lack of oversight if flag positions
are reduced or eliminated.
(3) The reduced experience level of general officers
managing challenging weapons development programs under a new
command structure.
(4) The additional duties of base management functions
impacting the test wing commander's ability to manage actual
weapons testing under the new structure.
(b) Comptroller General Assessment.--Not later than 60 days
after the submittal of the report under subsection (a), the
Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to
Congress an assessment by the Comptroller General of the
report, including a determination whether or not the report
complies with applicable best practices.

amendment no. 1255

(Purpose: To require an epidemiological study on the health of military
personnel exposed to burn pit emissions at Joint Base Balad)

At the end of subtitle C of title VII, add the following:

SEC. 723. EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY ON HEALTH OF MILITARY
PERSONNEL EXPOSED TO BURN PIT EMISSIONS AT
JOINT BASE BALAD.

The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a cohort study on
the long-term health effects of exposure to burn pit
emissions in military personnel deployed at Joint Base Balad.
The study shall include a prospective evaluation from
retrospective estimates of such exposures. The study shall be
conducted in accordance with recommendations by the Institute
of Medicine concluding that further study is needed to
establish correlation between burn pit exposure and disease.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

Amendments Nos. 1281, 1133, 1134, 1286, 1287, 1290, and 1291

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set
aside the pending amendment and call up the following amendments en
bloc: Senator McCain's amendment No. 1281 regarding the transfer of
arms to Georgia; Senator Blunt's two amendments, Nos. 1133 and 1134;
Senator Murkowski's two amendments, Nos. 1286 and 1287; and Senator
Rubio's two amendments, Nos. 1290 and 1291.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments en bloc are as follows:

amendment no. 1281

(Purpose: To require a plan for normalizing defense cooperation with
the Republic of Georgia)

At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1243. DEFENSE COOPERATION WITH REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA.

(a) Plan for Normalization.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall
develop and submit to the congressional defense committees
and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives
a plan for normalizing United States defense cooperation with
the Republic of Georgia, including the sale of defensive
arms.
(b) Objectives.--The plan required under subsection (a)
shall address the following objectives:
(1) To reestablish a normal defense relationship with the
Republic of Georgia.
(2) To support the Government of the Republic of Georgia in
providing for the defense of its government, people, and
sovereign territory, consistent with the continuing
commitment of the Government of the Republic of Georgia to
its nonuse-of-force pledge and consistent with Article 51 of
the Charter of the United Nations.
(3) To enhance the ability of the Government of the
Republic of Georgia to participate in coalition operations
and meet NATO partnership goals.
(4) To resume the sale by the United States of defense
articles and services that may be necessary to enable the
Government of the Republic of Georgia to maintain a
sufficient self-defense capability.
(5) To encourage NATO member and candidate countries to
restore and increase their sales of defensive articles and
services to the Republic of Georgia as part of broader NATO
effort to deepen its defense relationship and cooperation
with the Republic of Georgia.
(6) To ensure maximum transparency in the United States-
Georgia defense relationship.

[[Page S7820]]

(c) Included Information.--The plan required under
subsection (a) shall include the following information:
(1) A needs-based assessment, or an update to an existing
needs-based assessment, of the defense requirements of the
Republic of Georgia, which shall be prepared by the United
States Armed Forces.
(2) A description of each of the requests by the Government
of the Republic of Georgia for purchase of defense articles
and services during the two-year period ending on the date of
the report.
(3) A summary of the defense needs asserted by the
Government of the Republic of Georgia as justification for
its requests for defensive arms purchases.
(4) A description of the action taken on any defensive arms
sale request by the Government of the Republic of Georgia and
an explanation for such action.
(d) Form.--The plan required under subsection (a) shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified
annex.

amendment no. 1133

(Purpose: To provide for employment and reemployment rights for certain
individuals ordered to full-time National Guard duty)

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

SEC. ___. REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS FOLLOWING CERTAIN NATIONAL
GUARD DUTY.

(a) In General.--Section 4312(c)(4) of title 38, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(F) ordered to full-time National Guard duty under the
provisions of section 502(f) of title 32 when the period of
duty is expressly designated in writing by the Secretary of
Defense as covered by this subparagraph.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Subparagraph (F) of such section
4312(c)(4), as added by subsection (a)(3), shall apply with
respect to an individual ordered to full-time National Guard
duty under section 502(f) of title 32 of such Code, on or
after September 11, 2001, and shall entitle such individual
to rights and benefits under chapter 43 of title 38 of such
Code on or after that date.

amendment no. 1134

(Purpose: To require a report on the policies and practices of the Navy
for naming the vessels of the Navy)

At the end of subtitle C of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1024. REPORT ON POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF THE NAVY FOR
NAMING THE VESSELS OF THE NAVY.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress a report on the policies and
practices of the Navy for naming vessels of the Navy.
(b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
set forth the following:
(1) A description of the current policies and practices of
the Navy for naming vessels of the Navy.
(2) A description of the extent to which the policies and
practices described under paragraph (1) vary from historical
policies and practices of the Navy for naming vessels of the
Navy, and an explanation for such variances (if any).
(3) An assessment of the feasibility and advisability of
establishing fixed policies for the naming of one or more
classes of vessels of the Navy, and a statement of the
policies recommended to apply to each class of vessels
recommended to be covered by such fixed policies if the
establishment of such fixed policies is considered feasible
and advisable.
(4) Any other matters relating to the policies and
practices of the Navy for naming vessels of the Navy that the
Secretary of Defense considers appropriate.

amendment no. 1286

(Purpose: To require a Department of Defense Inspector General report
on theft of computer tapes containing protected information on covered
beneficiaries under the TRICARE program)

At the end of subtitle A of title VII, add the following:

SEC. 705. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT ON
THEFT OF COMPUTER TAPES CONTAINING PROTECTED
INFORMATION ON COVERED BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE
TRICARE PROGRAM.

The Inspector General of the Department of Defense shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on
the circumstances surrounding the theft of computer tapes
containing personally identifiable and protected health
information of approximately 4,900,000 covered beneficiaries
under the TRICARE program from the vehicle of a contractor
under the TRICARE program. The report shall include the
following:
(1) An assessment of the risk that the personally
identifiable and protected health information so stolen can
be accessed by a third party.
(2) Such recommendations as the Inspector General considers
appropriate to reduce the risk of similar incidents in the
future.

amendment no. 1287

(Purpose: To provide limitations on the retirement of C-23 aircraft)

At the end of subtitle C of title I, add the following:

SEC. 136. LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT OF C-23 AIRCRAFT.

(a) In General.--Upon determining to retire a C-23
aircraft, the Secretary of the Army shall first offer title
to such aircraft to the chief executive officer of the State
in which such aircraft is based.
(b) Transfer Upon Acceptance of Offer.--If the chief
executive officer of a State accepts title of an aircraft
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall transfer title of
the aircraft to the State without charge to the State. The
Secretary shall provide a reasonable amount of time for
acceptance of the offer.
(c) Use.--Notwithstanding the transfer of title to an
aircraft to a State under this section, the aircraft may
continue to be utilized by the National Guard of the State in
State status using National Guard crews in that status.

amendment no. 1290

(Purpose: To strike the national security waiver authority in section
1032, relating to requirements for military custody)

On page 362, strike lines 8 through 15.

amendment no. 1291

(Purpose: To strike the national security waiver authority in section
1033, relating to requirements for certifications relating to the
transfer of detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, to foreign countries and entities)

On page 365, line 9, strike ``and subsection (d)''.
On page 367, line 14, strike ``and subsection (d)''.
On page 368, strike line 13 and all that follows through
page 370, line 13.

Ms. AYOTTE. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order after all of
those actions are taken.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.

Amendments Nos. 1071, 1086, 1106, 1140, and 1219 en bloc

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up five
amendments en bloc which have been cleared by myself and the ranking
member as follows: amendment No. 1071 on behalf of Senator McCain, to
require the Secretary of Defense to report on all information with
respect to the Evolved Expendible Launch Vehicle Program that would be
required if the program were designated as a major defense acquisition
program not in the sustainment phase; amendment No. 1086 on behalf of
Senators Roberts and Moran, to authorize and request the President to
award the Medal of Honor posthumously to CPT Emil Kapaun of the U.S.
Army for acts of valor during the Korean War; amendment No. 1106 on
behalf of Senator McCain, to require a report on the status of the
implementation of accepted recommendations in the Final Report of the
2010 Army Acquisition Review Panel; amendment No. 1140 on behalf of
Senator Casey, to require a report by the Comptroller General on the
Department of Defense Military Spouse Employment Program; and amendment
No. 1219 on behalf of myself, to provide authority to order military
Reserves to Active Duty to provide assistance and response to a
disaster or emergency.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, the amendments have been cleared on our
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are as
listed.
The amendments en bloc are as follows:

amendment no. 1071

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to report on all
information with respect to the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
program that would be required if the program were designated as a
major defense acquisition program not in the sustainment phase)

At the end of subtitle E of title VIII, add the following:

SEC. 889. OVERSIGHT OF AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS WITH
RESPECT TO EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE
PROGRAM.

The Secretary of Defense shall--
(1) redesignate the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
program as a major defense acquisition program not in the
sustainment phase under section 2430 of title 10, United
States Code; or
(2) require the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program--
(A) to provide to the congressional defense committees all
information with respect to the cost, schedule, and
performance of the program that would be required to be
provided under sections 2431 (relating to weapons development
and procurement schedules), 2432 (relating to Select
Acquisition Reports, including updated program life-cycle
cost estimates), and 2433 (relating to unit cost reports) of
title 10, United States Code, with respect to the program if
the program

[[Page S7821]]

were designated as a major defense acquisition program not in
the sustainment phase; and
(B) to provide to the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics--
(i) a quarterly cost and status report, commonly known as a
Defense Acquisition Executive Summary, which serves as an
early-warning of actual and potential problems with a program
and provides for possible mitigation plans; and
(ii) earned value management data that contains
measurements of contractor technical, schedule, and cost
performance.

amendment no. 1086

(Purpose: To authorize and request the President to award the medal of
Honor posthumously to Captain Emil Kapaun of the United States Army for
acts of valor during the Korean War)

At the end of subtitle I of title V, add the following:

SEC. ___. AUTHORIZATION AND REQUEST FOR AWARD OF MEDAL OF
HONOR TO EMIL KAPAUN FOR ACTS OF VALOR DURING
THE KOREAN WAR.

(a) Authorization.--Notwithstanding the time limitations
specified in section 3744 of title 10, United States Code, or
any other time limitation with respect to the awarding of
certain medals to persons who served in the Armed Forces, the
President is authorized and requested to award the Medal of
Honor posthumously under section 3741 of such title to Emil
Kapaun for the acts of valor during the Korean War described
in subsection (b).
(b) Acts of Valor Described.--The acts of valor referred to
in subsection (a) are the actions of then Captain Emil Kapaun
as a member of the 8th Cavalry Regiment during the Battle of
Unsan on November 1 and 2, 1950, and while a prisoner of war
until his death on May 23, 1951, during the Korean War.

amendment no. 1106

(Purpose: To require a report on the status of the implementation of
accepted recommendations in the Final Report of the 2010 Army
Acquisition Review panel)

At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1080. REPORT ON STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ACCEPTED
RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE FINAL REPORT OF THE 2010
ARMY ACQUISITION REVIEW PANEL.

Not later than 1 October 2012, the Secretary of the Army
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report
describing the plan and implementation status of the
recommendations contained in the Final Report of the 2010
Army Acquisition Review panel (also known as the ``Decker-
Wagner Report'') that the Army agreed to implement.

amendment no. 1140

(Purpose: To require a report on the Comptroller General on Department
of Defense military spouse employment programs)

At the end of subtitle H of title V, add the following:

SEC. 577. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES REPORT ON
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY SPOUSE
EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS.

(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall carry out a review of all current Department of
Defense military spouse employment programs.
(b) Elements.--The review required by subsection (a) shall,
address, at a minimum, the following:
(1) The efficacy and effectiveness of Department of Defense
military spouse employment programs.
(2) All current Department programs to support military
spouses or dependents for the purposes of employment
assistance.
(3) The types of military spouse employment programs that
have been considered or used in the past by the Department.
(4) The ways in which military spouse employment programs
have changed in recent years.
(5) The benefits or programs that are specifically
available to provide employment assistance to spouses of
members of the Armed Forces serving in Operation Iraqi
Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation New Dawn,
or any other contingency operation being conducted by the
Armed Forces as of the date of such review.
(6) Existing mechanisms available to military spouses to
express their views on the effectiveness and future direction
of Department programs and policies on employment assistance
for military spouses.
(7) The oversight provided by the Office of Personnel and
Management regarding preferences for military spouses in
Federal employment.
(c) Comptroller General Report.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller
General shall submit to the congressional defense committees
a report on the review carried out under subsection (a). The
report shall set forth the following:
(1) The results of the review concerned.
(2) Such clear and concrete metrics as the Comptroller
General considers appropriate for the current and future
evaluation and assessment of the efficacy and effectiveness
of Department of Defense military spouse employment programs.
(3) A description of the assumptions utilized in the
review, and an assessment of the validity and completeness of
such assumptions.
(4) Such recommendations as the Comptroller General
considers appropriate for improving Department of Defense
military spouse employment programs.
(d) Department of Defense Report.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees
a report setting forth the number (or a reasonable estimate
if a precise number is not available) of military spouses who
have obtained employment following participation in
Department of Defense military spouse employment programs.
The report shall set forth such number (or estimate) for the
Department of Defense military spouse employment programs as
a whole and for each such military spouse employment program.

amendment no. 1219

(Purpose: To provide authority to order Army Reserve, Navy Reserve,
Marine Corps Reserve, and Air Force Reserve to active duty to provide
assistance in response to a major disaster or emergencies)

At the end of subtitle B of title V, add the following:

SEC. 515. AUTHORITY TO ORDER ARMY RESERVE, NAVY RESERVE,
MARINE CORPS RESERVE, AND AIR FORCE RESERVE TO
ACTIVE DUTY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE IN RESPONSE
TO A MAJOR DISASTER OR EMERGENCY.

(a) Authority.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 1209 of title 10, United States
Code, as amended by section 511(a)(1), is further amended by
inserting after section 12304a the following new section:

``Sec. 12304b. Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps
Reserve, and Air Force Reserve: order to active duty to
provide assistance in response to a major disaster or
emergency

``(a) Authority.--When a Governor requests Federal
assistance in responding to a major disaster or emergency (as
those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5122)), the Secretary of Defense may, without the
consent of the member affected, order any unit, and any
member not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit,
of the Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and
Air Force Reserve to active duty for a continuous period of
not more than 120 days to respond to the Governor's request.
``(b) Exclusion From Strength Limitations.--Members ordered
to active duty under this section shall not be counted in
computing authorized strength of members on active duty or
members in grade under this title or any other law.
``(c) Termination of Duty.--Whenever any unit or member of
the reserve components is ordered to active duty under this
section, the service of all units or members so ordered to
active duty may be terminated by order of the Secretary of
Defense or law.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter, as amended by section 511(a)(2),
is further amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 12304a the following new item:

``12304b. Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Air Force
Reserve: order to active duty to provide assistance in
response to a major disaster or emergency.''.

(b) Treatment of Operations as Contingency Operations.--
Section 101(a)(13)(B) of such title is amended by inserting
``12304b,'' after ``12304,''.
(c) Usual and Customary Arrangement.--
(1) Dual-status commander.--When the Armed Forces and the
National Guard are employed simultaneously in support of
civil authorities in the United States, appointment of a
commissioned officer as a dual-status commander serving on
active duty and duty in, or with, the National Guard of a
State under sections 315 or 325 of title 32, United States
Code, as commander of Federal forces by Federal authorities
and as commander of State National Guard forces by State
authorities, should be the usual and customary command and
control arrangement, including for missions involving a major
disaster or emergency as those terms are defined in section
102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122). The chain of command for the
Armed Forces shall remain in accordance with sections 162(b)
and 164(c) of title 10, United States Code.
(2) State authorities supported.--When a major disaster or
emergency occurs in any area subject to the laws of any
State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, the Governor
of the State affected normally should be the principal civil
authority supported by the primary Federal agency and its
supporting Federal entities, and the Adjutant General of the
State or his or her subordinate designee normally should be
the principal military authority supported by the dual-status
commander when acting in his or her State capacity.
(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in paragraphs (1) or (2)
shall be construed to preclude or limit, in any way, the
authorities of the President, the Secretary of Defense, or
the Governor of any State to direct, control, and prescribe
command and control

[[Page S7822]]

arrangements for forces under their command.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
consider the amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, and the
motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 1071, 1086, 1106, 1140, and 1219) were agreed
to.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, one of the greatest--if not the greatest
threats to the security of our Nation and our ally Israel--is the
concerted effort by the Government of Iran to acquire the technology
and materials to create a nuclear weapon that will alter the balance of
power in the Middle East, and which would most certainly lead to
hostilities. To forestall or ideally prevent this scenario, we must use
ALL of the tools of peaceful diplomacy available to us.
Simply put, we must do everything in our power to prevent Iran from
obtaining a nuclear weapon. I am pleased to offer an amendment that
will limit Iran's ability to finance its nuclear ambitions by
sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran, which is complicit in Iran's
efforts.
This amendment will require the President to make a determination
about whether the Central Bank of Iran's conduct threatens the national
security of the United States or its allies based on its facilitation
of the activities of the Government of Iran that threaten global or
regional peace and security, its evasion of multilateral sanctions
directed against the Government of Iran; its engagement in deceptive
financial practices and illicit transactions, and most importantly its
provision of financial services in support of Iran's effort to acquire
the knowledge, materials, and facilities to enrich uranium and to
ultimately develop weapons of mass destruction.
Last week we learned just how far down the nuclear road Iran has
come. The International Atomic Energy Agency's report indicates that
Iran continues to enrich uranium and is seeking to develop as many as
10 new enrichment facilities; has conducted high explosives testing and
detonator development to set off a nuclear charge, as well as computer
modeling of a core of a nuclear warhead; and has engaged in preparatory
work for a nuclear weapons test. We also learned that an August IAEA
inspection revealed that 43.5 pounds of a component--used to arm
nuclear warheads--was unaccounted for in Iran and that Iran is working
on an indigenous design for a nuclear payload small enough to fit on
Iran's long-range Shahab-3 missile, a missile capable to reaching
Israel.
These revelations--combined with Iran's provocative effort in October
to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States--demonstrate
that Iran's aggression has taken a violent turn and that we can expect
that if it gets a nuclear weapon that it will use that weapon.
This amendment will impose sanctions on any foreign financial
institutions that engage in significant transactions with the Central
Bank of Iran, with the exception of transactions in food, medicine, and
medical devices. It sends the message that you have a choice--to do
business with the United States or to do business with Iran.
Iran has a history of exporting terrorism--against coalition forces
in Iraq, in Argentina, Lebanon, and even in Washington; and while
Iran's drive to advance its nuclear weapons program has been slowed by
U.S. and international sanctions, it remains undeterred. Today, we take
the next step to isolate Iran politically and financially.
I also look forward to continuing to work with the administration and
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve our shared
goals and to make this a bipartisan initiative.
Our efforts to date have been transformative, but Iran has adapted to
the sanctions, unanticipated loopholes have allowed the regime to
adjust and circumvent the sanctions and drive forward its effort to
achieve a robust nuclear program.
We have to be just as prepared to adjust and adapt by closing each
loophole that arises. By identifying the Central Bank of Iran as the
Iranian regime's partner and financier of its terrorist agenda we can
begin to starve the regime of the money it needs to achieve its nuclear
goals.

Amendment No. 1114

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak on amendment No.
1114 to S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012. The amendment is cosponsored by Senators Snowe, Casey, Leahy,
Graham, Murkowski, Akaka, Pryor, Brown of Massachusetts, Tester, and
Manchin.
This amendment can be explained very simply. It expands the ability
of Reserve component members and surviving spouses to travel on
military aircraft when space is available.
Members of the National Guard and Reserve and surviving military
spouses make great sacrifices for our Nation. However, too often these
individuals do not receive the benefits they have earned for their
service. For example, Reserve component members' and retirees' space-
available travel privileges are limited within the United States and
their family cannot travel with them.
As we all know, the National Guard and Reserve contributions to our
Nation's defense since 9/11 are invaluable. There is no reason why
their ability to travel on a military aircraft when space is available
should be limited or restricted just because they are in the Guard or
Reserve. They have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have lost
comrades. Virtually every member of the National Guard in Alaska has
deployed in support of Iraq or Afghanistan.
Surviving spouses of a military member eligible for retired pay or of
a member killed in the line of duty retain no space-available travel
privileges at all after the death of their spouse. Yet they have made a
lifetime commitment to the military or, in many cases, lost their loved
one in war--the ultimate sacrifice.
We must continue to provide support to our surviving spouses and
recognize their commitment to our military. As many of our Nation's
most senior leaders have said, families are the backbone of the
military. We must continue to recognize the National Guard and Reserve
who are such a vital part of our Nation's defense and homeland
security.
In this time of fiscal constraint, this amendment gives us the
opportunity to support our National Guard, Reserves, and surviving
spouses without a cost to taxpayers. The amendment is budget neutral.
The amendment is supported by the National Guard Association of the
United States, Air Force Sergeants Association, and the Gold Star
Wives.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in providing better
benefits--at no cost--to surviving spouses and Reserve component
members.

Amendment No. 1149

Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to speak about my
amendment No. 1149. I would like to thank my cosponsor, Senator
Murkowski, for her work on this amendment.
This amendment is very simple. It authorizes the Air Force to enter
into a land exchange and conveyance in Alaska.
The exchange will resolve land-use conflicts between the municipality
of Anchorage, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, and Eklutna, an Alaska
Native village.
By working out this agreement, we are ensuring the airmen and
soldiers at the joint base have more land available to continue the
vital training they need to defend our Nation.
All Federal agencies involved support this land exchange and
conveyance. This includes the Air Force and Bureau of Land Management.
I appreciate my colleagues' consideration of this amendment and urge
their support.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleagues,
Senator Collins, Senator Akaka, and Senator Lugar, to support an
amendment to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our government
by fostering greater integration among the personnel who work on
critical national security and homeland security missions.
The national security and homeland security challenges that our
Nation faces in the 21st century are far more complex than those of the
last century. Threats such as terrorism, proliferation of nuclear and
biological weapons,

[[Page S7823]]

insurgencies, and failed states are beyond the capability of any single
agency of our government--such as the Department of Defense, DOD; the
Department of State; or the intelligence community--to counter on its
own.
In addition, threats such as terrorism and organized crime know no
borders and instead cross the so-called foreign/domestic divide--the
bureaucratic, cultural, and legal division between agencies that focus
on threats from beyond our borders and those that focus on threats from
within.
Finally, a new group of government agencies is now involved in
national and homeland security. These agencies bring to bear critical
capabilities--such as interdicting terrorist finance, enforcing
sanctions, protecting our critical infrastructure, and helping foreign
countries threatened by terrorism to build their economies and legal
systems--but many of them have relatively little experience of
involvement with the traditional national security agencies. Some of
these agencies have existed for decades or centuries--such as the
Departments of Treasury; Justice; and Health and Human Services, HHS--
while others are new since 9/11, such as the Department of Homeland
Security, DHS.
As a result, our government needs to be able to apply all instruments
of national power--including military, diplomatic, law enforcement,
foreign aid, homeland security, and public health--in a whole-of-
government approach to counter these threats. We only need to look at
our government's failure to use the full range of civilian and military
capabilities to stymie the Iraqi insurgency immediately after the fall
of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003, the government's failure to prepare
and respond to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the government's failure
to share information and coordinate action prior to the attack at Fort
Hood, TX, in 2009, for examples of failure of interagency coordination
and their costs in terms of lives, money, and the national interest.
The challenge of integrating the agencies of the executive branch
into a whole-of-government approach has been recognized by
congressionally chartered commissions for more than a decade. Prior to
9/11, the commission led by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren
Rudman, entitled the U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st
Century, issued reports recommending fundamental reorganization to
integrate government capabilities, including for homeland security.
In 2004, the 9/11 Commission, led by former Governor Tom Kean and
former Representative Lee Hamilton, found that the U.S. Government
needed reform in order to foster a stronger, faster, and more efficient
governmentwide effort against terrorism.
And in 2008, the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass
Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, led by former Senators Bob
Graham and Jim Talent, called for improving interagency coordination in
our Nation's defenses against bioterrorism and other weapons of mass
destruction.
Congress has long recognized that a key way to better integrate our
government's capabilities is to provide strong incentives for personnel
to do rotational assignments across bureaucratic stovepipes. The
personnel who serve in our government are our Nation's best and
brightest, and they have and will respond to incentives that we
institute in order to improve coordination across our government.
In 1986, Congress enacted the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act. That legislation sought to break down stovepipes
and foster jointness across the military services by requiring that
military officers have served in a position outside of their service as
a requirement for promotion to general or admiral.
Twenty-five years later, this requirement has produced a sea change
in military officers' mindsets and created a dominant military culture
of jointness.
In 2004, Congress enacted the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act at the 9/11 Commission's recommendation and required a
similar rotational requirement for intelligence personnel. The Director
of National Intelligence has since instituted rotations across the
intelligence community as an eligibility requirement for promotion to
senior intelligence positions, and this requirement is helping to
integrate the 16 agencies and elements of the intelligence community.
Finally, in 2005, Congress enacted the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act to improve our Nation's preparedness for and
responses to domestic catastrophes and instituted a rotational program
within the Department of Homeland Security in order to integrate that
Department.
This proven mechanism of rotations must be applied to integrate the
government as a whole on national security and homeland security
issues. Indeed, the Hart/Rudman Commission called for rotations to
other agencies and interagency professional education to be required in
order for personnel to hold certain positions or be promoted to certain
levels. And the Graham/Talent Commission called for the government to
recruit the next generation of national security experts by
establishing a program of joint duty, education, and training in order
to create a culture of interagency collaboration, flexibility, and
innovation.
The executive branch has also recognized the need to foster greater
interagency rotations and experience in order to improve integration
across its agencies. In 2007, President George W. Bush issued Executive
Order 13434 concerning national security professional development and
to include interagency assignments. However, that Executive order was
not implemented aggressively toward the end of the Bush administration
and has languished as the Obama administration pursued other
priorities.
Clearly, it is time for Congress to act and to institute the
personnel incentives and reforms necessary to further integrate our
government and enable it to counter the national security and homeland
security threats of the 21st century.
In June of this year, I joined with Senator Susan M. Collins and
Senator Daniel K. Akaka to introduce the bipartisan Interagency
Personnel Rotation Act of 2011, S. 1268. Companion legislation was
introduced in the House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis by
Representative Geoff Davis and Representative John F. Tierney. The
legislation was marked up by the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs on October 19, 2011. I am pleased that Senator
Richard Lugar, ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Relations,
has joined as a cosponsor of that bill. Senator Collins, Senator Akaka,
Senator Lugar, and I are pleased to offer the Interagency Personnel
Rotation Act, with minor modifications from the marked-up version, as
an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012.
The purpose of this amendment is to enable executive branch personnel
to view national security and homeland security issues from a whole-of-
government perspective and be able to capitalize upon communities of
interest composed of personnel from multiple agencies who work on the
same national security or homeland security issue.
This amendment requires that the executive branch identify
``Interagency Communities of Interest''--which are subject areas
spanning multiple agencies and within which the executive branch needs
to operate on a more integrated basis. Interagency communities of
interest could include counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, counter
proliferation, or regional areas such as the Middle East.
This amendment then requires that agencies identify positions that
are within each interagency community of interest. Government personnel
would then rotate to positions within other agencies but within the
particular interagency community of interest related to their
expertise.
Government personnel could also rotate to positions at offices that
have specific interagency missions such as the national security staff.
Completing an interagency rotation would be a prerequisite for
selection to certain Senior Executive Service positions within that
interagency community of interest. As a result, personnel would have
the incentives to serve in a rotational position and to develop the
whole-of-government perspective and the network of contacts necessary
for integrating across agencies and accomplishing national security and
homeland security missions more efficiently and effectively.

[[Page S7824]]

Let me offer some examples of how this might work.
An employee of the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID,
who specializes in development strategy could rotate to a DOD
counterinsurgency office to advise DOD in planning on how development
issues should be taken into account in military operations, while a DOD
counterinsurgency specialist could rotate to USAID to advise on how
development priorities should be assessed in a counterinsurgency.
A Treasury employee who does terrorist finance work could benefit
from a rotation to Department of Justice to understand operations to
take down terrorist cells and how terrorist finance work can help
identify and prosecute their members, while a Justice employee would
have the chance to learn from the Treasury's financial expertise in
understanding how sources of funding can affect cells' formation and
plotting.
An HHS employee who specializes in public health could rotate to a
DOD counterinsurgency office to advise on improving public health in
order to win over the hearts and minds of the population to counter
insurgency, while a DHS employee could rotate to HHS in order to learn
about HHS's work to prepare the U.S. public health system for a
biological terrorist attack.
The cosponsors of this amendment and I recognize the complexity
involved in the creation of interagency communities of interest, the
institution of rotations across a wide variety of government agencies,
and having a rotation as a prerequisite for selection to certain Senior
Executive Service positions. As a result, our legislation gives the
executive branch substantial flexibility--including to identify
interagency communities of interest; to identify which positions in
each agency are within a particular interagency community of interest;
to identify which positions in an interagency community of interest
should be open for rotation and how long the rotations will be; and,
finally, which Senior Executive Service positions have interagency
rotational service as a prerequisite.
To be clear, this legislation does not mandate that any agency be
included in an interagency community of interest or the interagency
personnel rotations; instead, this legislation permits the executive
branch to include any agency or part of an agency as the executive
branch determines that our Nation's national and homeland security
missions require.
Finally, I wish to stress that this amendment is designed to be
implemented with no cost to the executive branch.
First, this amendment is designed to be implemented without requiring
any additional personnel for the executive branch. The amendment
envisions that rotations will be conducted so that there is a
reasonable equivalence between the number of personnel rotating out of
an agency and the number rotating in. That way, no agency will be short
staffed as a result of having sent its best and brightest to do
rotations; each agency will be receiving the best and brightest from
other agencies.
Second, this amendment relies on the office that is currently
implementing the executive branch's national security professional
development program to implement this framework instituted by this
amendment. This office is currently housed at DOD, and the legislation
would move the office and its three employees to the Office of
Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management, which
have oversight responsibility for this framework. Thus, no new staff
would be required to administer the framework set forth in the
amendment.
Third, this amendment has a 5-year implementation period which
requires the executive branch to create two interagency communities of
interest--for emergency management, and stabilization and
reconstruction--to restrict the number of personnel doing rotations to
20 to 25 per year per each of these two interagency communities of
interest, and to restrict the rotations to within a metropolitan area
in order to avoid any relocation costs.
Fourth, this amendment requires that personnel doing a rotation
receive the same training by the receiving agency that the receiving
agency would provide to its own new employees, rather than more
elaborate training that would incur costs.
And fifth, this amendment requires that any reports produced pursuant
to the amendment be submitted on line rather than published in hard
copy.
Let me close by answering a common objection to government
reorganization. To quote the 9/11 Commission:

An argument against change is that the nation is at war,
and cannot afford to reorganize in midstream. But some of the
main innovations of the 1940s and 1950s, including the
creation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and even the
construction of the Pentagon itself, were undertaken in the
midst of war. Surely the country cannot wait until the
struggle against Islamic terrorism is over.

I urge my colleagues to take bold action to improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of our government in countering 21st century national
security and homeland security threats by promptly adopting this
amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012.

____________________