Foster Care Mentoring Act of 2011

Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Maryland regarding the nomination of Mr. Boarman. My colleague from Maryland has offered a spirited and comprehensive description of why Mr. Boarman should be confirmed as our Public Printer. I wish to, one, validate everything he said; and, second, Mr. Boarman, we need to know, is a reformer. He has the heart of a reformer. He has the spirit of a reformer. He has the know-how of a reformer.

As we look at the position he is being asked to serve in, we need someone who has technical competence in the field, experience in managing a large organization, and also one who has dealt with the challenges related to both delivering a product but also those related to the workforce.

I think we are doing a national disservice by not putting this man in office so he can take charge and maintain something that is a nonpartisan job--the Government Printing Office. It is not as though he is going to be in some back room reprinting little pamphlets from the 1930s Bread March. He is here to be our Public Printer.

We know we are into a new age, a digital age. He has a lot of reform to do. We know there is workforce reform that needs to be done but done with sensitivity. Again, he is somebody who himself is from the rank and file.

I think this: Once again, we are playing politics with a job that certainly is not political. We have an esteemed, qualified individual who wants to be a reformer, to get the job done, and who knows we are in a more frugal atmosphere.

I think we are wasting time, we are wasting money, and we are wasting the talent of an exceptional individual.

I am going to say this: The more we continue to delay and be deleterious on these appointments, why would anybody want to come forth to serve in the public domain? They often have to give up jobs or put their jobs on hold while they are waiting for these confirmation processes. We put more sand in the gears of government, and then we blame government for grinding to a halt.

Let's have an orderly way of dealing with nominations and at least give the man a vote up or down, yes or no.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the American people are watching this and saying: What are they doing? Well, actually we are doing a lot. Senator Blunt and I are managing the bill. You might say: But there is nothing going on. Well, there is a lot going on because we are reviewing amendments of Senators. That is what all this discussion is, to see what we can take or there might even be bipartisan agreement. And then we are lining up how we will proceed on the next four to six amendments, again alternating both sides of the aisle.

So if people are watching this and saying: What are they doing, just what are they doing, well, we are doing a lot. We hope to, by the close of business tomorrow, finish the Agriculture, Commerce-Justice, and Transportation-Housing bill appropriations. We are going to have some robust debate on some amendments. Some are quite controversial. But right now, we are trying to see what we agree on and, what we don't agree on, how could there be a regular, civilized, orderly process for having a debate and then voting.

We anticipate that somewhere around 5:30 or 6:00, we will have a cluster of votes. So that is kind of the game plan so far.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next first-degree amendments in order to be called up and made pending to H.R. 2112 and the substitute amendment No. 738 be the following: Ayotte, No. 753; Crapo, No. 814; Moran, No. 815; Coburn, No. 793; Coburn, No. 798; DeMint, No. 763; DeMint, No. 764; Grassley, No. 860; Sessions, No. 810; Lautenberg, No. 836; Brown of Ohio, No. 874; Merkley, No. 879; Bingaman, No. 771; Gillibrand, No. 869; Feinstein, No. 855; and Menendez, No. 857; further, that a motion to recommit from Senator Lee be in order; that, if offered, the motion be set aside and the Senate return to the consideration of the pending amendments.

Mr. President, this means this is now the order in which we will proceed. These are the amendments that both sides have agreed should be offered in this tranche or cluster.

We are saying to the Senators who now have these amendments, get ready to come to the floor. As I understand it, Kelly Ayotte will be here to offer her amendment, which will be important, and then what we would like to do is alternate on both sides of the aisle. The Senator from New Hampshire will offer her amendment. We hope then that there would be a Democrat, and we will go back and forth. If a Senator is not here, we will move on to the people who are here.

We have 16 amendments. We would like to finish these amendments this evening. The more that can come and be ready to offer their amendments and debate--and Senators will be able to present their amendments and debate them, but we would like to do that.

That is the way we are going to proceed. These are the amendments. We will alternate on both sides of the aisle. We encourage Senators who have these amendments to come over and we will call them up.

Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri is right. We haven't had a regular order for some time. Leadership on both sides of the aisle has created this fantastic opportunity. We are actually following a regular order on our appropriations. We are actually following a regular order. This is our opportunity to show we can have a regular order, that we can move our annual appropriations together in a well-measured, well-paced, well-debated, and well-scrutinized way.

I hope our colleagues who have amendments will come over. We know Senators have lots of opinions, and opinions sometimes get translated into amendments. But we ask our colleagues now to show we can govern. Come down, come to the floor and offer these amendments and show we can move three very important bills. The one affecting transportation and housing is important to our economy. This is a jobs bill, putting people to work building highways, roads, and housing. Agriculture is an important part of our economy, and also Commerce, Justice, and Science is the innovation committee, the trade committee, and the advocacy for justice committee. We look forward to these amendments and debating them.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would advise the Senator that we are waiting for one of the Senators to come and offer an amendment, if he wishes to speak on another subject.

Why don't you proceed.

Does the Senator from Idaho wish to offer an amendment?

Madam President, what I wish to suggest as a way of proceeding, with the concurrence of the other side, is the Senator modify his amendment, because that is quick. Then we will go to the Senator from Idaho. Then I have some rebuttals to some of the amendments offered.

Madam President, I want to thank the Senator from New Mexico for his comments regarding the U.S. Trade Representative and the work of the U.S. Trade Representative's Office.

We do have to fight unfair and even predatory trade practices. In his cogent comments, he spoke about steel. We have been trying to look out for steel in my State for some time against these unfair practices. Sometimes we win, most of the time we lose ground. The amendment that is offered by the Senator from New Mexico would, as he said, increase the funding by $4.5 million for a new total of $51 billion. That is identical to what the House has. The amendment does rescind money from the forfeiture fund which has been used for law enforcement task forces, including drugs, human trafficking, and other things. I am inclined to support the amendment. I certainly support the philosophical thrust of the amendment. We have some questions about the offset. We have to get the concurrence of CBO to make sure it is budget neutral, and we are consulting with my ranking member to get her thoughts and views on it.

Again, I wish to say to the Senator from New Mexico that I support the thrust of the amendment, and I need to consult. We are waiting for a comment from our ranking member who is tied up on other legislative matters and we expect to hear from her shortly. When we do, we will be able to talk about how we will dispose of this amendment.

I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his advocacy.

Amendment No. 753

I wish to speak on another matter, which is an amendment that was raised, amendment No. 753, on terrorists and prosecutions, which was offered by the Senator from New Hampshire earlier. In order to expedite proceedings, I withheld my rebuttal, and now I choose to take this time to rebut the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire.

I rise in opposition to her amendment. Although well intentioned, there are serious objections to it. Her amendment would prohibit the Department of Justice from trying anyone charged with terrorism-related concerns in an article III court in the United States.

I oppose the amendment for three reasons. First, the amendment is unnecessary. The Department of Justice has a strong track record of successfully prosecuting terrorists in criminal courts.

Second, it goes beyond the law that already prohibits certain terrorist suspects from even coming into the United States, even for prosecution. This was language included in the 2011 continuing resolution, and our fiscal year 2012 CJS bill does carry that same language. For example, we have already dealt with someone such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. This amendment also would reach beyond that and it wouldn't allow prosecutions on any new non-U.S. citizen on terrorism-related charges.

Third, this amendment is opposed by the Departments of Justice and Defense. I don't mean just the Departments. Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta object to this amendment. They feel they have a working agreement on how best to try terrorists.

I say to my colleagues, I hope they would reject the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire when it comes up.

The Department of Justice has a strong record of successfully convicting terrorists in their criminal courts. One can look at the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the attack on the U.S. Embassies in East Africa, and the trial and conviction of the Blind Sheik. Over 400 terrorists have been tried and convicted since 2001. Just last week, another success, the so-called underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, pled guilty in Federal court in Michigan. There were and are major cases resulting in criminal convictions of terrorists. So I would suggest the Senator from New Hampshire's concern that the Department of Justice is not equipped to try terrorist suspects does not have traction because the record shows otherwise.

I think we have to be careful because this amendment goes beyond current law. In 2011, we passed the Defense Authorization Act and then the 2011 continuing resolution, both of which prohibit the administration from bringing Guantanamo Bay detainees into the United States even for prosecution. Congress will have to change restrictions in law before Gitmo detainees are transferred to the United States for prosecution or detention. Senator Ayotte's amendment would go beyond these restrictions to say that anyone indicted on a terrorism-related charge who isn't a U.S. citizen couldn't be prosecuted in Federal courts, unnecessarily court-stripping.

I have no sympathy for terrorists, and I am going to make sure we honor international law but that we prosecute to the fullest extent possible. What we want to be able to show is that the Department of Justice has successfully prosecuted them, and this amendment would prohibit--this amendment would not be about prosecuting terrorists, it would be about choking the Department of Justice.

Let me go to my third reason, which is the opposition by Secretary Leon Panetta and Attorney General Holder. Defense and Justice share responsibility for prosecuting terrorists. Justice prosecutes in criminal courts and the Defense Department prosecutes in military commissions. Defense and Justice have a joint protocol where they work together to evaluate terrorist cases to decide where best, where most effectively to prosecute them. In light of the restrictions Congress has already made on these trials, the Defense Department decided earlier this year to resume new charges in the military commissions. But Congress shouldn't restrict the ability of the executive branch to decide where best to prosecute terrorists--understanding some of the dynamics of international law, criminal codes, codes of military conduct, to decide where best to prosecute terrorists.

We don't want to set a dangerous precedent, if Defense or Justice are restricted from using every tool available to bring the terrorists to justice.

I hope, when we vote on this amendment, we defeat it, recognizing that the Senator from New Hampshire wants to be sure justice is served, and we want it too. The best way to serve justice is to let the Defense Department and Justice Department decide what court or tribunal is the best way to proceed--to ensure the fairness of a trial but to make sure we have the best, most effective, most efficient way to do it. I must say, when one looks at the record of the Justice Department in prosecuting these terrorists in civilian courts, prosecutions were achieved, convictions were obtained, and as the world watched it, justice was served. I am pretty proud of that.

I hope we will defeat the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire but that we be united as a Congress and the Senate in making sure we prosecute those who engage in any predatory activity directed to the United States of America and its citizens.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to compliment the Senator from New Jersey for this amendment. I think it is common sense. I think it accomplishes so many objectives. No. 1, it helps people with real problems be able to get back on their feet, maintain home ownership, and get our economy going and put people to work.

I know the Senator from New Jersey and others here support an infrastructure bank. Yes, we want to build roads and bridges. I would like to take broadband to every part of America. But we also need to look at home building, and Maryland's has come to a screeching halt, even in a robust State such as Maryland. Everybody I talk to in the Maryland business community says: Unless you crack the housing situation, you cannot crack the economic situation.

By having access to the American dream, which has now become an American nightmare, this American dream created jobs, whether it was people who built them, the real estate developers who developed them, or the people like Senator Isakson who made a career of selling them. This was about building a home, and in many instances it was about building community.

I think that where we are, if we agree to the Menendez amendment, that will go a long way in being able to help people. We have to really deal with this. Quite frankly, I have been disappointed. Just about every darn thing we have done to ``help with the housing mortgage situation'' has been a bust. It has been an absolute bust. We spent millions and so on. We had this program. We had catchy little titles. But nothing catches on to solve the mortgage crisis.

I believe the Menendez amendment, supported by someone who really understands business and housing and community--I think this amendment is a winner. I am happy to put my name on it. I will look forward to voting for it when the time comes.

We have set aside the motion to recommit offered by the Senator from Utah; however, I wish to rise in opposition to his motion. This is all about budget-speak. It is really hard to follow between budget authority and expenditures, et cetera. But let me just say this in plain English.

This bill is $500 million less than we spent in 2011--$500 million less than we spent in 2011. Now, this is not the chairperson of the CJS bill kind of making up numbers. This is confirmed by the Congressional Budget Office. It has been certified by the chairman of the Budget Committee. The CJS bill is nearly $500 million less than last year.

Now, am I doing fuzzy math? No. I do not do fuzzy math. The CJS bill is consistent with something called the

Budget Control Act. The Budget Control Act requires appropriations to cut $7 billion for our fiscal year 2012. When we got our allocation, the CJS subcommittee allocation was $500 million below 2011. I am going to say it again--$500 million below what we spent in 2011.

This allocation required the CJS subcommittee to take stern and even drastic measures. I eliminated 30 programs. Yes, Senator Barbara Mikulski, a Democratic, a liberal, I cut and eliminated 30 programs: 4 in Commerce--I think you objected to 1; 20 in Justice; 1 in Space; 4 in the National Science Foundation. I could not believe it, but that is what we had to do.

We cut the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Lab by $1 billion. That was a $1 billion project the National Science Foundation wanted. We said we would like it too but not in these austere times. There were other programs that we were able to do. And we were not happy about it. We absolutely were not happy about it. We cut the Baldridge Program. We cut the public telecommunications facility planning and communications. I mean, we did what we had to do.

So while the Senator looks at I am not sure what, I can tell you we are $500 million below 2011. The Congressional Budget Office says it. The numbers were reviewed by the Budget Committee itself. The chairman signed off that we were $500 million below, to help the overall Appropriations Committee reduce its expenditures by $7 billion.

So that is for 2011. Now let's look at 2012. I mean, the President came to Congress and gave a dynamic State of the Union speech. It touched America deeply when he said: I want to outbuild, outeducate, outinnovate anyone in the world. And he proposed his budget.

When you look at what we are doing here, my appropriations, my Commerce-Justice appropriations, is $5 billion--that is ``b'' as in ``Barb''--not $5 million, like ``m'' in ``Mikulski.'' We are $5 billion below what the President said he needed in Commerce-Justice-Science, technology, the innovation subcommittee, to help outeducate and out- innovate anybody else in the world. So I am $5 billion less than what the President of the United States said he needed to have to accomplish national goals.

Now, we talk a lot about that we want America to be exceptional. Well, you have to spend money to be exceptional, and when you put your money in science, technology, and education, we can come up with new ideas, new products that we can make and sell around the world, and our children know they have a future in this new global economy.

I do not want to be nickel-and-dimed here. I have already been nickel-and-dimed to be able to comply with this bill. You know, I am back to where Obama was in January, that cold day, and now here we are. So when we talk about cutting, we have cut. We have absolutely cut. We cut discretionary spending at an incredible level. And do you think it is has helped create one job? Do you think the market is going ``hoorah, hoorah, look at what they are doing''? No. Do you know why? Because the private sector knows that if we are going to be a 21st- century nation, if we are going to be America the exceptional, we must educate.

We also must invest in scientific research so that the private sector can take that basic research we do, value add to it, and with the genius that is America, the ability--that intellectual property you can own and be protected, that you are going to develop a product, and you have the National Institute of Standards to come and help you develop the standards so that you will be able to sell it in America in every State and sell it around the world in every nation.

So come on. If we want to be America the exceptional, stop nickel- and-diming. One of the ways you deal with debt is a growing economy, restoring consumer confidence, restoring citizen confidence, No. 1, that we can govern ourselves and that we can govern ourselves in a smart fashion. Yes, we do need to be frugal, but we sure do not need to be stupid.

I am going to oppose this amendment, and I sure hope the people pass my bill.

I yield the floor.

Does the Senator wish to offer an amendment?

I am seeking clarification.

Does the Senator wish to comment on the Moran amendment?

We are alternating back and forth, so we will go to Senator Sessions and then Senator Udall.

Then we will go to the Senator from Colorado for his comments.

We have an order that has been established. I can understand the Senator from Michigan wanting to rebut. How long does the Senator from Michigan wish to talk?

OK.

No objection.

Mr. President, this is a very interesting bill on the floor. It is really three bills. It is the Agriculture appropriations, Commerce-Justice-Science, and the Transportation-Housing bill.

Our colleague, Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, spent a good part of yesterday managing the bill. He chairs the agriculture subcommittee. I am doing it today. Senator Kohl is tied up on other matters.

He is adamant in his opposition to the Moran amendment providing $8 million for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. While he is not opposed to the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, he wanted to make it clear that we had to make very difficult decisions. He does not support Senator Moran's amendment as it would offset funding in the departmental administration providing numerous essential services to USDA. These cuts would force USDA to impose a reduction in force and would have a detrimental effect on the Department and its operation.

USDA has initiated buyouts to several thousand employees across many agricultural agencies. The level for the Department administration is over $13 million and $7 million below the request. Secretary Vilsack has reached out to the agricultural subcommittee and has concerns with overall staff reductions at the Department. Senator Kohl echoes Secretary Vilsack's concern.

Senator Kohl opposes this amendment, and on his behalf, I urge other Senators to oppose it as well.

He also opposed the Crapo amendment because, in a nutshell, says that dictating that funds cannot be used unless the rulemaking agenda and implementation schedule meet with congressional approval or constraining the regulatory process of defining terms just goes too far and is a veiled attempt to roll back critical Dodd-Frank reforms, particularly in the derivative area.

Again, on behalf of Senator Kohl, he urges all Senators to reject Crapo amendment No. 814.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in a few minutes, I want an opportunity to, for clarification, talk about the LRA, troops who have gone over to northern Uganda, including Rwanda and south Sudan. I will wait now because a lot will want to speak subject to these amendments.

I wish to mention something I think is significant because nobody is talking about it. People have heard me talking over the years about the overregulation being pursued by this administration in every area and what it is costing in terms of jobs.

I know I talk about this quite often, but this time I am talking about a different area of overregulation. Most of the time I am talking about what the EPA is doing to destroy businesses in this country. I do that because I am the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over the environmental regulations and the EPA.

When we see what they are doing, it is something that is more serious--or at least as serious as all the deficits that are coming out of this administration because it is chasing jobs overseas. We will talk about that. This is a different area altogether.

We talk about the overregulation that comes from the EPA in the EPW Committee, where we have jurisdiction. Today, I want to mention what is going on in the USDA. In the 2008 farm bill, the USDA was instructed to revisit and update the marketing regulations authorized to the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. That particular act is governed by the Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration, or GIPSA, as it is referred to. That is all within the USDA.

The agency is supposed to regulate and deal with the marketing practices within the livestock industry. I am from Oklahoma, and it is a huge industry in Oklahoma. This provision of the farm bill was heavily debated and amended when it was considered and, ultimately, the USDA was instructed to provide regulations for a few explicit objectives. Among them were broader contract cancellation rights for livestock growers; the disclosure of foreseeable future necessary capital investment required for contract growers within their growing contracts; and criteria for GIPSA to determine whether producers are treated with unreasonable preference or advantage. The House already considered this. In fact, they have done their Agriculture appropriations bill.

Several months after the farm bill was enacted--the one I referred to--GIPSA released its preliminary rule,

and the rule they published went far beyond the requirements that were explicitly stated in the law.

One of the biggest problems with the rule is that it would allow GIPSA and the USDA to punish livestock producers and buyers for engaging in practices it considers unfair or unjust, even when there is no proof that their practices are actually harming competition within the industry. They want to do this in the name of leveling the playing field, which we hear a lot about around here, and that playing field would be between the packers and livestock producers, but what they are doing is regulating this industry in a way that would prohibit any real innovation or differentiation among companies in the industry. It forces a one-size-fits-all approach to running the livestock industry.

For one, the new rule would require packers and stockyards to keep written documentation justifying any differentiation in price that one pays to different livestock producers. Can you believe this? The USDA wants stockyards to justify every pricing decision they make. If that isn't big government, I don't know what is. The USDA wouldn't require this if they didn't intend to review these documents to determine whether the stockyards provided this justification. When doing this, the USDA bureaucrats will have the power to punish and fine stockyards that it believes are behaving unfairly. This is government determining whether they are behaving unfairly.

My question is this: In what other industry would this be considered acceptable or even appropriate? Can we imagine Walmart being forced to send the Federal Government justification for every price it negotiates with its suppliers? No. That would be ridiculous, and we all understand that.

The livestock industry is no different. This is American business, capitalism, and the individuals participating are doing so voluntarily. No one is forcing anyone to be in the livestock business. Negotiating prices--where some folks get higher and some folks get lower prices--is part of the deal. Some get advantages and some disadvantages, but it isn't government making that determination. That is the way it should be.

Another problem with this rule is that it would ban packer-to-packer sale of livestock. I don't know why the USDA wants to do this. Who cares if one stockyard sells or buys from another? It is none of their business. It seems perfectly American to me. But this will have a particularly negative impact in Oklahoma.

Right now, we only have one pork packing plant of any size in my State of Oklahoma, and the next closest plants are in Iowa, Missouri or probably Nebraska--I am not sure--maybe hundreds of miles away. If packers or entities owned by packers are no longer allowed to sell hogs to other packers, it will force Oklahoma producers to ship hogs out of the State to get them to market. This would increase operating costs, it would be prohibitive, and it would take them out of the market. Even if Oklahoma pork producers chose to ship hogs out of State, the prohibition of packers to sell animals to other packers would force producers to incorporate a middleman to eliminate the direct sale between packers. All this would do is increase the cost of production. That would make us in Oklahoma less competitive.

Let's keep in mind that the Oklahoma pork industry only took off after the construction of a pork processing plant. In 1987, before this plant was constructed, the annual cash receipts for pork producers were $33 million. That was it. The pork processing plant was constructed in the mid-1990s, provided necessary infrastructure to our State to do this. However, since then, the pork industry's annual cash receipts have risen more than tenfold to $555 million in 2007. So making this processing plant less capable of serving the needs of Oklahomans and our pork producers will undoubtedly hurt our industry and our consumers.

Unfortunately, these are only a few examples of the bad provisions of the new GIPSA rule I have heard about extensively from my livestock producers, and I am sure everyone else from agricultural States has heard about the concerns their States have. They believe that if this rule is finalized, it will force them to completely change the way they conduct business, and no government rule should force private businesses to do this, especially when the industry practices they have developed have been very effective at safely bringing meat products to the market.

Another problem with this rule is that the USDA has not publicly released the study it did to determine its economic impact. And we know why they haven't. It is very expensive. Several private studies have been done, and one of them estimated that the rule would reduce U.S. economic activity by $14 billion and would result in the loss of over 100,000 jobs. The USDA needs to release the economic impact analysis it did. There is no justification for their not doing this. So we have made that request, and we are waiting for that to happen.

There is a nominee for Secretary of Commerce--a very nice person, a fine person named John Bryson--whom I oppose. The reason I oppose John Bryson is he has been very active in this whole movement on cap and trade. We all know what that is. We have talked about it for 10 years. We had the Kyoto Convention that we did not become a part of, and there have been several efforts to have bills on the floor to have cap and trade, supposedly to stop catastrophic greenhouse or global warming. Now people know the science has been debunked. It is not real. Yet they are going ahead and doing it. But if the President is able to pass these regulations, it will cost the American people between $300 billion and $400 billion a year.

Now, I would say this. There are a lot of people out there saying: Well, it doesn't hurt to pass a tax increase of $300 billion if it is going to do something about global warming. Even President Obama's EPA nominee and choice, Lisa Jackson--now confirmed--has gone on record. In response to the question, if we were to pass any of these bills, whether it would be the McCain-Lieberman bill or the Waxman-Markey bill, any of these cap-and-trade bills that would be passing on a $300 billion to $400 billion tax increase, if that happened, would that reduce emissions, her answer was no.

Just logically look at that. If we do that in the United States, it will not change the emissions because this isn't where the problem is. The problem is in China and India and in Mexico.

So the cost of these regulations is unbearable for our economy, and here we are with over 9 percent unemployment. We are very fortunate in my State of Oklahoma because we have diversified, and our unemployment rate is down to 5\1/2\ percent. But nationally it is a disaster. So regulations are a very important part of this.

I want to make sure we make it very clear that it is not just the regulations that come from the Environmental Protection Agency because these regulations we are talking about are going to be from the USDA.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, unless there is no one waiting.

I would like to, and I would be happy to yield the floor to anyone else who comes to offer an amendment, if the Senator would alert me to that.

All right, I will.

U.S. Troops in Northern Uganda

Mr. President, I know there is a lot of confusion, and a lot of people are blaming President Obama for sending 100 troops into northern Uganda.

First, I want to make sure everyone knows I am not a fan of President Obama. He is responsible for all these regulations that are driving out American businesses. He is responsible for the deficit. Actually, his three budgets have had deficits each year of $1\1/2\ trillion, and he is up to almost $5 trillion in deficits. It is coming not from the Democrats, not the Republicans, not the House or the Senate, it is coming from President Obama. And I disagreed with his position with Libya, sending our troops in there the way he did.

I am on the Armed Services Committee, the second ranking member, and I am very much concerned about what is happening right now and what this President has done to our military

in reducing our capability to the extent he has. But having said that, let me say that the criticism he has received for sending 100 American troops into northern Uganda is not justified, and let me explain what I am talking about.

This picture here is of a guy whose name is Joseph Kony. Joseph Kony is a monster. For 25 years, he has been in northern Uganda, but he has been in other countries too--Rwanda, now the new country of South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Congo. Those five countries are where he has been.

This is what he does. Many people don't know about him. In fact, 3 or 4 days ago Rush Limbaugh was commenting that nobody knows what the LRA is; that is, the Lord's Resistance Army, and so I am here to tell you and tell you why these troops were sent over. It was not President Obama; it was I who did this. We passed a law requiring that to be done. Let me explain why.

I have been active in Africa for many years. Fifteen years ago, I was in northern Uganda, in an area called Gulu, and I found out there is a guy up there by the name of Joseph Kony.

This is Joseph Kony. He is a spiritual leader. What he does is he goes into the villages and he abducts hundreds and thousands of young kids, usually between the ages of 11 and 14, and then he takes the girls and sends them into prostitution, but he trains the boys to be soldiers. We are talking about kids 11 to 14 years old. So he teaches them how to use AK-47s, and when they graduate, these kids have to go back to the villages from where they were abducted and kill their siblings and kill their parents. If they do not do it, they come back-- and this is significant--and they are then mutilated.

These are all kids. See, they are holding their AK-47s and all that.

This next chart shows what happens if one of these kids comes back and he doesn't kill his parents or do as Joseph Kony says. He mutilates the kids, and the way he does it is he cuts off their ears, cuts off their noses, their lips, or cuts off their hands. This guy here, John Ochola, his hands were cut off and his nose and ears were cut off. This one just went through it, and he is still bleeding.

These are kids. These are kids, 12 and 14 years old. This is what he has been doing to thousands of kids for 25 years now. So having sympathy for that, I came back and talked to some of my colleagues here, and I said: We have to do something about this. At that time, we were not allowed to send troops in. This has nothing to do with sending combat troops into an area. Certainly this has nothing to do with what the President did in Libya. But we passed a law that said that we are sending assistance into northern Uganda and the other four countries, but they are specifically precluded from entering into combat. In other words, the 100 troops who went in cannot even carry a weapon. They cannot be involved by law. I put that in the law. Those words are there. So what we are doing is we are able to go in and assist them in intelligence, maybe loan them a helicopter or whatever they need to take this guy out or to bring him to the international court. That would probably be better.

But this is what this guy has been doing for 25 years, and you have to go see it to really appreciate it--these mutilated little kids.

Well, anyway, I will say this. Those who are critical of me for supporting sending our troops over are ill-founded in their criticism for two reasons. First of all, we already have troops all over the world in places such as Africa. In the continent of Africa, we have several thousand American troops in a program called Train and Equip. It is specifically called 1206 and 1208 funding. That means we go into these countries and we help train the African nations to prepare for when the squeeze takes place in the Middle East and the terrorists come down through Djibouti and the Horn of Africa and spread out through the African Continent. We are building five African brigades. We are training them so that when something happens, as it did happen in the countries where we are currently in battle, we don't have to send our troops in because we are training them so they can take care of their own problems. That is essentially what is happening.

I was in this brandnew country the other day, South Sudan. We have all heard about Sudan and Khartoum and heard and been told about all the atrocities that are committed there, and it just makes you cry when you see what is happening. Well, they now have split off, so South Sudan has a separate country. I was there last week. I was the first one there in terms of Members of the Senate just to cheer them on.

I had 25 members of the Parliament of this new country called South Sudan with me for a period of 2 hours. Do you know what they said, Mr. President. They said: If you really want to do something about terrorism, get this growing force that Joseph Kony has and help us take him out.

This question was asked of me today on a talk radio show: Why is it we can't get Uganda or Congo or Rwanda to do this?

I would suggest that the Presidents of these three countries came from the bush. President Museveni was a warrior in the bush, and he doesn't like to admit he can't take care of one monster named Joseph Kony by himself. The same is true with Paul Kagame, who is President of Rwanda. Remember 1994 when they had the genocide? And he came from the bush. He is a tough warrior, but he doesn't want to admit he would have to have help to take care of that. Joe Kabila, from the Congo, the same thing.

Well, I was able to get the three of them together, and they agreed they would work together with each other, and they asked if they could have some support from the United States in the way of intelligence and maybe a helicopter or two, and I said yes. So we passed the law. This law we passed was right here in the Senate. There was not one Senator who voted against it. I had 64 cosponsors--the largest number of cosponsors on any bill addressing a problem in Africa in the history of this Senate. So we are all in accord.

A lot of Members are not courageous enough to tell the truth about this. A lot join in saying: Oh, we are not going to send more troops over. Let me assure you, these troops are going to go over and save lives. And they could very well be saving American lives because if this terrorist movement is allowed to continue, then we will have another terrorist movement in that part of the world that should be getting a lot of our attention.

So with that, just to repeat two things, first of all, we already have troops over there in Training and Equip. These same troops will be doing that while there. Secondly, there won't be one American troop in harm's way in northern Uganda, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Rwanda, or any of the other places where Joseph Kony might be leading his reign of terror.

With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Parliamentary inquiry: Under the current structure, how long before a Member on this side can be recognized?

I thank the Chair.

I would like my own time.

Mr. President, I say to my colleagues that there were a lot of blanket statements about one's level of participation. I have negotiated with the chairman of this committee for 9 months on the reauthorization of our emergency preparedness and biodefense in this country. I know what negotiations are. I know what compromise is. I know what commitment of time is. I got this bill last Friday. I will find out where it went online, or which copy went online. My staff got this bill last Friday. Yes, we have read it. We have eight amendments, which is not as voluminous as Senator Rand Paul; but he gets that ability, as he gets the ability to be heard.

The minority's only leverage in this institution is to have an opportunity to offer amendments and to debate them. I hear what the Senator is saying, but based upon the timeframe you set--you don't get the privilege of doing that when you have to deal with the minority.

I know the chairman, for whom I have deep respect, has been here a long time, and he knows it. This could have been something very easily worked out with communications on both sides of the aisle. The fact is that, as I prepared for this markup, I was told there was an agreement, and that agreement meant the chairman and ranking member were going to hold this bill intact. There were going to be no exceptions to it. They were going to vote to make sure this bill didn't change.

That doesn't give one a lot of comfort, knowing what the outcome of amendments will be regardless of the merit of the amendments. When we started this morning, the chairman was very gracious and let me say my due for about 5 minutes. I am appreciative of that. I made it very clear to Members at that time, the only thing I asked them to do was weigh it on the merits of the amendment--my first amendment out of the chute, and it was my best shot. I will say right here on the floor, it was a damn good amendment. You know what. Lockstep we went down the line, and they proved to me that there is a deal.

You know, the next amendment was offered by Senator Franken. I was the first one who stood up and said I disagree with the base text--it was offered by both of them--but I will support it. I am in year 17. Senator Franken said he spent more time on this bill than any bill ever. Boy, if that is the case,

that is a sad statement about how much time we spend on legislation, because you could not have had it more than since last Tuesday, according to the chairman himself.

I will take questions at some point, but I patiently sat here waiting for my own time. I will use it, and then I will allow the Senator to stand and ask a question.

In the same statement, there was criticism of the participation. Apparently, I or Senator Paul had not spent the time or hadn't devoted the time to this particular piece of legislation. I have been working on this for years. I think the chairman knows I am passionate when I get involved. It is not from a standpoint of a lack of knowledge, it is from a standpoint of trying to achieve the right end.

The chairman said very clearly that we are not going to make this perfect out of committee; we are going to have another shot at it on the Senate floor.

Let me remind my colleagues that 55 times in this Congress the majority has chosen to fill the amendment tree, meaning that no minority Member has had an opportunity to amend the legislation. How could I feel good about a truncated markup process that happens 4 days after I physically got an 868-page bill, when the caveat that I am given is: Oh, but you will have another opportunity to do it on the floor? Maybe, maybe not. I don't think the chairman can make an assurance to me that we are going to have an open rule on the Senate floor that allows unlimited amendments. If he can, I will yield to him for that consent. It is above his pay grade. It is above mine, too. That decision won't be made by the chairman or ranking member, and it won't be made because somebody is trying to perfect the bill.

I learned a long time ago that coming to the Senate floor and screaming doesn't do any good. It wakes people up in the gallery, and people at home think this must be important. This is about our kids. This is about whether K-12 education works. There is one takeaway we can all make: No Child Left Behind was well-intended legislation, and it was implemented poorly, embraced by very few. North Carolina happened to be a State that received a tremendous amount of waivers. We got a waiver from Average Yearly Progress because our State had a yardstick that was actually better, and the Secretary of Education recognized that. It didn't, through those waivers, change any of the Federal intrusion into K-12.

Let me explain what I mean. We have right now about 93 education programs that are authorized; not all of them are funded. If your system determines that you can use one of those programs, you can access that money. But if there is not a program for what your problem is, you don't get a shot at the money. I suggested through legislation that we take all of those programs and throw them into two pots and give States full flexibility to decide how they use the money.

This bill--they talk about flexibility. Well, it does eliminate the title of 40 programs, and it throws them into 6 new major mega- education programs--still with the strings. You have to spend it the way we design it in Washington, not the way you interpret it at home. And for a superintendent, that should not settle real well--flexibility versus prescription. One way is Federal intrusion into local education. The other is a partnership for education success.

Having gone with this one-size-fits-all called No Child Left Behind, I would think the natural swing would be, gee, if we want to fix education, why don't we enlist educators, superintendents, and principals in this bill? The 868 pages that we are going to debate--it will happen; minority rules can only last so long, and we will be marking this bill up and, hopefully, it will come to the floor and we will get an opportunity to amend it.

But incorporated into this bill is 20 pages that define reading. I want you to think about that. When the claims are made that this is not Federal intrusion, a one-size-fits-all, this bill spends 20 pages defining for every local school system what reading is. This is insane.

I have a simple challenge for my colleagues. What happened about the accountability of parents, teachers, principals, elected school boards, and community leaders? Healthy communities today have a relatively successful K-12 education system. In most cases, it is because employers recognize the fact that that is potentially their future workforce, and their educational success is that community's success for survival and for advancement.

But what this bill does is say we are going to determine what ``highly gifted'' is for teachers, and we will determine what success or failure is. We are going to take the place of the parent, teacher, superintendent, elected officials, and the business community; we are going to take that all over.

From the standpoint of the amount of money, we are still participating at about the same level--about 10 percent of the overall cost of K-12. But if you don't play by our rules, you don't get our programs or our money. I daresay there is not one of us who recognizes the fact that every community has a unique problem--where one is a school building, the next one is available highly gifted teachers; and where one might be the ability to have a second language taught, the other might be the passion of Teach for America teachers that infiltrate their system.

I cannot come up--no matter how many pages I write--with a K-12 education bill that I can honestly say trumps any community's that I represent that they could come up with on their own. If anything, I know I would be woefully short of what they could do.

The answer, to me, is let's get them more in charge, empower them more, and let's give them greater flexibility. Let's be what we are best at--a financial partner in the success of education. As a matter of fact, we will take up an amendment at some point that triggers the flexibility in the 868 pages. But it is only triggered if a school system accepts one of six things. One of those things is actually federally mandated firing of the principal or X amount of teachers of a failing school.

How in the world could we put in Federal legislation that you get the full flexibility if you are willing to go out and fire the principal or 20 teachers at a school that has been determined by Washington to be a failure?

This is almost surreal to me. In many ways, it goes way past where No Child Left Behind tried to get to, which was creating a measurement tool that could be seen by all and judgments made based upon that, though it wasn't perfect.

What my colleague Senator Paul has asked for, quite honestly, is very reasonable. Take the bill--the one that we are considering, not the one that went up last Tuesday--I got this e-mail while I am standing here, which says:

The original ESE bill was put up on line one week ago. The

managers' amendment on Monday. The document explaining the

changes was online yesterday.

So everybody is right. The only problem is what Senator Paul described, which was the bill that we are considering right now went up on Monday.

The explanations for the changes went up yesterday. I am sure if Senator Paul came up with 74 amendments, his staff has been a little busier than mine because they only came up with 7 or 8. But what Senator Paul has asked for is very reasonable.

Take this bill--not a hypothetical bill--and let's have a hearing on it--not a markup, a hearing--at whatever speed the chairman can put it together, where we bring in actual educators, we bring in superintendents or we bring in school board members, maybe we bring in a parent. That would be novel.

I can still remember, when I started 17 years ago, and reading about the Washington, DC, schools, my first teacher-parent mentor meeting. I remember the expectations I had of a parent who didn't care about a fifth grader's future. If they did, why would this child be so challenged to read? What I was met with, as I walked in and met with that parent, was the parent of a fifth grader who said: Congressman, you are my son's only hope. I want him to have so much more than I do.

I wasn't there because of a government program. I was there because I think every child ought to have the opportunity to succeed, and we can't write that in a bill. We can't describe for every community how they get to success. If we could, No Child Left Behind would have been perfect because

everybody believed it would have that big a change. So you see, this is about not just changing a system, it is about creating passion--a passion for success.

I will tell you, passion for success is not taking the Federal Government's HR Department--which is pitiful--and saying: Well, let's export this to every school in America. That is not the answer. The answer is for us to get out of the way and for us to empower those local officials to make the changes they need to and for the judgment to be of those community leaders and those parents.

We will have a debate soon on what is highly qualified, and it is very proscriptive as to what a highly qualified teacher needs to be. But in my definition, highly qualified is a pharmacist who has decided they don't want to work in a store anymore and would like to teach chemistry in a high school. Unfortunately, under all the Federal standards today, that person can't do that because they don't have a certificate to do so. We will codify that into law, in 868 pages, and all the talented folks we have around the country--who could walk into a classroom and not only have the educational foundation to be able to teach our students but the passion to want to be there and to say it in a way that isn't taught out of a textbook but is learned through their occupation--will be gone. It will be gone. Even though that pharmacist may not want to compound drugs anymore, if their choice is that or retirement, they will retire because we have cut out something that would allow them to contribute.

I didn't mean to go this long, but I will be honest, in my patience to get the opportunity to speak, I heard some outlandish comments that, quite honestly, I could take to be very personal. To suggest any Member had sufficient time to review this legislation--the only person who could make that comment would be one who got the bill before I did, and I think I am entitled to have it at the same time every other member of the committee gets it.

To have an agreement that says we are not going to take amendments-- that says one can offer them, but we are not going to take them--I think that is a black eye on the entire institution, if we would adopt a policy such as that. But I have seen it up close and personal already.

I would love to take the chairman at his word that we will have an opportunity on the floor to fix this bill, but--based upon how the floor has been run up to this time--I can't believe there will be even one opportunity for me to offer an amendment. So I have to roll my dice on the markup process in committee, and I have to do it in a way that accommodates every member. If Senator Paul believes he needs more time, I have to be there to try to defend his time.

If that is inconvenient for people, it is going to be inconvenient. The truth is, our children's future is way more important than our convenience. Our children's future is way too important to rush a bill. Our children's future is way more important than a deal between a ranking member and a chairman as to how to make this easy out of committee so we can fix it on the floor.

I have been here 17 years. Perfection is not possible in Congress, but perfection should be our goal every day. When we look at what we have debated, we understand why less than 15 percent of the American people think highly of us. I think what we are getting ready to do will have a significant impact on how that number is reduced, not how it is increased.

I thank my colleagues for their patience. They certainly don't have to request time from me. I will yield back and gladly allow them whatever of their own time they would like to take.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield for 1 second?

If the Senator interpreted my comments to be personally targeted to him, then I do apologize. The Senator said--and I wrote it down: I spent more time on this bill than any other bill ever.

My criticism about the statement was, I said: If the Senator got the bill when I did, then there is not a whole lot of time between Friday when I got the bill and Wednesday when it was marked up.

I don't question for a minute the Senator from Minnesota or the staff has spent a tremendous amount of hours on education. But in defense of Senator Paul and what he has sought is there has not been a hearing on this legislation. There are some things in this 868-page bill our committee has not had a hearing on that it would be great to have the opportunity to ask someone who is an education professional. In the absence of the ability to do that, you, I, the Senator from Kentucky, our staffs, all have to rely on what committee staff tells us. And that is not always the most accurate thing, regardless of which side of the aisle you are seeking that information.

I appreciate what the Senator from Minnesota has said. I think that education should be a passionate debate, and we have seen some passion here this afternoon. I would hope the Senator from Minnesota would suggest to Senator Harkin, maybe there is a pathway where we can get predictability in the number of amendments, predictability in the time it takes to mark this up, with some accommodation to the sensitivities that Senator Paul and others have raised, because I hope the Senator from Minnesota will agree with me, there is not an urgency to do it this week, and if we could, when we come back from the end of October, have a hearing, I think we could have a pathway to mark up and completion.

Having said that, it probably will be a product that I couldn't support, I will aggressively try to amend, and I would be anxious and hopeful that I would have the opportunity again on the floor to try to affect its content.

But if the Senator will be an advocate for that, I think there is a pathway that doesn't in any way, shape, or form delay our ability in this institution to conference with the House or to present the President a bill. I would be more concerned with whether we produced the right product, and I think we can achieve that better.

I thank the Senator for yielding to me.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment, and I call up my amendment No. 753.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I filed amendment No. 753 to H.R. 2012, the appropriations minibus. My amendment would prohibit the use of funds for fiscal year 2012 for the prosecution of enemy combatants in our article III courts. This prohibition would apply to individuals who are members of al-Qaida or affiliated terrorist groups and who have participated in the course of planning or carrying out attacks against our country, the United States of America, or our coalition partners.

In no other conflict have we treated our enemies as criminals and tried them in our civilian court system. I believe we need to stop criminalizing this war, and that is why I have brought forward this amendment. These individuals should be treated with military custody and tried in military commissions, and that is why I have brought forward this amendment at this time.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise in response to the comments by my esteemed colleague from Colorado about my amendment No. 753. And I would say this first. My amendment does not provide immunity to terrorists. What my amendment does is treat terrorists as they should be treated.

We are at war, and under the laws of war, traditionally we have tried enemy combatants in military commissions. And those individuals my colleague from Colorado cited, including Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, could be held accountable in a military commission because our priority has to be, when we are at war, to gather intelligence, to protect our country, and not whether we should prosecute in our article III courts, in which I have great confidence. I served as attorney general of our State and believe very much in our article III court system. But our article III court system is not where terrorists with whom we are at war should be tried.

In light of the recent comments here on the floor, I feel compelled to point out some of the facts that I think are important for the American people to know about some of the cases that have been cited in support of saying terrorists should be tried in article III courts.

On October 12, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab pleaded guilty in the U.S. district court in Detroit. That case has been cited not only by the Senator from Colorado but by the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Illinois, and our Attorney General has cited it as well as the ultimate and final vindication of the use of our civilian courts for the trial of enemy combatants. The senior Senator from Illinois and the Obama administration were so confident that the so-called Underwear Bomber, as he has been named, guilty plea would settle the dispute once and for all, that on October 13, the Senator from Illinois came to the floor and essentially declared the controversy over. We have heard those same arguments today.

I think we need to review who exactly Abdulmutallab is. He is no common criminal. We are not talking about people who have robbed liquor stores or who are Americans who have committed criminal acts in this country. He is the Nigerian man who tried to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear while onboard Northwest Airline's flight 253 to Detroit on December 25, 2009. Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula claimed to have organized the attack with the Underwear Bomber claiming that AQAP supplied him with the bomb and trained him.

He was subsequently charged in Federal court with eight counts, including the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and attempted murder of 290 Americans. The Underwear Bomber pleaded guilty at trial, telling a surprised courtroom on the second day of his trial that the failed attack was in retaliation for the killing of Muslims worldwide.

This case has been cited as the final vindication for civilian trials, and I

think it is important to mention three points about this case.

First of all, the presumption seems to be that the civilian court system should have the primary responsibility for questioning, trying, and ultimately detaining foreign enemy combatants with whom the United States is in a declared war. That has not been the rule in prior conflicts. We are treating this conflict differently than we have treated other conflicts, where enemy combatants have been tried in military commissions.

Secondly, in my view, the administration's eagerness to appease the ACLU by trying enemy combatants in civilian courts misses the whole point about detention in a time of war. When we are at war, we detain and interrogate enemy combatants according to the laws of war to glean valuable intelligence that will help prevent future attacks, save American lives, and help us capture other enemy combatants.

Al-Qaida was at war with the United States long before our country recognized or strongly reacted to this threat. We remain at war with al-Qaida. When we put enemy combatants in our civilian court system, we are focusing on prosecution, and we potentially miss important opportunities to gather information to prevent future attacks by doing so.

In Abdulmutallab's case, the administration read him his Miranda rights after 50 minutes of questioning. In my view, this jeopardized valuable intelligence. And I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said: Well, eventually he spoke, and he gave us lots of information. But why would we put information in jeopardy? Why would we read terrorists Miranda rights? I, as a prosecutor, have never heard a law enforcement official tell me that Miranda rights are a helpful information-gathering tool, but that seems to be the position I am hearing today.

Jeopardizing this intelligence was clearly unnecessary. And in this case, the fact that we didn't have to rely on a confession--this was a case where we caught the Underwear Bomber redhanded. So even if we were to have tried him in a military commission and had not given him Miranda rights, had gathered intelligence for as long as we could have, we still would have had him redhanded because the passengers on that flight saw him. He was caught with the explosives on his body. This was never a case about a guilty plea and whether we got some information about him. The essential question is whether we got the most information possible from a terrorist who was trying to attack Americans and our allies, to prevent future attacks, not whether we gave him Miranda rights.

With a case that was as open and shut as Abdulmutallab's, without any need to use confessional evidence or classified information, it doesn't prove the civilian court system is superior to military commissions. His conviction was never realistically in doubt.

Defenders of bringing our enemy combatants to the U.S. civilian trial often cite a number of cases and convictions related to military commissions. Again, I want to reiterate, I am a strong believer in our civilian court system, but I want to point out some of the downsides to using our civilian court system for enemy combatants: the costs of security; the cause of civic disruption in the area; the risk of compromising classified information; and the risk of eventual release of these combatants not to some other country but into American society, regardless of whether they are convicted in civilian court. And these concerns aren't academic.

I have heard some of my colleagues cite the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was a member of al-Qaida who was involved in the 9/11 attacks. The civilian proceedings spanned nearly a decade, and his case was finally resolved only last year. These proceedings cost millions of dollars and caused substantial civic disruption. For example, the Federal courthouse in Alexandria, VA, was described as ``an armed camp, with the courthouse complex and surrounding neighborhood becoming a virtual encampment, with heavily armed guards, rooftop snipers, bomb- sniffing dogs, blocked streets and identification checks.'' If we had tried him at Guantanamo Bay, in the military commission there, these security concerns would have been accounted for, and we wouldn't have had to disrupt Virginia to do that. It is not a problem we would confront in our military commission system.

In addition, in the civilian trial of 9/11 terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, sensitive material was inadvertently leaked because our civilian court system, as wonderful as it is, is not set up as well to deal with cases involving sensitive information during a time of war.

Moussaoui also mocked 9/11 victims and used the civilian trial as a platform to spew terrorist propaganda.

All of these negative side effects of trying a terrorist in a civilian court would have been eliminated or significantly mitigated if he had been detained in military custody and tried before a military commission.

In the case of Omar Abdel Rahman, commonly known as the Blind Sheik, which has also been cited here today, the civilian trial provided intelligence to Osama bin Laden. So when I hear that case cited as a success, the first thing that comes to my mind is, if intelligence was provided to Osama bin Laden, how is that a success when our No. 1 focus should be on protecting the American people? And that has to be the distinction between trying enemy combatants in a time of war and the very important purpose of our civilian court system.

In the case of the Blind Sheik, according to Michael Mukasey, the former Attorney General, ``in the course of prosecuting Omar Abdel Rahman, the government was compelled--as it is in all cases that charge a coconspiracy charge--to turn over a list of unindicted coconspirators to the defendants. Within 10 days, a copy of that list of unindicted coconspirators reached bin Laden in Khartoum.''

The notion that a list--because you had to do it, according to our civilian court system where notice requirements are very important, where generally our court systems are open--would be provided to Osama bin Laden, in my view, is unacceptable, a risk we could have avoided if we treated the Blind Sheik as he should have been treated, which is as an enemy combatant and tried in a military commission.

Civilian trials of enemy combatants have provided a treasure trove of information to terrorists, and I think those risks have been very discounted by my esteemed colleagues who have come to the floor to oppose my amendment.

According to open source reporting, the cost of disclosing information unwisely became clear after the New York trials of bin Laden associates for the 1998 bombings of U.S. Embassies in Africa. Some of the evidence indicated that the National Security Agency, the U.S. foreign eavesdrop organization, had intercepted cell phone conversations. Shortly thereafter, bin Laden's organization stopped using cell phones to discuss sensitive operational details.

It is also important to note that the record of trying enemy combatants in civilian courts is not as good as it has been made out to be. Opponents of my amendment don't often speak about Ahmed Ghailani.

Ghailani is a Tanzanian who was charged with a total of 284 counts, including 200-plus counts of murder and 1 count of conspiracy in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. The bombings killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. He also spent time as Osama bin Laden's bodyguard.

He was tried in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Department of Justice directed the U.S. attorney not to seek the death penalty. At trial, the presiding justice excluded from evidence the testimony of a key witness--a Tanzanian, who may have issued statements implicating him in the bombings. And on November 17, 2010, a jury, after this evidence was excluded, found Ghailani only guilty of 1 count of a conspiracy and acquitted him of all 284 other charges, including the murder charges. He murdered 284 people--12 Americans--and he was acquitted of murder charges. I think that is a case that shows our civilian court system is not always the best way to deal with enemy combatants and is very contrary to what I have heard on the cases cited from my opponents of this amendment.

Proponents of civilian trial, such as Attorney General Holder, want to criminalize the war, but they fail to cite these cases where the civilian

court system leaked classified information to terrorists or, because of excluded evidence, where terrorists are not held fully accountable.

Military detention for enemy combatants has always been the rule, not the exception. Why are we treating this war any differently? Civilian courts rightly focus on prosecution, but in detaining enemy combatants when at war, they miss the most important goal we have to have; that is, gathering intelligence and protecting the American people against future attacks.

Civilian trials for enemy combatants incur tremendous costs and cause civic disruption. That is why the administration itself has reversed its position on trying Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York City. They wanted to try the mastermind behind 9/11 in the middle of New York City, but the American people were so outraged by trying someone who is the mastermind of 9/11 in the middle of New York City and the millions of dollars it would have cost to protect the citizens of New York from this horrible individual, giving him a forum in the middle of New York City.

Again, the costs associated with protecting the American people in these civilian trials alone is enough to treat them as they should be-- in military commissions.

We risk compromising classified information, and we risk the eventual release of these combatants into American society.

For these reasons, consistent with a longstanding precedent, we should not be bringing enemy combatants to the United States for civilian trials. If the Obama administration is willing to kill enemy combatants without due process, and I applaud them for doing so, why is the administration so against placing these same enemy combatants in military custody and detaining them under the law of war, and when appropriate trying them in military commissions?

I think the answer is clear. Unfortunately, I am concerned that it is a political decision rather than putting intelligence gathering first in order to protect the American people and treat these enemy combatants as what they are--enemies of our country. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. In my view, beyond the policy reasons for not trying enemy combatants in civilian courts, we should ask ourselves why should we bring foreign terrorists to the United States and give them the legal protections reserved for U.S. citizens and secured by those Americans who have fought and died for those rights? Why do these people deserve access to our American court system? They are our enemies. In the civilian court systems there are rights guaranteed, such as Miranda rights and speedy presentment, that should not be extended to enemy combatants. We need to prioritize protecting our country. I think the American people will agree with me when I say that no terrorist should ever hear the words ``you have the right to remain silent.''

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment No. 753.

I see my colleague from Colorado. I was going to call up an amendment and make some remarks. Is there a procedural matter or something the Senator would be interested in doing before that? If not, I will go forward. I thought maybe the Senator wanted to comment on Senator Pryor's comments.

Then I guess I have the floor, Mr. President.

I yield to the Senator for that purpose.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Colorado be recognized after I complete my remarks.

Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, I call up Sessions amendment No. 810.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, the purpose of amendment No. 810 is to eliminate the categorical eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, called SNAP, or the Food Stamp Program. A categorical eligibility standard has been imposed, and it has been causing a substantial increase in unjustified expenditures in the Food Stamp Program.

Let me share briefly the history over the last decade of the Food Stamp Program. Of course, we in America strongly believe that persons ought not to go to bed hungry, if we have the food and the ability to take care of them. We have had a very generous Food Stamp Program for a number of years. But in the last decade, it has shown incredible, amazing increases in spending. As a matter of fact, I think it has increased faster than probably any other significant item in the entire Federal budget. It is probably increasing more even than the interest on the debt, which is one of the most surging expenditures this Nation has.

In 2001, we expended $20 billion on the Food Stamp Program. This year, we are projected, under this bill, to spend $80 billion. In 10 years, spending on food stamps would have quadrupled. This year's proposal calls for an increase of 14 percent over last year. This is a stunning amount of money.

This country is headed to financial crisis. Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, who headed President Obama's debt task force, told us in the Budget Committee that the country has never faced a more serious financial crisis than the debt crisis we are now in. One of the reasons is that we have had these incredible surges of expenditures in programs over a period of years. We have not watched them or contained them and, indeed, we have done things to make them less accountable and efficient and more subject to fraud, abuse, and waste.

Again, this year proposes another 14-percent increase in the Food Stamp Program. That is $80 billion. The House proposed only a $1 billion increase; theirs comes in at roughly $71 billion for food stamps. So theirs is more level. But it still has an increase. Certainly, it is far less than this.

To give some perspective on what we are talking about when we say $80 billion, let me share a few facts. The Federal prison system costs $7 billion. The Department of Justice--the entire Department of Justice, which Senator Whitehouse and I served in--and were proud to do so--gets $31 billion. Federal highway funding for the entire year is $40 billion. Food stamps is twice that of the Federal highway bill. Customs and Border Patrol get $12 billion. The Federal Education Department is $30 billion. $80 billion dwarfs the budgets of, I think, most any State in the country, except for maybe New York or California. Alabama's general fund budget and education budget is less than $10 billion. This is $80 billion and is increased $9 billion this year under this bill.

We have to get real. We don't have the money. We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. No wonder Congress is in such disrepute. How can we defend ourselves against the charge of irresponsibility to good and decent American citizens when we are spending at this rate and continuing to show increased spending at this rate? I am still amazed at the budget the President submitted to us earlier this year, calling for a 10-percent increase in the Education Department, 10 percent for the Energy Department, and 10 percent for the State Department, at a time we are borrowing money at a rate we never borrowed before, when we have never, ever systemically faced such a substantial threat to our country's financial welfare--as every expert has so told.

I know we want to help poor people. I don't want to see people hungry. But do we need to be spending four times as much on food stamps as we were in 2001? Can we not look at this program and think we can make it better and more efficient? We need to get focused on what we are doing here and try to bring this matter under control. We can do better.

Federal regulations allow States to make households ``categorically eligible'' under the Food Stamp Program. By the way, States administer the program. They don't get money to enforce it and supervise it. They pay that out of their own budgets. But the food stamps benefit is a 100-percent Federally funded program. So there is a little bit of a conflict of interest. States are benefitting when more food stamps come into their State, right? They are receiving more Federal dollars. They are not paying any money into it. Why spend their money to catch fraud, waste, and abuse and crack down on problems? Why not utilize every possible action that would bring more food stamps to the State? That is what is happening.

I know a little bit about that because, unless the Presiding Officer is one, I am probably the only person in this body who actually prosecuted food stamp fraud. They were using it as currency in drug dealing. A lot of fraud is going on, and we need to do better about it. The States aren't stepping up because they don't have an incentive to do so.

Again, Federal regulations now allow States to make households ``categorically eligible'' for SNAP--the Food Stamp Program--simply because the household also receives certain other benefits or assistance from Federal programs. ``Categorical eligibility'' is a fancy way of saying ``automatically qualified.'' For example, if you qualify for one, you qualify for the other. Households that receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, or Supplemental Social Security income benefits or assistance are automatically eligible for SNAP benefits in some states.

These other programs, however, have looser eligibility standards than the Food Stamp Program. To be eligible for SNAP benefits, a household must meet specific income and asset tests. Households with income above a certain threshold, or savings above a certain amount, cannot qualify for food stamps. If you have a substantial savings, even if you don't have any income, you are not entitled for somebody else to pay for your food. I don't know what the number is, but if you have a savings amount, and if you are above that, you don't get food stamps. Is that irrational?

But in 42 States there is no limit on the amount of assets certain households may have to qualify for TANF. As a result, households with substantial assets but low income would be deemed eligible for SNAP benefits even if they have substantial assets.

Astonishingly, households can be categorically eligible for SNAP even if they receive no TANF-funded service other than a toll-free telephone number or informational brochure. I kid you not. Receiving the information about TANF or other applicable information can qualify a household to be categorically eligible for SNAP benefits.

A 2010 GAO report revealed that one State included information about a pregnancy prevention hotline on the SNAP application, and that was used as a basis to grant categorical eligibility. Other States reported providing household brochures with information about marriage classes in order to confer categorical eligibility for food stamps.

According to officials with the Food and Nutrition Service, increased use of ``categorical eligibility'' by States has increased approval of SNAP benefits to households that would not otherwise be eligible for the program due to SNAP income or asset limits. The Food and Nutrition Service, which supervises this, acknowledged that more people are eligible if you use this ``categorical eligibility'' rather than requiring them to comply with explicit requirements of the Food Stamp Program.

So my amendment would eliminate categorical eligibility for SNAP benefits, meaning that only those who meet the income and asset requirements

under the program would be eligible for benefits. They would have to apply just like anyone else.

Is it too much to ask someone who is going to receive thousands of dollars in food benefits from the Federal Government to fill out a form and to honestly state whether they are in need, to the degree they qualify for the program? Automatic eligibility through other income support programs would end under my amendment.

Last Friday, the Treasury Department closed the books on fiscal year 2011 and declared the Federal Government ended the year with $1.23 trillion in additional debt. That makes our gross debt now $15 trillion. Our appropriations for the SNAP program have gone from $20 billion in 2001 to $71 billion in 2011 and are projected now to go to $80 billion. From 2001 through 2011, there is a huge increase in funding for the program.

The percentage of people using food stamps has increased sevenfold since the program's national expansion in the 1970s, with nearly one in seven Americans now receiving the benefit. Meanwhile, food stamp funds have been mishandled and misused, and there are many examples of this. I have seen it in my personal practice as a Federal prosecutor. One recent notorious case was a defendant in Operation Fast and Furious. One of the people who came in, bought a whole host of illegal weapons in Arizona to take back across into Mexico, was a food stamp recipient. According to the report, he spent thousands of dollars on these guns, maybe tens of thousands of dollars on these expensive weapons. He bought 300 high-powered assault rifles. He had money for that. Yet we are buying his food for him.

In another case, a Michigan man was able to continue receiving foods stamps after winning $2 million in the lottery--$2 million. He even asked about it. He said: Can I continue to receive food stamps? Guess what they told him. Yes. The lottery winnings are an asset, and we are not checking assets now. It is not income, it is an asset. So he got to keep having food stamps while American working people were paying for it.

Categorical eligibility--that flawed practice--allows SNAP recipients to avoid the asset test required to determine need. This is a policy we cannot afford at a time this country is having a huge debt crisis.

President Obama has coined a somewhat disingenuous term called the Buffet rule in his push to raise taxes on millions of Americans who have zero in common with Mr. Buffet. Of course, he is one of the President's big allies. I would like to suggest something called the Solyndra rule. Under this rule, before any proposals are offered to raise any taxes, we first put an end to the wasteful, inappropriate spending in Washington.

Shouldn't we first clean up our act before we demand the American people send more money up here? Until we do that, raising tax rates will only be funding the continued abuse of the American taxpayer. Raising taxes to bail out Congress is akin to giving money to an alcoholic on the way to the liquor store. It doesn't help matters if the money comes from a wealthy person, if the money is going to be used for an unwise or unhealthy result. It is time for the President and this Senate to get their spending habits under control. These bills before us, I am afraid--and the ones we will be seeing in the future-- don't reduce spending but increase spending, and I thank the Chair for the opportunity to express my concerns about it.

Finally, I would just say we are told: We can't do anything about it. We are told we can't fix the food stamps. Food stamps don't count like other appropriations. One might say: Why is that? They say it is an entitlement. What is an entitlement? An entitlement is when there is a law that says if a person's income is a certain level, they go in to the government and they have to give them money whether the government has any money or not; whether it has been appropriated or not. It is an entitlement program.

This makes it very hard for those of us in Congress to be able to make the kind of proposals that are appropriate to fix this program, one of which simply would be, in my opinion, to reduce spending back to the level of the House, which is showing a modest increase this year, after surging the spending level for the SNAP program over the last decade. All of us have to grasp something. I don't think the American people are happy hearing excuses. I don't think they are happy hearing us say: We would like to have done something about food stamps, but this is not germane. This somehow, technically, is an entitlement program, it is part of a legislative act and, therefore, we can't do anything about it on an appropriations bill, which we are here to debate. We can't change it. There have been some changes in the food stamp program, so we believe this amendment is clearly germane.

But I wish to say, as we wrestle with how to bring spending in America under control--as the person who is now the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee--I wish to say we have to quit using excuses. Every program has to be rigorously analyzed, and if there is waste, fraud, and abuse, we need to crack down on it. We don't have the money. We don't have the money. We can't do what we would like to do. We can't increase spending on program after program. This one is perhaps one of the most dramatic examples in the government, and it can be improved upon if we focus on it.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.