A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to repeal the requirement for reduction of survivor annuities under the Survivor Benefit Plan by veterans' dependency and indemnity compensation.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to the Udall of Colorado amendment No. 1107; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment, with no amendments in order prior to the vote.

I yield 30 seconds to Senator Graham.

Mr. President, the Supreme Court has recently ruled--this is the Supreme Court talking:

There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own

citizens as an enemy combatant. A citizen, no less than an

alien, can be

part of the supporting forces hostile to the United States,

and such a citizen, if released, would pose the same threat

of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict.

That is the Supreme Court's statement. We can and must deal with an al-Qaida threat. We can do it properly. The administration helped to draft almost all of this bill. The provisions which would be struck----

Are provisions which even the administration has helped to draft. So I would hope we would deal with the al-Qaida threat in an appropriate way, in a bipartisan way. The committee voted overwhelmingly for this language.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, if I could have Senator McCain's attention as well, what we are trying to do next is to move to two amendments, if we can. Both are next on the pending list. One is the Paul amendment No. 1064, repeal the authorization for use of military force against Iraq. The second one is not directly after his but follows after two Feinstein amendments. Senator Feinstein told me she could not be here early this afternoon. I told her if hers could be made part of a unanimous consent agreement, that could come later because this afternoon we have other things we can do. So the second amendment on this list is another nongermane amendment by Senator Landrieu, No. 1115, relative to small business research grants.

What we are trying to do is work out a unanimous consent agreement. There will be 60-vote thresholds on those two amendments. Neither one of them, I believe, is germane. As part of that agreement, we would also next move to approximately 40 cleared amendments which we would then ask be passed as cleared. That would all be part of a unanimous consent agreement we are currently drafting.

So I want to alert our colleagues----

I am sure she told me that would be OK. When we prepare our unanimous consent agreement, we will doublecheck that.

So that is where we stand. We hope in the next few minutes to be able to bring to the body a unanimous consent agreement. In the meantime, unless there is someone else who seeks recognition, I would note the absence of a quorum.

It is fine, if my colleague wishes to discuss amendments without attempting to offer any amendments.

I appreciate that. If I could ask my friend about how long he needs?

That sounds good.

Mr. President, I was listening in the cloakroom to Senator Tester's comments about his amendment, and I wish to tell everyone how

right on point he is. I am focusing on overseas bases and the need to close some of those bases. We have another Defense bill coming up fairly soon, if we cannot get something done on this bill--and I hope we can--whether it is the sense of the Senate or otherwise to put our focus there, because we need to reduce our presence particularly in those bases, I believe, in Europe, where we simply no longer need those bases and cannot afford to maintain them. But whether we can get a commission done is a different issue because that could actually slow down the process, to appoint a BRAC-type commission.

I just wished to comment while he was still on the floor that I believe he is right. He is focused on that which is critically important for not just the Armed Services Committee but for this Senate to look at, which is to look at the huge number of overseas facilities we have and the fact that there are many we no longer need and we have to look there for some significant savings. I just wished to commend the Senator from Montana.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Levin- McCain amendment No. 1092, which is the regular order, be modified with the changes that are at the desk--that amendment addresses the issue of counterfeit parts in the Department of Defense supply chain; further, that the amendment, as modified, be agreed to; that upon disposition of the Levin-McCain amendment, the Senate resume consideration of the Paul amendment No. 1064; that there be 30 minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form, on the Paul amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate resume consideration of the Landrieu amendment No. 1115; that there be up to 30 minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form, on the Landrieu amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the two amendments--the Paul and Landrieu amendments--in the following order: Paul amendment No. 1064 and Landrieu amendment No. 1115; that there be 2 minutes, equally divided, prior to each vote and there be no amendments in order to either amendment prior to the votes; and that both

amendments be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold.

Mr. President, with the acceptance of this unanimous consent request, the Levin-McCain amendment, as modified, has now been agreed to; is that correct?

So now before us is the Paul amendment No. 1064, with 30 minutes of debate. I do not see Senator Paul in the Chamber.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Baucus be added as a cosponsor to our Levin-McCain amendment No. 1092.

Mr. President, until Senator Paul gets here to begin debate on his amendment, I would, very briefly, describe what we have described before, which is the anticounterfeiting amendment, which is so important to stop the flow of counterfeit parts into the Department of Defense supply chain.

The amendment is going to do a number of things. It is going to require the Department of Defense and Department of Defense suppliers to purchase electronic parts from original equipment manufacturers and their authorized dealers or from trusted suppliers that meet established standards for detecting and avoiding counterfeit parts.

It establishes requirements for notification, inspection, testing, and authentication of electronic parts that are not available from such suppliers.

It requires Department of Defense officials and Department of Defense contractors that become aware of counterfeit parts in the supply chain to provide written notification to the DOD inspector general, the contracting officer, and the Government-Industry Data Exchange Program or similar program designated by the Secretary of Defense.

It requires enhanced inspection of electronic components imported from countries that have been the source of counterfeit parts in the DOD supply chain--China being the one that is clearly the worst offender in this regard.

It requires large DOD contractors to establish systems for detecting and avoiding counterfeit parts in their supply chains and authorizes reduction of contract payments to contractors that fail to develop adequate systems.

It requires the Department of Defense to adopt policies and procedures for detecting and avoiding counterfeit parts in its own direct purchases and for assessing and acting upon reports of counterfeit parts from DOD officials and DOD contractors.

It authorizes the suspension and debarment of contractors that repeatedly fail to detect and avoid counterfeit parts or otherwise fail to exercise due diligence in the detection and avoidance of counterfeit parts.

The amendment also includes a bill Senator Whitehouse introduced that was passed out of the Judiciary Committee to toughen criminal sentences for counterfeiting military goods or services.

Finally, it requires the Department of Defense to define the term ``counterfeit part,'' which is a critical, long overdue step toward getting a handle on this problem.

I wish to thank Senator McCain, who, with me, held a significant hearing in the area of counterfeit parts, demonstrating that what is going on is that electronic waste--which is shipped from the United States and the rest of the world, mainly to China--is then disassembled by hand, washed in dirty rivers, dried on city sidewalks, sanded down to remove part numbers and other marks that would indicate its quality or performance.

We have millions, literally, that we have identified of used parts that have gotten into the Defense supply chain that are not supposed to be used parts,

that are supposed to be new parts. It is amazing how far the counterfeiters--and particularly in China--are willing to go.

We have asked the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the GAO actually, to use a fake company to go online and buy electronic parts, and the GAO found suppliers that not only sold counterfeit parts--when the GAO sought legitimate parts--they found suppliers that were willing to sell them parts with nonexistent part numbers. All those sellers were in China.

We had example after example of weapons systems that had counterfeit parts in them. They endanger our troops. They endanger our taxpayers. All too often the people who pay for the replacement of counterfeit parts are the taxpayers instead of the contractors. That is going to end under our bill. So all the weapons we identified--lasers that were used for targeting Hellfire missiles; display units that were used in the Air Force's aircraft, the C-27Js, C-130Js, C-17s, CH-46s used by the Marine Corps--those counterfeit parts have gotten into those systems. We are going to put an end to this with this legislation.

I thank my good friend Senator McCain for all the work he and his staff and my staff put in on that hearing in preparing this amendment, which we have now adopted.

I wonder if the Senator from Kentucky would just yield for 30 seconds, not to be taken from his time, so I can answer a question that has been asked of me: What happened to the approximately 35 to 40 amendments which we had cleared? Why were they not part of this unanimous consent request?

The answer is because there are a few Senators, apparently, who do not object to the substance of the amendments but who have other goals they are, at the moment, insisting on. That puts in jeopardy the effort of literally dozens of our colleagues to achieve what is in these cleared amendments, and I hope those few Senators would relent.

Mr. President, I, too, will oppose the Paul amendment for the repeal of the authorization for the use of military force in Iraq for a number of reasons, but I think mainly there are just too many unknown, uncertain consequences of repealing this authority, including the need to protect our troops. I am unwilling to take this risk during the critical transition period and not knowing precisely what will happen after that transition either.

By the way, I take this position as someone who opposed the use of military force in Iraq to begin with. Back in October 2002 when Congress voted on the authorization to use military force in Iraq, I did not support it. I thought it was a mistake to do that and offered an alternative resolution that would have authorized the use of force if the United Nations Security Council supported that use of force. So I take a position here opposing the repeal of the authorization although I opposed the authorization itself in the first instance. It is an unusual position to be in. I want to explain why it is that I oppose the repeal of this authorization.

First, the drawdown appears to be on track to be completed by December 31, but there can always be unforeseen circumstances that could delay that date. There is no provision in this bill for the possibility of an extension or a modification of that date. I would be reluctant to see it modified or extended. I must say that I do not want to preclude the possibility by ending something in advance--ending an authorization in advance of circumstances arising that might require for days, weeks, months the extension or modification of the current decision to withdraw our forces by December 31.

Second, we simply do not know the consequences of repealing the authorization. Let me give a few examples. What about ongoing lawsuits in U.S. courts arising from actions by U.S. personnel that were authorized under this authorization for the use of military force? Would repeal of the authorization for the use of force have an effect? It is unknown to me. I don't know how many lawsuits there are. But what is the impact on this? That is something which surely we should want to know.

By the way, we authorized the use of force in the first gulf war. We did not repeal that authorization. Technically, that authorization continues. It has done no harm that I can see.

Third, the Paul amendment raises issues for our detention authority in Iraq. This is not an abstract concern. Currently, the administration is in the process of deciding how to deal with one high-value detainee in U.S. custody whose name is Ali Mussa Daqduq. He is suspected of having organized a 2007 kidnapping in Iraq that resulted in the deaths of five U.S. servicemembers. He is also tied to Hezbollah.

The United States is relying on the authority of the AUMF--the authorization for the use of military force in Iraq--to continue to detain Daqduq. U.S. officials are still in discussions with the Government of Iraq over the ultimate disposition of Daqduq, including possibly releasing him to U.S. custody either in Iraq or somewhere else.

Repeal of the AUMF could limit the administration's options for dealing with Daqduq after January of 2012. Would it limit those options? We don't know.

Should we pass something as dramatic as a repeal of an authorization at this time without knowing what the consequences are in the real world to our interests? I don't think we can

take that chance, so I would oppose the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, while Senator Landrieu is here-- because she, I know, is going to be interested in this and is right on top of this--I want to assure her it was our intention with the previous order to have the Landrieu amendment No. 1115 modified with the changes that are at the desk, and so I now ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified with those changes, and that our previous order with respect to the vote in relation to the Landrieu amendment be modified as well.

Mr. President, while I have the floor, and while Senator Landrieu is here, let me add my voice of thanks and gratitude to Senator Landrieu for the energy she shows as chair of our Small Business Committee. I am honored to be a member of that committee and to sit at her side. I know how long and hard she has worked on this SBIR Program, how many years we have fought hard for this program, with her as our leader.

The same thing is true with the technology program--the Small Business Technology Transfer Program--which is part of this amendment. This bill is going to help 30 million small businesses to invest in technology research to help grow their businesses, spur innovation, and create jobs. Small business technology firms that receive SBIR funds have produced 38 percent of America's patents--13 times more than large businesses--and employ 40 percent of America's scientists and engineers, and the Defense Department is the biggest user of these programs. So this is very appropriate on this bill, and we are very grateful for the determination of Senator Landrieu and her cosponsors.

If I am not already a cosponsor of the amendment, I would ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, this has made it possible for us to be here tonight, and I wanted to say that while Senator Landrieu was on the floor and to express what I think is, if not the unanimous, certainly the near unanimous gratitude of this body, because I expect this will have an overwhelming vote.

By the way, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent also that our Presiding Officer, Senator Casey, be added as a cosponsor to our counterfeit parts amendment, No. 1092. It took us too many weeks to do this, but as I see the Presiding Officer in the chair, I am making up for lost time and asking unanimous consent that he be added as a cosponsor.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1064

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I won't, I have two unanimous consent requests that will take just a couple of moments.

Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect to amendment No. 1174.

Secondly, there are two colloquies between myself and Senator Sherrod Brown. At the end of these colloquies, in both cases, Senator Brown withdraws the amendments referred to in the colloquies, amendments Nos. 1260 and 1262.

So I ask unanimous consent that those two amendments he then withdraws at the end of the colloquies in fact be withdrawn.

I am aware of the concerns raised by the Senator from Ohio, and I assure him that I will give careful consideration to those concerns as

we go to conference with the House of Representatives on this provision.

I am aware of the issue, and of the concerns raised by the Senator from Ohio about this definition. Section 823 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 directed the Secretary of Defense to review the definition of the term ``produced'' and to ensure that it complies with the requirements of law and is consistent with congressional intent.

It is my understanding that this review is currently ongoing. I believe that we should have the informed input of the Department of Defense before we act on this issue. For that reason, I believe that the amendment is premature. However, the review required by section 823 is already several weeks overdue. I understand that DOD is not always able to meet our reporting deadlines, but this is an issue on which we need DOD's input and we need it soon. I assure the Senator from Ohio that we will carefully review the findings of the DOD review and revisit the issue in light of those findings, if necessary. If the Department fails to meet its statutory duty to address this issue, we will take that into consideration as well.

I thank my friend from Iowa.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, last week we celebrated Thanksgiving, the time of year when we look back and we give thanks for our blessings. We are all grateful for our family, our men and women in uniform, and those who also

defend our Nation in civilian life. I am particularly thankful this year, because 1 year ago today I had the honor of my life to be sworn in as the newest junior Senator for the State of Illinois to complete Senator Obama's term.

And what a year it has been. Coming from the House of Representatives, I had to adjust to the measured place and pace of the Senate. But while Americans may have a dim view of what we do here, I remain an optimist. Americans have always faced tough challenges but then rose to the occasion more successfully than any other people in history.

Although I believe there is much more to do to reduce debt, repeal burdensome regulations, and encourage job creation, I want to take a few minutes to lay out what my team has accomplished for the State of Illinois and the Nation in 1 year.

In my first 30 days in office we moved three times, we hired a staff, and then voted to prevent the largest tax increase in history, while Congress extended tax relief for millions of Americans in that legislation.

We also worked to block the transfer of al-Qaida terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to northwestern Illinois. Since then, Congress enacted the Budget Control Act, mandating about $2 trillion in reduced Federal borrowing over the next 10 years, which in my view is only a first step in addressing Washington's out-of-control spending. No one here would say that we have come near to solving the problem, but I am heartened by the bipartisan and bicameral support of the Gang of Six proposal, and now with the probable support of 45 Republican and Democratic Senators, I hope we will soon go big with their recommendations to find $4 trillion in savings.

The Congress approved three free-trade agreements to boost U.S. exports to South Korea, to Colombia, and Panama, as both President Obama and Speaker Boehner wanted. The action will open markets for Illinois farmers and boost exports for companies and employers such as John Deere in Moline, Caterpillar in Peoria, ADM in Decatur, and Navistar in suburban Warrenville.

Congress repealed the onerous requirement mandated by the health care law that required small businesses to document all payments over a few hundred dollars. This absurd 1099 rule was the first part of the health care law to be repealed, and it will soon be followed by the misnamed CLASS Act that even the Obama administration appears to have canceled by executive action.

Additionally, Congress reformed our patent system by moving to a first-to-file, instead of a first-to-invent, system. This signals to inventors that they should quickly file their invention and allows us to innovate without endless and expensive litigation. Along with that effort, the Kirk amendment authorizing the patent office to have a small business fast lane became law.

My office published a Great Lakes report card that gave our largest body of fresh water a C grade to draw attention to invasive species, to poor water quality, and beach closures, demonstrating the need for our legislation by myself and Senator Durbin to ban sewage dumping in the Great Lakes.

To create more construction jobs in Illinois, I introduced the Lincoln Legacy Infrastructure Development Act which would unlock more than $100 billion in new revenue for roads, rail, transit, and airports, through more infrastructure funded by public-private partnerships. I have since met with Secretary LaHood, Chief of Staff Daley, and House Chairman Mica as a way to advance this legislation to restart our economy.

We have also had an active year in protecting our allies and America's interests overseas. On the floor today, we may consider the Menendez-Kirk amendment pending to the Defense Authorization Act which would impose crippling sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran. This is a result of a collaborative effort involving 92 Senators who signed the Schumer-Kirk letter calling for the United States to collapse Iran's terror-sponsoring bank.

In May, Senator Gillibrand and I introduced the Iran Human Rights and Democracy Promotion Act which establishes a special representative on human rights and democracy in Iran, imposing sanctions on companies that sell or service products that enable the Iranian regime to oppress its people. It would require a comprehensive strategy to promote Internet freedom in Iran and reauthorize the Iran Freedom Support Act. The bill is now part of the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Sanctions Consolidation Act.

In February, the Senate passed a Kirk resolution condemning human rights abuses in Iran, and we founded the Iranian Dissident Awareness Program to make dissidents such as Hossein Ronaghi-Maleki, a blogger and human rights activist, and Nasrin Sotoudeh, a lawyer and human rights activist, household names now in America.

We also fought for strict assurances that data collected from our new X-band radar in Turkey would be shared with our allies in Israel.

In total, my office introduced 18 bills and resolutions and 11 amendments. We cosponsored 132 pieces of legislation.

I am a member of four committees that have held more than 130 hearings and markups. This year we worked on the reform of No Child Left Behind, and those reforms passed the committee with bipartisan support. We also worked on legislation regarding flood insurance funding bills under the Appropriations Committee.

Most Americans who watch cable news think all Democrats and all Republicans may hate each other. While Congress has grown more partisan, I am particularly proud of the bipartisan partnerships we have fostered in such a short time. I have continued a longstanding battle against the corrupt sugar program by working with Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire on S. 25 to Stop Unfair Giveaways and Restrictions Act, the SUGAR Act of 2011, which would eliminate sugar price supports and increased costs for consumers that destroy American manufacturing jobs.

Senator Wyden and I introduced legislation targeting more than $60 billion in Medicare fraud every year by issuing new identify theft- proof medical ID cards, offering the same ID card protection our troops have for our seniors.

I also joined Senator Wyden in his efforts to ensure your constitutional rights are protected with regard to your GPS data and cell phone and other location information.

Senator Casey and I worked together on antibullying legislation to keep our kids safe at school.

I joined Senator Whitehouse in an effort to criminalize the pointing of lasers against civil aircraft to keep that industry safe.

In my capacity as the top Republican member of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, we worked across the aisle with Chairman Tim Johnson to pass the first stand-alone appropriations bill out of the Senate since 2009. Since then, we have broken the logjam on appropriations bills, and I hope to quickly complete that legislation.

I especially wish to recognize one of my first friends in the Senate, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, for our collaborative effort on many issues, the latest being a bipartisan resolution calling for the Congress to go big on deficit reduction. When we first came to the Senate together, we saw that there were few opportunities for Republicans and Democrats to interact outside the Senate floor. That is why we began to have an open lunch together each Thursday instead of the regularly scheduled partisan lunches, to discuss ways to bridge the political divide in the Senate and in Washington.

I also wish to highlight the partnership I have developed with my senior Senator from the State of Illinois. While we may not see eye to eye on many issues, Senator Durbin and I have worked closely on a whole host of issues for Illinois. Following in the footsteps of the late Senator Paul Simon, Senator Durbin and I have now held more than 25 joint constituent coffees here in Washington. It is like a townhall meeting, where we talk with Illinois families about what is going on at home and in the Congress.

In March, Senator Durbin and I worked with Secretary of Transportation Ray Lahood to help the city of Chicago, American, and United Airlines come to an agreement to keep the O'Hare Modernization Program moving forward. This is the single greatest job creation program in northern Illinois, and the agreement that we helped foster keeps thousands at work at O'Hare.

We worked closely to bring high-speed rail to the State of Illinois, and together introduced legislation to expand charter schools, to improve access to EpiPens at schools for children with severe allergies, to ensure military families in North Chicago continue to receive their Federal education assistance.

We fought to open a new Federal prison in Thompson, IL, but without al-Qaida detainees, to create jobs in northwestern Illinois, and address also flooding issues in southern Illinois and levee rehabilitation in the metro east area. We have also successfully confirmed four new judges for central and northern Illinois, and have an additional two nominations, one Democrat, one Republican, pending.

But legislation is not all we do here. In my opinion, one of the most important things a Member of Congress can focus on is constituent service. We formed advisory boards for African Americans, Latinos, small business, agriculture, health care, education, and students. Since I first came to the House of Representatives in 2001, I have worked diligently as an advocate for Illinois before the Federal Government. In 1 year now, my staff has held more than 3,440 meetings with constituents and other officials and dignitaries. To be as accessible as possible, I have visited 50 out of Illinois's 102 counties and held 20 townhall meetings throughout the State.

This month, my successor in the House of Representatives, Congressman Bob Dold, and I held the first ever live Facebook townhall meeting and answered questions we received via the social networking site and Twitter.

My office has arranged 340 Capitol and White House tours for approximately 2,800 constituents. We received more than 85,000 phone calls and responded to 66,000 letters and e-mails. We have helped more than 4,000 constituents with casework details before the government, and written more than 200 letters in support of Illinois towns, counties, and organizations for Federal grants. I have convened eight constituent advisory boards and met a total of 18 times. My office helped process 122 passports and assisted 750 veterans and their concerns before the VA.

We have accomplished quite a bit this year. I remain optimistic about the long-term future of our Nation. We can outinnovate and outproduce any nation on the planet if we create an environment that supports full job creation. But there is still a lot of work to do. The Illinois unemployment rate stands at over 10 percent. It seems each day we hear of a new company thinking of leaving our State.

The health care law threatens a further drag on our economy. We face a global sovereign debt crisis in Europe and fears of future credit devaluations for the United States.

U.S. troops continue to pursue enemies of freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Iran continues its effort to develop nuclear weapons. Protests are accelerating in Egypt, and civil unrest in Syria. Piracy remains a concern off the coast of Somalia.

As I have for the past year, I will spend the next 5 years making sure that America remains the best place on Earth for any individual to rise to their full potential, a place where your rights are protected against the government, whose main mission should be to defend us, and to foster higher incomes for our families.

In these battles, I will advance the interests of the State of Illinois as the job engine at the center of the Nation's economy, protector of the Lake Michigan and Mississippi ecosystems, and the special place that sent Abraham Lincoln and hopefully future Lincolns for national leadership when America needs it most.

Of course, my heart and soul will always be with the troops--their care, their mission, and their spirit of defending a place that is the greatest force for human freedom and dignity ever designed.

I am truly grateful for the opportunity to serve my Nation twice--in the Navy and in the Senate. I thank the people of Illinois for this first year in the Senate and for the even bigger things we will do together in the years to come.

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

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

Mr. President, if I understand the procedure, it is now appropriate for me to speak on my pending amendments. I will not offer my two amendments for a vote now, but I would like to take the opportunity to speak about them at this time. I trust that is in order.

Mr. President, I rise to express my continued opposition to the detention provisions in the Defense authorization bill.

I was on the Intelligence Committee prior to 9/11, and I have watched the transition since that time. I have watched America--to use a phrase--get its act together, and I am proud of where this country stands at this time with the procedures, the interrogation techniques, the custody issues, and the prosecutions that have been successful in the last 10 years. In my judgment, this country is safer now than we were before 9/11.

Before the recess, I laid out my views on why the detainee provisions in the Armed Services bill were detrimental to national security because they reduce the President's flexibility to make decisions on how best to detain and potentially interrogate and prosecute suspected terrorists. Today, I would like to speak to the two amendments I have filed, and I will describe them in a moment.

Let me also reference two letters in opposition to the detention provisions in the underlying bill: one written to me from the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, and the second written yesterday to Chairman Levin from Bob Mueller, the Director of the FBI.

These letters are in addition to the Statement of Administrative Policy, which includes a veto threat to the detention provisions and the letter from the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, both of which were inserted into the Record before the recess.

So I note that the provisions in the bill we are considering are opposed by the White House, by the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the FBI. These top national security officials are all concerned that the bill reduces the administration's flexibility to combat terrorism, both at home and abroad, and I would agree with that.

I will ask at the appropriate time for a vote on amendment No. 1125, which will limit mandatory military custody to terrorists captured outside the United States. This is a very simple amendment that only adds one word, ``abroad,'' to section 1032 of the underlying bill.

Currently, this bill creates a presumption that members or parts of al-Qaida or ``associated forces'' will be held in the military detention system, and I disagree with that approach. I believe the President should have the flexibility to hold captured terrorists in the military or the criminal justice systems, and the decision of which system to use should be made based on the individual facts and evidence of each case.

Putting aside that general view, I am very concerned that creating a presumption for military custody--which this bill does--and requiring a cumbersome waiver process will jeopardize counterterrorism cases and intelligence gathering. This concern is not

only mine, it has been raised by the White House, by Secretary Panetta, and very directly by Director Mueller in his letter.

So my amendment would clarify the situation and remove the confusion and delay that I believe this bill will cause. My amendment will make clear that under section 1032 of this bill the U.S. Armed Forces are only required to hold a suspected terrorist in military custody when that individual is captured abroad. All that amendment does is add that one word, ``abroad,'' to make clear that the military will not be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists. My amendment does not remove the President's ability to use the option of military detention or prosecution inside the United States.

My amendment makes clear that inside the United States there is no presumption for military custody. Inside the United States, a Customs agent or local law enforcement officer could follow his or her standard process and turn a suspected terrorist over to the FBI for handling without having to worry about whether a waiver may apply or whether it is required.

The FBI has changed. There are 56 field offices, there is a national security branch, and it is staffed with thousands of agents inside the United States. The FBI is well equipped to handle a terrorist inside the United States, but the Department of Defense is not. Listen to what Director Mueller wrote. He notes, and I quote:

The legislation introduces a substantial element of

uncertainty as to what procedures are to be followed at

perhaps the most critical time in the development of an

investigation. . . .

Now, I understand that the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee have included a waiver and have required that the administration issue procedures to lay out how the mandatory military custody provision will be carried out. But the administration is telling us, with a unanimous voice from all its senior counterterrorism officials, that this provision is harmful and unnecessary. But we say Congress knows better. I don't believe we do know better, and I think not to listen to those who are really responsible to carry out these missions in what is a very difficult field today, based on a careful assessment of national security, is a mistake.

The administration has threatened to veto this bill and said it ``strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032'' in its official Statement of Administration Policy because it would, and I quote, ``tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals.'' So here are the experts saying: Don't do this, it will tie our hands; and here is the political branch saying: We know better.

If something had gone wrong, if there had been mistakes, if there hadn't been over 400 cases tried successfully in civilian Federal criminal courts in the last 10 years and 6 cases and a muffed history of military prosecution in these cases, I might agree. But the march is on here in Congress: militarize this thing from stem to stern. And I disagree with that. When something isn't broke, don't fix it.

Mr. President, there are rapid reaction teams part of the HIG--or High-Value Interrogation Group--who can deploy on a moment's notice, who can rapidly assess a suspect, who can carry out a proper and effective interrogation, and the executive branch then has an opportunity to decide whether the facts and the evidence really are best suited for a Federal criminal prosecution in Article III courts, or the facts and the evidence are really best suited for a military commission prosecution.

This flexibility is what we are taking away from the executive branch under the provisions in this bill. It was well practiced during the Bush Presidency, and it has been well practiced by the Obama Presidency. Virtually every national security professional connected to the handling of terrorists and the intelligence obtained from them says to change it would be a mistake. So I believe the amendment I am offering--limiting mandatory military custody to detainees outside the United States--is a major improvement to the underlying bill. It removes the uncertainty that will occur if military custody is required for detainees captured inside the United States.

Frankly, I would prefer that the provision--section 1032--be struck in its entirety, as I don't believe we should be creating a presumption of military custody over the law enforcement route. That is not what this country is about. There is the posse comitatus law on the books. The military isn't supposed be roaming the streets of the United States. But if there is going to be this type of provision, it should at least do no harm to our ability to detain, interrogate, and prosecute terrorists. So I ask for my colleagues' support on this amendment.

While I am on the Senate floor, I would like to speak briefly to the second amendment I have filed and on which I also seek a vote, since the Udall amendment has failed; that is, amendment No. 1126, which would prohibit U.S. citizens from being held in indefinite detention without trial or charge.

As Members know, section 1031 of the underlying bill updates and restates the authorization for the use of military force that was passed on September 18, 2001, 10 years ago, 1 week after the attacks of 9/11. The provision updates the authority to detain terrorists who seek to harm the United States, an authority that I believe is consistent with the laws of armed conflict. However, I strongly believe that the U.S. Government should not have the ability to lock away its citizens for years, and perhaps decades, without charging them and providing a heightened level of due process. We shouldn't pick up citizens and incarcerate them for 10 or 15 or 20 years or until hostilities end--and no one knows when they will end--without giving them due process of law.

So my amendment simply adds the following language to section 1031 of the underlying bill:

The authority described in this section for the Armed

Forces of the United States to detain a person does not

include the authority to detain a citizen of the United

States without trial until the end of hostilities.

It is hard for me to understand how any Member of this body wouldn't vote for this amendment because, without it, Congress is essentially authorizing the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charge or trial.

As I said on the Senate floor previously, 40 years ago Congress passed the Non-Detention Act of 1971 that expressed the will of Congress and the President that America would never repeat the Japanese-American internment experience--something that I witnessed as a child up close and personal--and would never subject any other American to indefinite detention without charge or trial. In the 40 years since President Richard Nixon signed the Non-Detention Act into law, Congress has never made an exception to it.

A key issue in this bill is that this is the Congress making an explicit exception that has never been made before by the Congress, and what we are saying is, it is OK to detain an American citizen without trial, ad infinitum. I don't think it is. I don't think that is what our Constitution is all about. Yet the provision in this bill would do just that.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a column published yesterday in the San Jose Mercury News of California from Floyd Mori.

I know Mr. Mori well. He is the national executive director of the Japanese American Citizens League, which is the oldest and largest Asian-American civil rights organization in the United States. The Japanese American Citizens League--or JACL as we would say--has been an active voice on the wrongful internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, and I believe it is worth listening to what they have observed from that painful history.

The administration has threatened to veto this bill and said the following in its official Statement of Administration Policy:

After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention

authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole

series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts

to protect the country.

Yet by allowing the military to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely, Congress would be opening a great number of serious legal questions, in my judgment.

This amendment would restore the language that was in an earlier version of this bill that would have established a similar ban on the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. It is also consistent with the way we have conducted the war on terror over the past 10 years. In cases where the United States has detained American citizens, including John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla, they have eventually been transitioned from indefinite detention to the criminal justice system, and both have been convicted and are serving long prison sentences. John Walker Lindh pleaded guilty to terrorism charges and was given a 20-year sentence, and Jose Padilla was convicted of terrorism conspiracy and sentenced to a 17-year prison sentence.

So I believe this amendment is consistent with past practice and with traditional U.S. values of due process. We are not a nation that locks up its citizens without charge, prosecution, and conviction. My amendment reflects that view, I believe in that view, and I hope this body does as well. So I urge its adoption.

Mr. President, in conclusion, I ask my colleagues' support on these two amendments because I believe they will improve the legislation.

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

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

Mr. President, with the chairman's permission, I would like to speak on the Defense bill.

Mr. President, I wish to thank Chairman Levin. I wish to thank Senator McCain. I wish to thank the entire Armed Services Committee and all the dedicated staff for their efforts in crafting this National Defense Authorization Act.

I am going to continue to work with all of my colleagues to resolve some of the very challenging provisions, one of which we just voted on, having to do with what courts the detainees are going to be prosecuted in. I am hopeful compromises will be reached in the days ahead so this bill can be passed and signed into law.

There are five amendments I and others have offered that I wish to talk about. The first is amendment No. 1210. It has been crafted in consultation with the Government Accountability Office and it would require the Department of the Navy to evaluate the cost and benefits of stationing additional destroyers at Naval Station Mayport in Jacksonville, Fl. One may ask why.

Well, the frigates at Mayport that will all be decommissioned by 2015, but the ships that will replace them, the Littoral combat ships, will not arrive until 2016. Therefore, there is a hiatus of a year in which the ship repair industry, that was built up to take care of the Navy's fleet, will be without work. From the standpoint of keeping the maintenance and repair of the Navy's fleet, we need to determine if it will be more cost effective for the Navy to mitigate this problem by bringing additional destroyers to Mayport during that timeframe, extending the service lives of the existing frigates, or by boosting the industry by bringing ships from around the country to the Jacksonville ship repair industry for repair.

Doing nothing is not an option because the ship repair business would take too big of a hit. In order to provide some oversight of the Navy's methodology, so that we can get the greatest bang for the buck and keep the Navy fleet at the level of readiness it needs, I am asking for the GAO to assess and report independently on these measures. My colleague from Florida, Senator Rubio, has joined as a cosponsor.

I urge support of this amendment. It should not be a controversial amendment. I hope the committee will be able to accept it.

I have also proposed amendment No. 1236, which requires the Department of the Air Force to further explain their plan to change the flag officer positions at the Air Force Materiel Command. Reducing oversight and eliminating officers with vital experience

could damage the Air Force's weapons testing mission. So this amendment simply requires the Air Force to submit a report which would be assessed by the GAO. Again, this should not be a controversial amendment and ought to be accepted by the committee.

Senator Schumer of New York and I are working to ensure that the Department of Defense and the Veterans Affairs Department continue to study and evaluate the harmful effects of the garbage burn pits at our base in Balad in Iraq. This has gotten some attention in the press. It is horrible. What we are seeing is when our troops are exposed to these toxic fumes from these open burn pits, we see the consequences in their health that turn up later. Obviously, it is not only a diminution of the health of our troops which we ought to first and foremost protect, but of course there is a continuing cost to the U.S. Government, because years later, what we are finding is--and this comes out of the first gulf war experience with those open burn pits--we have determined that serious health problems could be traced back to the breathing in of those toxic substances because the troops were exposed to the fumes coming out of those burn pits.

What this amendment does--and it should not be controversial--is it requires a study be designed to take a look at those burn pits and further focus on the serious medical effects on our troops. So far, the reports have been inconclusive, but troops are still getting sick and it needs to be understood; thus, the reason for that study. Next year we will work to have the actual study funded. But Senator Schumer and I want to get on with this study and we ask and it should be accepted by the committee as a noncontroversial amendment. After all, it is what we all want, the protection of our troops.

Let me talk about amendment No. 1209. This addresses the longstanding problem faced by relatives of those who have been killed in action or whose death is related to service in the military, and that is the current law of a dollar-for-dollar reduction of Department of Defense Survivor Benefit Plan annuity offset, dollar for dollar, by the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation which comes from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The stand-alone bill, S. 260, filed by Senator Inhofe and myself, is cosponsored by--get this--49 Senators. The Senate has supported eliminating this offset for years. I hope that in the Senate, on this Defense authorization bill, we are going to remain steadfast in support of military widows and family members. Why? Because the Survivor Benefit Plan is an optional program for military retirees offered by the Defense Department. It is like an insurance plan. Military retirees pay premiums out of their retirement pay to ensure that their survivors will have adequate support when that retired military person passes away. For many retirees, reasonably priced insurance from the public marketplace is not available due to their service-related disabilities and their health issues; thus, the reason for this insurance plan, the Survivors Benefit Plan. SBP is a way for retirees to provide some income insurance for their survivors. It pays survivors 55 percent of the servicemember's retired pay. That is for the survivors of the retired military person when that person dies. It is an insurance policy.

The Dependency and Indemnity Compensation--DIC--is a completely different survivor benefit and it is administered by the Veterans' Administration. When a servicemember dies, either due to a service- related disability or illness or active-duty death, surviving spouses are entitled to monthly compensation of $1,154 from the Veterans' Administration. But here is the rub:

Of the 270,000 survivors receiving the SBP--the insurance policy that the military retiree has paid for--about 54,000 are subject to the offset, meaning some of their SBP is taken away. According to the Defense Actuary, 31,000 survivors' SBP is completely offset by the VA's Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, meaning they only have $1,154 a month to live on. These survivors are entitled to both under two different laws, but then there is a law that says you have to offset one from the other.

Military retirees in good faith bought into the insurance plan--the SBP. They were planning for the future for their families. The government now says we are going to take some of that money away. What it means is we are not taking care of those who were left behind in the same manner as these servicemembers thought they were going to get when they took care of our country. I know of no purchased annuity plan that would deny payout based on receipt of a different benefit. I say that having had some experience in insurance in my former life years and years ago as the elected insurance commissioner of the State of Florida.

It was said best by President Lincoln when he said in his second inaugural address that one of the greatest obligations in war is to ``finish the work we are in; to bind up the Nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.''

That is the whole intention of these two laws, but we are not doing it. We are not honoring our servicemembers. The government must take care of our veterans, their widows and their orphans. Almost every year in the Senate we have passed this, eliminating the offset. What happens is it goes down to the conference and they eliminate it because it is going to cost money. We have had a couple of times where important little steps were taken in the right direction with some lessening of the offset, but we must meet our obligations to military families with the same sense of honor their loved one rendered during their service to this country, so we must eliminate this offset.

Finally, there is an amendment to sanction the Central Bank of Iran. In just the previous 2 months, Iran has attempted a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, while continuing to develop its nuclear capability back home, and it has done so in complete disregard for the Non- Proliferation Treaty.

The United States has led the international community in enacting crippling sanctions against the Iranian regime. We need to tighten down the screws more. We have done so in 1996 with the Iran Sanctions Act and again in 2009 with the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act.

So we must continue these efforts. By sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran, we will make it clear to Iran's religious leaders--and that is what we have to say--that there are real consequences to their support for terrorism and their attempts to develop nuclear weapons.

A nuclear Iran would be disastrous for the region. It would be disastrous for Europe. It clearly would be a threat against Israel, one of our strongest allies, and it clearly is a threat to the national security interests of the United States.

The cost of inaction is too great. That is why we ought to go after the Central Bank of Iran by sanctioning them.

I think I have offered a number of amendments along with and on behalf of our colleagues that should be able to be accepted, and I would implore the leadership of the committee to please consider these.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our Nation's military in light of the legislation we are considering. I commend Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain and all those who are working on it. I just have some comments on a number of amendments and a few issues.

For more than a decade now our Nation has been at war. In that time period, the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces have courageously served in Afghanistan and Iraq, assisted communities after disasters, and continued to provide stability across the world. As the military draws down from foreign engagements and strategic directions are reassessed, the Senate should do the same with regard to these issues.

Unlike previous debates on the National Defense Authorization Act, this year the bill before us seeks to clarify the role of the military for the next decade or more.

We are being asked to evaluate how large our military needs to be as we assess our near- and long-term threats. We are being asked to evaluate what equipment and resources this fighting force will need to keep the peace and to combat new aggressors, all while we are being asked to evaluate programs we have introduced over the past decade to support our servicemembers and their families.

There are just a couple issues that are relevant to this debate, one which has particular significance for southwestern Pennsylvania. This is with regard to the military's force structure. I have been alarmed at two proposals submitted by the Air Force as it seeks to restructure.

In Pennsylvania, the Air Force has sought to eliminate the Pittsburgh Air Reserve Station where approximately 1,500 Reservists and civilians are committed to serving our Nation. After numerous briefings and hearings, the Air Force has yet to provide us--to provide my office and I think other offices as well--with a thorough analysis of several of their proposals. These proposals, as presented, have failed to reflect the low overhead costs, efficiencies, and the value of the 911th Airlift Wing.

For example, the 911th has developed an aircraft maintenance program that has resulted in more aircraft availability days while saving the Department more than $42 million over the last 5 years. The Air Force continues to reiterate that they must find savings in this tight budget environment.

If this is true, I am not convinced the closing of one of their most efficient bases meets this objective of cost savings.

I am also disturbed to see how the Air Force Reserve continues to be treated during this process. While the Guard and Active components have been mostly protected, the Air Force Reserve, including the 911th in Pittsburgh, has borne the brunt of these proposed cuts. Therefore, I am pleased Chairman Levin and the members of the Armed Services Committee have worked to prevent the Air Force from moving forward with these proposals in fiscal year 2013.

I ask other colleagues to join Senators Begich, Gillibrand, and me on amendment No. 2952 that seeks to prevent the military from using a backdoor BRAC process to substantially reduce or close bases, especially without justifying to Congress their intentions. On behalf of Pennsylvania's Air Force Reserve, I will continue to fight for a reasoned and balanced restructuring of the Air Force.

The second issue I wish to raise is the so-called TAA Program. We know our long-term strategic interests must also secure the future of servicemembers and veterans alike. Today, I have introduced an amendment that provides assistance to our servicemembers and their families. It is amendment No. 2297, the Transition Assistance Advisors Program, the so-called TAA Program.

It seeks to make permanent and increase the numbers of transition assistance advisors in every State. These advisors coordinate resources for the Reserve component members and their families to help these individuals navigate the myriad of service programs provided by the VA, TRICARE, veterans service organizations, and other supporting agencies.

These advisors are considered a force multiplier by the National Guard Bureau. The TAA assistance advisors enhance the Bureau's outreach capabilities, serve as a vital link between servicemembers and the benefits to which they are entitled. In the last 2 years, since this initiative was launched, 62 of these advisors have reached more than 194,000 veterans and their families. Yet 62 advisors can only do so much. All too often, I hear from my National Guard constituents and their spouses about how confusing it is to navigate military procedures and benefits, especially as they go on and off duty every 2 years.

Our citizen soldiers have answered the call to serve our Nation in times of need. Should we not be doing everything we can to help them navigate these complicated measures when they return home? I think the answer to that question is a resounding yes.

Last year, Congress authorized end strengths of 464,900 guardsmen and women in the Army and Air National Guard. On average, this comes to an average of 1 transition assistance advisor--just 1--per 7,498 servicemembers and their families, obviously not enough advisors to help our families.

I believe this ratio does a disservice to citizen soldiers and to airmen as well as others and their families. I ask my colleagues to support and strengthen this program as our veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan try to reintegrate back into their lives. I thank Senators Leahy, Blumenthal, Tester, Mikulski, and Wyden for cosponsoring this important amendment.

Finally, my last issue. This involves women in Afghanistan. In addition to making important adjustments to the size and strength of our military, the authorization act also helps to shape strategic priorities in critical regions. In Afghanistan, we are reducing the U.S. presence and transitioning security responsibilities to Afghan forces. It is critical this process protects the gains that have been made over the last 10 years, particularly with regard to the rights and opportunities of Afghan women and girls. I am concerned that as our international forces draw down, extremists threaten to once again restrict Afghan women's mobility and opportunities for participation in public life.

Women who are active in public life face serious threats to their personal safety in Afghanistan. Girls have been the targets of extremist violence simply for going to school. We all know the story that was written about the acid thrown in the face of two young girls. That was repeated numerous times across the country. Afghan forces are not doing enough to counter these influences and protect women in their communities. This just does not threaten Afghan women and Afghan girls, it threatens the success of the security transition in Afghanistan that we are paying for, that we have invested in, that our fighting men and women have fought and died for.

We know that when women's security deteriorates, it can be an early indicator of a worsening security condition overall. I am very concerned that if we neglect women's security in Afghanistan during this transition period and if we stand by while women are forced out of public life and have their voice silenced by extremists, we will see a less stable and a less secure Afghanistan in 2014 and beyond.

That is why Senator Hutchison and I have introduced the Afghan Women and Girls Security Promotion Act and offered it as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. We are proud to be joined by Senators Mikulski, Feinstein, Gillibrand, Murkowski, Snowe, Lautenberg, Cardin, and Boxer.

Here is what the legislation does: It requires the Department of Defense to produce a plan--just a plan--to produce a plan to promote the security of Afghan women and girls during the transition process, including monitoring and responding to changes in women's security.

Second, the Department of Defense must work to improve gender sensitivity and responsiveness among Afghan national security forces personnel. Third, it increases recruitment and retention of women in the Afghan national security forces. It will also require that the Department of Defense report on the implementation of this strategy and its results in semiannual reports that are filed.

When I last visited Afghanistan, leading a CODEL in August of 2011, I was privileged to meet with a group of Afghan women leaders. I was impressed and inspired--that is an understatement--inspired by their determination to continue to fight for women's rights even in the face of extraordinary oppression and violence.

One member of Parliament, Fawzia Kofi, lost her father and her husband as a result of her family's involvement in politics. But she is still determined to be a leader in protecting women's rights and advancing Afghanistan's democratic development. She and her colleagues, along with women across Afghanistan, are prepared to do whatever it takes to make sure their rights are protected and that they have a voice in their country's future. Supporting them is not only in line with our American values, it is critical to discouraging extremism and laying a foundation for a peaceful future in Afghanistan.

I am glad several of my colleagues have joined us as cosponsors in this important amendment. I hope we can see more support as we move forward.

I yield the floor.