A resolution expressing vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders, and recognizing and strongly supporting its right to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against acts of terrorism.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending measure be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 2995.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is intended to expand the opportunities for defense industry employees to attend or participate in Department of Defense educational institutions and programs.

Specifically, the amendment will broaden the existing statute that authorizes defense industry employees to obtain a master's degree at Defense Department schools, such as the Naval Postgraduate School, by also allowing them to obtain professional continuing educational certification.

Having key members of the defense industry exposed to the unique courses offered at these institutions is a win-win for the Federal Government. The industry pays the tuition and covers all costs associated with their attendance, and in the process our defense industry partners gain greater expertise in the military application of engineering and science, as well as acquisition and program management expertise.

Again, I believe this is a win-win for the government, and I ask for a voice vote of the pending amendment.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Connecticut in offering this amendment, which is modeled on the bipartisan legislation we introduced in March along

with a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle.

We also recently joined to form a Senate caucus to end human trafficking, and I appreciate the chair and ranking member today for allowing this amendment to move forward.

The aim of this amendment is pretty simple. This amendment ensures that our contingency contracting dollars are spent in a manner that is consistent, as Senator Blumenthal said, with our deeply held values as a country. This is particularly important in the context of wartime contracting and reconstruction work.

This amendment comes from the work that both DOD and State Department IGs have done. The inspectors general have told us we lack sufficient monitoring to have the kind of visiblity we need under the labor practices by our contractors and subcontractors who rely on a lot of third-party nationals to do overseas work.

It also comes from the Wartime Contracting Commission, which has reported what is described as evidence of the recurrent problem of trafficking in persons by labor brokers or subcontractors of contingency contractors. The report concluded that existing prohibitions on such trafficking have failed to suppress it.

One of the commission members, a former Reagan and Bush administration defense official, testified before our committee, saying those findings were, in his assessment, just the tip of the iceberg. So I think this legislation is appropriate. It directly affects this issue that has been raised now by the IG and by the Wartime Contracting Commission. This is a commonsense approach to it.

Broadly defined, we believe this will help to deal with the human trafficking issue that has been identified. It deals with recruiting workers to leave their home countries based on fraudulent promises, confiscating passports, limiting the ability of workers to return home, charging workers so-called recruitment fees that consume more than a month's salary, just to name some of the abuses that have been identified.

I think it should be clear that the overwhelming majority of these contractors and subcontractors are law abiding, but we need to be sure these abusive labor practices are dealt with. This legislation will do so. I thank my colleague for raising it today. I am proud to join him in cosponsoring the legislation.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Yes. That would be great. I am willing to take a voice vote, and I believe it is going to be accepted.

Mr. President, I do seek recognition.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and call up amendment No. 2956.

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

Mr. President, this is a pretty simple amendment. It has to do with correcting a problem that we have found in Ohio and around the country. Amendment No. 2956 simply calls on the Secretary of Defense to work to standardize the educational transcripts of separating servicemembers. I appreciate Senator Akaka's leadership and cosponsorship of this amendment.

It is an important issue to a lot of our veterans as they are seeking to pursue their educational opportunities after being in the service. If they seek to use the GI bill or other benefits to further their education after taking off the uniform, they sometimes find they have an issue of getting credit for work they have done in the service.

Each servicemember is issued a transcript upon leaving Active Duty. The transcript equates military training and instruction to academic credits. Colleges and universities then use these transcripts to award transfer credit to veteran students.

Unfortunately, there is a significant difference in the types of transcripts issued by each of the military services. As a result, two veterans from different services who took the exact same military courses could receive significantly different academic credit at the same school. If we multiply that across all the services, all of our veteran students, and across all the colleges and universities in this country, we end up with some real issues. We end up with many veterans losing out on credit they deserve, as well as very well-intentioned colleges and universities spending a lot of time and resources trying to make sense of all these differences to help this process for veterans. It often falls on the Veterans Service Offices in these schools, and as my colleagues know, these Veterans Service Offices should be spending their time assisting veterans with their transition to academic life, which is sometimes a challenge.

Ohio has been leading on this issue and has organized public and private schools, our State board of regents, and even the Ohio National Guard to try to bring some sense to this. That has been helpful, but it would be far easier and far better to standardize the military transcripts themselves. It would avoid, again, a lot of the issues, a lot of the bureaucracy.

The Defense Department has recognized some of these issues, and I think they have started down the path of developing a joint services transcript. This is an important first step, and through this amendment we seek an understanding of those requirements and their implementation plan for this kind of initiative, should it be in place, in order to see it on a path to a swift and thorough resolution.

So I think this is one that, again, as the chairman was asking, could be voice-voted. I hope it will be.

So, Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote on the pending amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Seven minutes.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I commend the chairman and ranking member for the way they are handling this bill. As we have seen on the floor today, Democrats and Republicans alike are able to offer amendments and have an honest debate on the issues, which is exactly how we ought to be operating.

As the fiscal cliff approaches we should not only be working together across the aisle to address issues like we are today with the Defense authorization bill, but we should also be working to address other critical issues, including tax issues and spending issues. That is what I wanted to address.

We have a lot of challenges. Instead of pulling together we seem to be pulling apart, and I am specifically referring to some of the suggestions by some in the majority that we consider a controversial and partisan rule change that would marginalize minority Members and in a way that breaks the current rules to change the rules.

What I mean by that is it takes 67 votes to change a rule in the Senate. That is a rule, by the way, that dates back to 1917. The reason that is in place is because, obviously, folks wanted to force the majority and minority to work together to make those rule changes. We don't get a two-thirds vote without that. I think it is important that the basic rules are ones that are agreed on.

The party in the majority tends to change a lot around here. In fact, we have shifted back and forth between Republicans and Democrats 7 times in the past 30 years. So at one point we are in the majority, one point in the minority, and that is why having these basic rules in place make sense.

There are some proposing we get around the 67-vote majority by some procedure where, instead of having a two-thirds vote, we would just have a majority vote to change a rule. Regardless of what rule that might be--some would say it would be on the motion to proceed and other aspects of the filibuster. Of course it would set a precedent that could change the rules for other things as well. I think that would prove counterproductive in the short term. I also think it would prove counterproductive in the long run for the Senate.

All of us are focused, I hope, on the serious economic challenges that we face with the fiscal cliff impending. I think this would be the wrong time for us to put this body into an even more partisan environment by changing these rules.

Again, I commend the chairman and ranking member for what we are doing today because this is an example of how the Senate can work and has worked on several bills in my short time here. But in other cases we have not been able to do that. I think that involves both parties, again, working together to solve these problems.

The issue before us is the fiscal cliff, and I also want to address briefly, if I may, the ongoing discussion about taxes and what we should do regarding taxes. I want to take this opportunity to talk a little about why some of us believe that raising tax rates would be counterproductive at a time when our economy is so weak, and that there is another opportunity, and that is for tax reform.

The jobs crisis and the debt crisis are linked, and the President has made that point. He has said his priority in the grand bargain discussions, the fiscal cliff discussions, is to ensure that we encourage economic growth and jobs. So we should use this as an opportunity to address the underlying problems that are holding back our economy, an economy that is in tough shape today. Unemployment is still stuck just below 8 percent. The projections CBO has given us for the next year, by the way, are continued anemic growth in the economy and, in fact, unemployment going up, not down.

The economic case against imposing higher taxes is overwhelming. We all know if we tax something, people tend to do less of it and that is one reason why smoking is taxed, to get people to quit smoking. So why do we want to raise taxes on working, saving, and investing? Instead, we should encourage policies that create jobs, not discourage them through higher taxes.

Don't take it from me. There are others who have commented on this on both sides of the aisle. Christina Romer, President Obama's former Chief Economic Adviser, has written that in most circumstances, a tax increase that equals about 1 percent of GDP actually lowers GDP by about 3 percent. Harvard economist Marty Feldstein has written that a $1 increase in tax rates tends to cost the economy about 76 cents of growth.

There is a global perspective on this as well because other countries have gone through these fiscal problems and they have chosen to cut spending in some cases and raise taxes in other cases. There is a Harvard economist, Alberto Alesina, who has recently studied the experience of 17 countries in the developed world, such as the United States. Over the past 25 years, he has looked at how they have attempted to reduce their budget deficits. Based on IMF data, which is the International Monetary Fund, he concluded that ``tax-based deficit reduction'' was, in his words, ``always recessionary.'' By contrast, reducing deficits by cutting spending and enacting pro-growth reforms, including tax reform, actually spurred economic growth, according to the same study.

I think that this is consistent with our own economic history. Between 1948 and 1961, a period when the highest income tax rate rose from 82 to 91 percent, we went through some tough times. We had four recessions. Thankfully, our exports that helped rebuild Europe following World War II helped keep the economy moving. Reducing the top tax rate to 70 percent also helped, but the 1970s were still a period of stagnation, recession, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, double-digit inflation. It was when Ronald Reagan reduced rates to 28 percent that we saw this impressive period of growth, maybe the most impressive ever.

It is something we saw again in 1997 when capital gains taxes that were cut under President Clinton and the Republican leadership in Congress were followed by a surge of investment and growth into the late 1990s. Again, after the 2003 tax rate cuts, we saw another example of the power of low tax rates. This was the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters before those rate cuts, the economy lost 1 million jobs. In the six quarters after those tax rate reductions, in 2003, economic growth nearly doubled and 2.3 million jobs were added.

Some tax increase advocates may assert a willingness to accept slower economic growth in the cause of deficit reduction and that is a legitimate point of view, that we need to have slower economic growth because deficit reduction is so important. But I would also point out some statistics. Slow growth also means less tax revenue. The White House's own data suggests that even a .26-percent reduction in economic growth--which is likely with big tax hikes--would wipe out the entire $800 billion in promised deficit reduction from higher tax rates. Growth is so incredibly important to reducing our debt and deficit and getting in control of our fiscal situation. So tax rate increases are not only bad economic policy, but they tend to be bad budget policy.

Tax reform is needed, and through tax reform we could have higher revenues. But both theory and practice make a convincing case that keeping rates low is better for the economy and jobs. Structural spending reforms combined with pro-growth tax reform, in my view, are the right approach and I think historically that has proven to be true. I will speak for myself as one Republican, although other Republicans as well are willing to accept new revenues, but the right way to do it is through reforming our outdated Tax Code and having these structural reforms that everybody feels are necessary.

Both the corporate and individual sides of the Code are marked by relatively high marginal rates and a complex maze of tax preferences that distort economic decisions, misallocate capital, and allow some taxpayers to avoid paying their share. Tax reform can kill two birds with one stone. By capping or eliminating inefficient tax

preferences, we can avoid raising corporate and individual rates, without adding a dime to the deficit, by the way. In fact, if done right, tax reform will increase revenues by spurring growth, job creation and, therefore, bigger tax receipts.

Tax reform is both a fiscal and competitive necessity for our country. It has been more than 25 years since we substantially reformed the Tax Code and twice as long--about 50 years--since we did a bottom- up review of our international tax laws. The world has changed a lot in that time period, yet America has not kept up. The underlying assumptions in our Tax Code are, frankly, out of step with today's complex global economy. This is especially evident in our corporate Tax Code. The United States is now the highest corporate tax country among all the developed countries in the developed world. Canada has lowered its federal corporate rate from 16.5 percent to 15 percent, bringing its combined rate to 25 percent--nearly 15 points lower than the U.S. combined rate. Our rate is 39.2 percent when we combine the State and Federal burden. The Federal burden is 35 percent and the State burden is closer to 36 percent. So right now the average among all of the developed countries in the world is 25.1 percent, and the U.S. rate stands at 39.2 percent when we combine the State and Federal burdens.

A similar trend, by the way, has played out with respect to international tax rules, as our trading partners, including Japan and Britain, have moved to a more competitive, territorial-like tax regime over the past 10 years, which encourages movement of investment, capital, and jobs overseas. So there is a simple point here which is, by standing still, the United States is falling behind. The resulting drag on American competitiveness and job creation is real and substantial.

The solution is tax reform that broadens the tax base by scaling back tax preferences and cutting the corporate rate. We could cut it to 25 percent and scale back the deductions, credits, and exemptions, and have a competitive, territorial system and have it all be revenue neutral. There is such a proposal by the Joint Committee on Taxation here in Congress.

I am not saying it is easy. Some of these preferences, of course, and loopholes are ones that are very difficult to reduce or eliminate, but it would be the right thing to do for our economy. I think we have seen some signs of developing bipartisan consensus on this issue and I am hopeful we will see the same movement for pro-growth individual tax reform, because reforming the entire Tax Code is critical to regaining competitiveness, spurring growth, and producing the revenues we need to pay for important public priorities.

The smart way to raise revenue is not through tax hikes that will shrink our economy, but rather through tax reform designed to help grow the economy and help make American workers and businesses more competitive so we can compete and win in the global economy.

Again, today as we are approaching the fiscal cliff I hope this Senate works together on a bipartisan basis to work toward tax reform in a way to increase revenues and grow our economy while we look at the important structural reforms we have to make in order to solve the fiscal crisis we face.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank my colleague from Oklahoma. I wish to follow up briefly on that and say that in 1997, when we decided to move toward a balanced budget agreement when President Clinton was President, there was also an agreement to cut the capital gains rate. We sometimes forget the capital gains rate cut produced a lot of revenue that was not expected. As a result, we got to a unified balanced budget on a unified basis more rapidly than anybody thought we would. It came 2 or 3 years sooner than projected, in part because there was about $100 billion of new revenue that showed up the next year from the fact that we did reduce the capital gains rates.

I understand the need for us to deal with the deficit and to have revenue. There is no question that this is necessary, but to do it by raising rates alone, which is what is being proposed by some people, is going to result in lower economic growth, it is going to result in job loss, and it is not going to have the intended benefit on the revenue side. The alternative is clear, which is, for the first time in a couple of decades, we need to get busy on reforming this Tax Code as Ronald Reagan did with Democratic help, including Democratic Senators such as Phil Bradley here in the U.S. Senate, to encourage growth and to encourage the kind of economic growth that is going to result in more revenue coming in. We should not miss this opportunity to do that.

As I said earlier, I believe there is a building consensus around that. We saw it in the Simpson-Bowles Commission. We have seen it in the Rivlin-Domenici work, and other outside groups have looked at this, at our Tax Code. And by broadening the base, we can be more competitive and through growth have additional revenues coming in.

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

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

Mr. President, I don't know of any further debate on this side on the Portman amendment. We support it, and we have no objection to it going to a voice vote at this time.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, I wish now to call up a list of nine amendments, which have been cleared by myself and the ranking member, by Senator McCain: Webb amendment No. 2948, Sessions amendment No. 2962, Inhofe amendment No. 2971, Casey amendment No. 2986, Murray amendment No. 2989, Vitter amendment No. 3085, Coburn amendment 3110, Manchin amendment No. 3166, and Boxer amendment No. 2981. I believe they have been cleared on the Republican side.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider these amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

The Senator from West Virginia wishes now to speak on the Merkley amendment. Then it is our intention to move to a vote on the Merkley amendment.

Mr. President, we are now going to proceed to a vote on the Merkley amendment. As I indicated, the amendment expresses the support of this body for the transition goals of the President, including the handover to Afghan security forces of primary responsibility for security throughout Afghanistan by mid-2013, the completion of the security transition process by the end of 2014--and of course that has to do with the completion and transition. That is not necessarily by any means a withdrawal of all troops but it is the intent that all combat forces be withdrawn by the end of 2014. I emphasize it is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution.

After the disposition of the Merkley amendment, we then intend to move to the Whitehouse amendment. The Whitehouse amendment has been cleared by the chairman and ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction. However, there is a desire to debate and have a rollcall on that amendment. We are asking Senator Whitehouse to be prepared immediately after this vote to call up formally and debate his amendment and any opponent or opponents of the amendment to be prepared to debate it at that time. So it is our intent--and I ask unanimous consent--that immediately following the vote on the pending Merkley amendment, we then move to the Whitehouse amendment, and following the disposition of the Whitehouse amendment we then move to the Coburn amendment No. 3109, which will require debate, and, hopefully, we can work out a time agreement with Senator Coburn during this vote.

Finally, we are urging Senators who have amendments we have not yet addressed that they intend to press, or hope they can press, to meet with us during this vote so we can continue to make progress on this bill. We will be in tomorrow unless by some wonderful events we are able to finish this bill tonight.

I am sorry, I say to my friend from Arizona. We have to withdraw that unanimous consent request on amendment No. 3109 at this time. I want to try to see what the problem is. There is an objection to my request on this side. We are going to try to work out those objections during this rollcall vote.

We understand Senator Merkley is on his way and wishes to speak for a minute on his own amendment, so I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, what we wish to do now is move to Senator Blumenthal's amendment which has been cleared and I believe can be voice-voted. I think that is the current situation.

Then as soon as that is done, I hope we will have an announcement as to where we go next. With the cooperation of one Senator, whom I do not see on the floor, we may be able to go to Senator Whitehouse's amendment, but I cannot quite announce that yet because we have to find that Senator and make sure that is not objected to. I would hope the chair would now recognize Senator Blumenthal.

Madam President, I think we are now willing to proceed to disposition on the Blumenthal amendment. I don't know if anyone wants to speak further on that amendment.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I wonder if we could ask unanimous consent at this point to take up the Inhofe amendment. We know of no objection to it. Rather than setting any amendment aside, just simply send it to the desk.

Is the amendment at the desk? Just call up the amendment, if the Senator would.

Amendment No. 2972

We know of no objection to the amendment.

Madam President, I would now ask unanimous consent that Senator Udall of Colorado be recognized for 5 minutes to speak as though in morning business.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Thune be allotted 7 minutes to speak on an amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the Gillibrand amendment, that there be 20 minutes debate on the amendment, and that it be equally divided between Senator Gillibrand and Senator Coburn.

Is there anyone seeking the yeas and nays?

Mr. President, I believe Senator Portman may be ready with an amendment that has been cleared and, I believe, can be voice-voted. I am wondering if my friend from Ohio could confirm my understanding that he is ready to proceed and that he is willing to take a voice vote on this amendment?

I wonder if we could get a unanimous consent that Senator Casey be allowed to proceed as in morning business to comment on filed amendments for--I am sorry, was it 10 minutes?--10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Casey be allowed to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. President, we are now going to turn to an amendment of Senator Whitehouse which has been cleared. We have worked to make sure everybody understands that he is going to proceed to the amendment. And then I understand there is not going to be a need for rollcall vote on it.

I ask the Senator from Rhode Island, about how much time does he believe he would need on his amendment before we hopefully voice vote?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

And I appreciate that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 10 minutes on the Whitehouse amendment, equally divided between Senator Whitehouse and Senator Coburn.

The Senator, we expect now, will be calling up his amendment. And may I, though, correct what I said before. It is possible that there will be a need for a rollcall vote on the Whitehouse amendment.

Amendment No. 3180

I am distracted. What is the unanimous consent request?

I understand. Was it an additional 5 minutes?

I have no objection.

I know of nobody else who wishes to speak on this amendment--I withhold that so we can hold off and see if anybody else wishes to speak.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on this amendment.

Senator Portman, I believe, wishes to speak relative to an amendment? I believe the Senator from Ohio wishes to speak relative to an amendment? I ask Senator Portman be recognized for--how many minutes, may I ask the Senator?

For up to 10 minutes, to speak up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the Lieberman amendment, No. 3090, to be called up with the modification that is at the desk; that the amendment, as modified, be agreed to; that following disposition of the Lieberman amendment, it be in order for the following amendments to be called up: Ayotte No. 3245 on Guantanamo and Feinstein amendment No. 3018 on detainees; that there be up to 20 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form on the Ayotte amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of time on the Ayotte amendment, there be up to 60 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form on the Feinstein amendment; further, that at 9:30 p.m. this evening, the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the Ayotte and Feinstein amendments in the order listed and that no amendments be in order to the amendments prior to the votes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any further amendments must be filed no later than 7:30 tonight.

If there is an amendment filed tonight by 7:30. It could be offered as a second degree at some later time, but it has to be filed tonight by 7:30.

The Senator is correct. These are not the last two votes tonight necessarily at all. As of now, we are still planning on having votes tomorrow.

I withdraw that request.

We could. Let us report this amendment first and then why don't we do that. It will just take us a couple minutes.

Mr. President, I call up a list of 12 amendments which have been cleared by myself and Senator McCain:

McCaskill amendment No. 2929, McCaskill amendment No. 2942, Boxer amendment No. 3230, Hatch amendment No. 2966, Inhofe amendment No. 2973, Boxer amendment No. 2980, Casey amendment No. 2994, Toomey amendment No. 3059, Inhofe amendment No. 3072, Vitter amendment No. 3086, Shaheen amendment No. 3098, Coburn amendment No. 3186.

I understand from Senator McCain that these amendments have been cleared on his side.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider these amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, what is the pending matter?

There is 20 minutes evenly divided?

Reserving the right to object, how much time is left on each side?

Would the Senator from California agree that there be 5 minutes added to each side?

That is fine. I think there is no objection.

I ask unanimous consent that 6 additional minutes be added to the proponents of this amendment and, if needed, that 6 additional minutes be added to the other side.

How much time remains for the opponents?

Mr. President, I very much oppose this amendment. We have a court system in this country which is second to none. To deny this administration or any administration the opportunity, should they choose to exercise their discretion, to charge terrorists as criminals seems to me to be highly unwise and is not a particularly strong step in the war against terrorism.

This amendment is undesirable. It would create a permanent restriction on the administration's options--not, by the way, just this administration's options, any administration's options in conducting the fight against terrorism. It prevents the administration's ability to bring any detainee from Guantanamo for any purpose, including their prosecution in court. I think it is unwise and not a strong step at all in the war on terror to deprive the President of the tools he might need to carry out the protection of this country from the threat of terrorism.

This amendment would permanently cut off the possibility of prosecuting these Guantanamo detainees in Federal court. I hope we do not do that. I hope we defeat the amendment of my friend from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte.

Finally, this is what we call veto bait. The administration continues to strongly oppose these provisions which intrude upon the executive branch's ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees.

So it is unwise in terms of our national security; it is unwise in terms of the rigidity it imposes on the executive branch as to where to prosecute terrorists, alleged terrorists, and it also jeopardizes the signing of this bill as soon as we can get this bill to a conference and get a conference report back to both bodies. So I hope we defeat the Ayotte amendment.

If we have any time left, I yield it back.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Has all time been used?

So under the existing UC, we are now moving to the Feinstein amendment, and that is now the pending business?

I understand. Let me then ask unanimous consent that Senator Inhofe, on behalf of Senator Coons and himself, offer a cleared amendment at this point.

Let me, first of all, commend Senators Inhofe and Coons. This is a very important amendment, and the determination to go after Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army is essential not just in terms of the values that we so dearly believe in, but also in terms of avoiding further slaughter that has been perpetrated by Kony.

So I commend Senators Inhofe and Coons, and I hope this amendment will not only pass but will send a very important statement as to where America stands on this subject.

The pending business is still the Ayotte amendment. I am just wondering if the Senator from Utah might indicate what it is that he will speak on.

Madam President, first, I wish to announce that I agree with the assessment of the Senator from New York in terms of the treatment that should be offered. I have no problems with that. I think she is right. There are a lot of other things in TRICARE that aren't right. And what the Senator from New York is doing is admirable, but there is a portion of it that is not.

With the modification to her amendment, she has now raised the total cost of this amendment over the next 10 years to $1.9 billion. And it is true that she has managed to insert with some excess funds that will be spent before the end of the year that won't be there by the time the money for this is used to pay for it. So she does meet that standard, but she doesn't meet the standard for the next 10 years.

So we are in the midst of this large discussion about how we are going to get out of this fiscal mess. I take her at her word that she really does want to reform TRICARE and fix it. But realize that TRICARE hasn't had a premium increase since 1995, and all it would take to pay for this is a $2-per-month increase in premiums for those on TRICARE. And it is just TRICARE Prime; it is not TRICARE Standard and TRICARE For Life. It is just $2. Madam President, $550 per year covers your whole family, with no deductibles and no copays right now. It hasn't been increased since 1995.

So one of the things we ought to do is we ought to work to bring TRICARE standards up to make sure they meet the needs of everybody. I don't disagree with that. But the other thing we ought to do is we ought to pay for it. Now, where is the money going to come from to pay for this, this very well-intentioned and proper thing? The way it is written now by the Senator from New York, this will come out of the operations and maintenance fund. So the very father of an autistic child will have less flight time, less drill time, less shooting time, less preparation time to go out and be a warfighter. And as we think about the 10-percent across-the-board cut that is coming or the $500 billion that is proposed to come out of the Defense Department, none of it is going to come out of TRICARE.

So what we ought to do is we ought to fix these things, but we ought to fix them without digging our hole deeper.

Before Secretary Gates left, he said the biggest thing that is eating the lunch in the Defense Department is the department of health within it that manages the health care because we have not done an appropriate job of having a slight rise in premiums to cover some of the tremendous benefits. Nobody else in the country gets the benefits we give with TRICARE--nobody--$550 a year per family, $275 if you are single, and no copay and no deductible. All it would take is $24 a year by our TRICARE Prime to pay to make sure that the people with disabilities and the people with autism have the appropriate therapies and they are covered under TRICARE.

So I would ask my colleague from New York if she would mind withdrawing her amendment, to be voted on later, that I might be able to offer a second-degree amendment and maybe in that way or another way pay for this out of things that we know are going on, that we could find $1.9 billion over the next 10 years to actually pay for the cost of this over the next 10 years. We didn't have time to do that beforehand. I don't know if she would be willing to do that. But there is no way you should justify taking another $1.9 billion out of the operation and maintenance program for our troops to health care. We ought to eliminate something that doesn't take away from their training time, flying time, shooting time, or sailing time. We ought to be taking it from somewhere else, but that is where this is going to come from.

I applaud what she is doing. She is right about fixing the problem. She is totally opposite of what we should be doing in terms of paying for it, and I would offer to work in good faith in the next hour to try to come up with a second-degree amendment that would be acceptable to my colleague and to the chairman and ranking member of this committee that would actually pay for it.

Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, how much time is remaining?

I would be happy to yield.

Madam President, might I ask through the Chair the Senator from New York if she would consider for a short period of time withdrawing her amendment and allowing me to develop a second-degree amendment that would actually pay for this so that we would accomplish her goal--and I think all of our goals--of making sure the proper treatment is there but won't handicap the armed services in terms of delayed training, less training, less flying time? Because it is going to come out of the operations and maintenance funds. I wonder if she would do that with the assurance of the chair and the assurance of the ranking member and chairman of the committee that the amendment would still be considered.

I yield the remaining portion of my time.

I think my colleague from New York would like to ask for the yeas and nays.

I think we ought to have a recorded vote on this since we are not paying for it and we are taking $1.9 billion out of the O&M budget of the Defense Department. I ask we have a recorded vote.

Mr. President, we have made remarkable progress in this country in terms of research into diseases. Since Francis Collins and his great work on the genome complex became successful, the way we research disease has totally changed. I have my favorite aunt who died of pancreatic cancer. I diagnosed it hundreds of times in my own practice of patients who were dear to me and whom I love. The problem with pancreatic cancer is it is diagnosed late. It is an adenocarcinoma of the pancreas, much like an adenocarcinoma of the colon. The reason we do so well on colon cancer is we do colonoscopies and we can treat the disease early. What is well-intended by this recalcitrant cancer bill will actually delay the cure for pancreatic cancer and other recalcitrant diseases.

Let me take a few minutes to explain why I am saying that.

We no longer look at diseases to cure them by looking at the base disease. There is translational and neurocommunicative and peptide and small markers of communication on an intracellular basis. Now, when we do research and we find that, what we find is we find cures for multiple diseases.

The other thing is we can take 100 people with a recalcitrant cancer, and every one of them, when we look at the genetics of cancer, will have to be treated differently. In other words, it is going to take a different approach, even though we might classify it as a neuroblastoma of the kidney or a pancreatic cancer--but looking at the genetics of the cancer, which is what we are doing now, is going to require totally different treatments.

This is very well intended. I understand. This is a big disease, and it is terrible that we diagnose it at a time where we cannot end up-- less than 10 percent, around 5 percent survival rates, 5-year survival rates on this disease.

I would like to have printed in the Record a letter I received from Dr. Francis Collins. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed.

It is outlining NIH's and specifically the National Cancer Institute's concerns with this type of directive from us. I think they care about whether we solve these problems associated with these recalcitrant cancers. I think people who want to get it solved are true in their motives to try to solve it.

But there are some significant things in his letter that I would like to quote for my colleagues because I think it might just change your mind about us micromanaging what they are doing.

First, he says:

We have all the authorities to do whatever we need to do

with the money that you have given us. We can do all these

things you want us to do. If you tell us to do them, we will

do them. But we already have the authority to go where we

think we are going to get the best results in the quickest

way.

NIH constantly examines scientific opportunities and

conducts research evaluation and planning opportunities

within its current statutory

In other words they are looking, trying to figure out how they change, where they go now

The national cancer institute recently organized a group to

provide a ``horizon scan'' of pancreatic ductal

adenocarcinoma ad carcinoma, building on previous planning

They just did all this. They have just been through a total review of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and they have just shifted where they are spending funds to address this issue.

Basic research that may lack any overt connection to

specific diseases is the foundation for disease-specific

translational and clinical research.

We must preserve this translational research if in fact we will want to eventually apply it to specific diseases. So I would say this bill, ``pre'' the genomic age, would be a right thing for us to do. It is the wrong thing for us to do because what we are actually going to do is we are going to force the NIH to do things that are not going to benefit the results--the outcome of these diseases and waste money on what is being directed.

Do we have a time limit?

I ask unanimous consent to continue until I finish my remarks.

I wanted to finish my remarks.

It will not be much longer than that. I am certainly not

``Advances in the biological sciences have changed the way we view disease. We now recognize the dysfunction of specific biochemical pathways''--not disease-specific pathways--``biochemical pathways that govern cell behavior that may be similar in superficially disparate diseases or quite different in patients with the same disease.

What they are saying to us, through this letter, is that, of course, they are going to do what we tell them to do. But the very intent of what we are wanting to accomplish is we are going to delay the outcome because we have not significantly, in the last 3 years, significantly increased NIH's budget. So limited dollars are going to be spent as directed through this recalcitrant bill that are not going to direct the translational research and biochemical pathway research they are in.

I would just tell my colleagues in the next 10 years we are going to see such phenomenal changes in our approach to disease, and the treatments for that, and the reason we are going to see it is because we stop looking at diseases and started looking at translational genomics and biochemical pathways.

I will be one of the few who vote against this. I am fine with a voice vote if no other colleagues object. I have no problems with that. But in the name of doing good I suggest that we are actually going to limit our ability to achieve, at a sooner time, the cures that everybody who is supporting this bill would like to see.

I yield.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. President, just in the lull here--and if there is any legislative business to take place, I will immediately give up the floor--I wish to make the point that I am so proud to be in this Senate, so proud to have been here for a long time now. I came here in 1993. There were 2 women, then we went to 6 women, and now we are going to 20 women. I have seen changes, I have seen good things, and I have seen rough things.

I have to say one of the things that keeps coming up continually here is folks trying to use these debates on bills to add irrelevant amendments, amendments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I think we all agree that defending our Nation is our No. 1 priority, and therefore having a defense authorization bill is very important. I am sure we don't agree with every single sentence of this bill, but in general we all want to make sure that our military is prepared, that they are paid well, that they get good benefits. We must ensure we have a strong military that can meet every threat. Again, we are going to disagree on what all that means, but at least when we legislate, we ought to make sure that when we offer amendments, they are either noncontroversial and committee chairs have signed off if they are in their jurisdiction or we shouldn't offer them.

The reason I rise today is that we may be facing two environmental riders on this bill, and I want to go on record as saying I am not going to let that happen. Now, if colleagues want to override and stay here through the night and the weekend, that is fine, but I am going to be staying right here because one of these amendments would say that the EPA, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, could never regulate the ingredients in ammunition. This means they could never regulate lead and they could never regulate perchlorate. Lead and perchlorate kill, they harm, they do damage to the thyroid, to brain development, and to the behavior of children. Pregnant women are harmed.

So I am not going to allow an environmental rider to get onto this floor and pass this Senate when we are doing a defense bill which is meant to protect our people. I can tell you right now, you don't put a harmful environmental rider in the Defense bill when you are trying to pass a bill to protect our people, not make it easier for them to be exposed to dangerous lead, dangerous perchlorate, and other chemicals. There is a place and a time to do those amendments, and that would be on a relevant bill, a bill that comes out of the Environment Committee. That is fine. We can debate it then and have a vote when everyone understands the ramifications.

Now there is threat here to have another environmental rider that deals with coal ash, the regulation of coal ash. What does that have to do with the military bill? Zero. The components of coal ash are a huge danger to people. We have seen the coal ash pile up and get loose. In the East, it just goes down in a rainstorm and destroys whole communities. There is an environmental rider waiting to be offered that would weaken the EPA's ability to go to that threat and get rid of it.

I am very distressed, and I am sure you can hear it in my voice. I know there are differences around here, but I take my job seriously. As chairman of the Environment Committee, my job is to protect the public health from toxins such as lead, perchlorate, and the amazing collection of chemicals in coal ash that kill and harm and maim.

I know people want to get this bill done, and, believe me, I want to get this bill done. I have several amendments in this bill that are so important, and I thank colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly Senator Cornyn and Senator Snowe, who helped me with an amendment that would say that if someone has been convicted of a sexual assault, they can no longer join the military. That is in this bill. That is very important.

We have other amendments we have worked on, and I thank Senator Levin and Senator McCain. They have reached out to the committee chairs, and they have said: Look, we are trying to protect your jurisdiction. They have now said they have no agreement that our jurisdiction will be protected.

As much as I don't want to sit here and stand guard, I am going to do it because I think that is my role and that is my job.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this moment to express the reason I have been on the floor all afternoon and will continue to be on floor until we adjourn this evening.

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask that the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I listened to the Senator from Ohio and I want to be heard because he is talking about the fiscal cliff and how upset he is at the thought that the wealthiest people in America might go back to the tax rates we had under Bill Clinton when we had the greatest prosperity, we had 23 million new jobs, and we balanced the budget to the point where we even had a surplus. My friend comes down here and complains that the proposal on the table would give 98 percent of the people a tax cut and he is upset that 2 percent of the people might have to go back to the rates under Bill Clinton.

I want to say something. We just had an election. We had a big election. We had a tough election. We had an expensive election. One of the major parts of that election revolved around what do we do about the deficits, what do we do about economic growth, what do we do about spending. We discussed it in the Senate races, we discussed it in the House races, and, of course, President Obama and candidate Governor Romney discussed it again and again.

My friend talks about consensus. Let me tell my colleagues the consensus. More than 60 percent of the people agree with President Obama and the Democrats that we ought to climb down off this fiscal cliff in the next 5 minutes and pass what the Senate passed, which is to renew all the Bush tax cuts and go back to those over $250,000 to the rates of Bill Clinton. That is what we passed here. That

would bring us almost $1 trillion over 10 years. That will get us to climb down that cliff.

Then we have other parts of the cliff, there is no question about it, including the automatic sequester. I think it is easy to deal with that by bringing home some of the overseas account money and applying it to the sequester and getting rid of at least half of that sequester, and maybe all of the sequester. But, no, people are going to listen to these speeches every day about how we are obsessed with taxes.

What are people talking about when they say obsessed with taxes? I will tell my colleagues what I am obsessed about. I am obsessed with the fact that we passed a tax cut for 98 percent of the American people and our friends are so worried about the millionaires and the billionaires that they will not allow that bill to be voted on in the House. So people can stand up here morning, noon, and night, and I want them to and I respect their views, believe me, but I do not agree with them.

It is no wonder that the American people are confused. We know we have the fiscal cliff. We know we don't want to see tax rates go up for the middle class. Yet the Republicans say they are going to hold up all those tax breaks for 98 percent of our people because they want to hold on to the tax breaks for billionaires and for millionaires. We had an election about that.

People agreed with us. I suppose we are going to have to hear these speeches every day about how we are going to grow our way out of the deficit. We are going to grow our way out of the deficit? Really? Look what happened under George W. Bush. He inherited surpluses. He turned it into deficits as far as the eye can see, with huge tax cuts to the millionaires and billionaires--huge--the very tax cuts our friends are defending right now. He did two wars on the credit card and we wound up in a mess.

So we have to come together with the best ideas that we can have. I know we can reach agreement. But let's do the first step, which is to take care of 98 percent of the people. The Republicans want to have tax breaks for 100 percent of the people. We are saying: Can you take 98 percent?

If I stopped you on the street and said: I am willing to give you 98 percent of what you say you want, and you walk away from me, and you attack me, and you say I am not ready to do anything, I honestly think people would scratch their heads.

So I think it is clear. The Senate passed a bill to renew the tax breaks for 98 percent of the people. We are saying up to $250,000 in income, we go right back to those Bush tax cut rates. But over $250,000, we go to the Clinton years, pay a little bit more, so we can attack this deficit, so we can make the investments we need to make in this great country of ours.

I will tell you, if the Republicans can do this, we are going to see smiles on the faces of the people. I was very happy to see that Tom Cole over in the House, who was the head of the RCC, the Republican Congressional Committee over there, says it is time to come to an agreement on that proposal.

So I say to the Republicans: We are giving you 98 percent. Take it. Then let's sit down and debate the rest of it. There are a lot of other things we have to do. There is the AMT. We have to do a doc fix. We have to do a lot of other things. I am willing to compromise on those things. But let's at least get those tax cuts in place right now before this holiday season so that the middle class knows they are not going to face a tax increase. I can say honestly that the American people would think we were doing the right thing if we were to see the House take up the Senate bill and pass it.

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, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so I may call up my amendment No. 3245, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I rise in support of my amendment No. 3245.

Last year, in the Defense authorization bill we had in it a prohibition that would prohibit transferring those who are held in military custody at the Guantanamo Bay facility from there to the United States of America. This year, as the language of the Defense authorization stands, there is no such prohibition, making it possible for the administration, should it choose, to transfer from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility 166 foreign enemy combatants who are being currently detained at Guantanamo. I am deeply concerned that the Defense authorization does not include this prohibition of transfer language, and that is why I have brought forth this amendment.

I am also pleased that this amendment is being cosponsored by the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Chambliss, as well as Senators Inhofe, Graham, Kirk, and Sessions.

We have at Guantanamo Bay a top-rate facility that allows for the secure and humane detention and interrogation of foreign terrorist detainees, including right now the mastermind of the attacks of our country on 9/11.

I don't think anyone in this body would dispute that when our country was attacked on September 11, that was an act of war against the United States of America, and we remain, unfortunately, at war with members of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations that want to kill Americans and our allies simply for what we believe in and for what we stand for in this country. This is a war, and those who were killed on September 11 were victims of this war.

One of the concerns I have is that when we are at war, the priority always has to be to detain those who are captured, pursuant to that war, in military custody.

We have at Guantanamo Bay a top-rate facility. I have visited it personally. Those who are held there are treated humanely. It is a very secure facility that is not on our homeland, and it is very well protected by our military.

Also at that facility is a top-rate court, where military commissions can be held for those who are charged who are held at Guantanamo Bay. Why is that important? Because when you are at war, those aren't mere criminals--they are not mere criminals who have committed a burglary in our neighborhood. They have committed acts of terror against our country, and they are very dangerous individuals, many of whom would attempt do so again were they released. That is another reason why I have brought this amendment forward, because I think it is very important that the American people be safe and secure and that those individuals who are being held there--many of them who are tremendously dangerous--be held in a secure facility that is not on our soil.

In 2009, the Attorney General discussed and sought to bring Khalid Shaikh Mohammed--the mastermind of 9/11--to trial in New York City. The American people and members of both sides of the aisle objected to having the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York City. As a result, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is being held at Guantanamo Bay. He will be tried by a military commission. But that demonstration made it clear the American people do not want foreign members of al-Qaida and associated terrorist organizations being brought to the United States when we have a secure facility at Guantanamo Bay that we have spent resources to update, that is very humane.

In fact, in February of 2012, the Washington Post asked: Do you approve of the decision to keep open the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects? Seventy percent of the American people who answered that survey said: Yes, we approve of it.

I want people to understand whom we are talking about transferring from Guantanamo Bay to the United States of America and understand the individuals and some of the background of those who are being held at Guantanamo Bay, coming to a neighborhood near you.

This is, of course, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is being held at Guantanamo Bay. He is often called KSM. He claims to have personally decapitated American journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002, and he admitted to playing a role in over 30 terrorist plots. Some of these include a 1995 plot to blow up 12 U.S. airliners flying from Southeast Asia to the United States for which he was indicted the following year; the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; a plot to hit towers in Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles, New York's Empire State Building, and nuclear power stations. KSM also claimed he was involved in a plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II and President Bill Clinton. He, of course, met Osama bin Laden in the 1980s, and in 1999 KSM persuaded Osama bin Laden to support the horrible acts that occurred on our soil on September 11.

Mullah Mohammad Fazil is another individual being held at Guantanamo Bay. Fazil is suspected in the death of CIA Officer Johnny ``Mike'' Spann in 2001, the first casualty of the Afghanistan war. He was deemed by U.S. officials as a high threat to the United States. It was assessed that he would likely rejoin the Taliban and participate in operations against U.S. and coalition forces if released. He was at one time the most senior Taliban leader in northern Afghanistan. In fact, he was so senior he once threatened Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Fazil has been implicated in the murder of thousands of Shiites in northern Afghanistan under Taliban control, and he is wanted by the United Nations for possible war crimes.

Another individual being held at Guantanamo Bay, Mohammad Nabi, is tied to a 2002 attack that killed two Americans and maintains loyalty to al-Qaida.

Let's be clear. There is a 28-percent recidivism rate of those we have released from Guantanamo Bay back to foreign nationals who have gotten back into the battle against our country. These are individuals who have not renounced the war on terror. The recidivism record speaks for itself. They have gotten into the battle. They still want to be involved in terrorist activities. They still want to be a member of al- Qaida or other terrorist groups and commit acts against our country and our allies.

Again, Mohammed Nabi is tied to the 2002 attack that killed two Americans. He maintains loyalty to al-Qaida. Yet some of my colleagues, if you think about it, would insist in other amendments we are dealing with today that he be treated as a common criminal.

One of the concerns I have is that if we close Guantanamo and we transfer all of those individuals to the U.S. courts, will they then claim all of the rights here in the United States? And God forbid any of them had to be released here as a result of challenges they would bring.

Nabi was a senior Taliban official also who helped finance the Taliban and smuggled weapons used against our troops. Nabi maintained weapons stockpiles and helped smuggle fighters and weapons to attack our warfighters. He is reportedly loyal to the Pakistan-based Haqqani terrorist network. The Haqqani network, of course, has been designated by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization, and the Haqqanis are loyal to the Taliban and behind some of the largest attacks against the United States, Afghan, and coalition troops and interests in Afghanistan. He was also a member of a joint al-Qaida/ Taliban cell in Khost, Afghanistan, that was involved in attacks against the United States and coalition forces. He continues to have issues with his behavior and how he has conducted himself.

He is just one of the individuals who, if we do not have this prohibition, may be transferred to the United States of America.

Those are just three of the individuals who are present at Guantanamo Bay who could be coming to a neighborhood near you. Some may cite--one of the reasons I brought forth this amendment as well is some may cite a GAO report saying that we could somehow transfer these individuals here. Let's be clear what that GAO report says.

I ask this body to agree to this amendment and not bring these terrorists here to the United States of America.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 2 minutes to respond, and then I will defer to my colleague from South Carolina.

I don't have any time remaining. OK.

Then I defer.

Mr. President, I would like to respond briefly.

I have great respect for the Senator from California. The distinction here in the cases she has been citing--the disposition of them--I think is a very important distinction. Certainly we have good Federal court systems. They are designed, though, for criminals and for crimes. Guantanamo Bay is a secure facility on which we have spent substantial resources to make a top-grade facility. I visited there. That is for terrorists when there is an act of war against our country, and those individuals who are being held there have committed acts that warrant them being held in military detention because of the terrorist acts I have outlined and the individuals involved. There is a big distinction, and the American people do not want those individuals brought here to the United States of America.

With that, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from South Carolina.