Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, December 3, 2012, at 5 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 760; that there will be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 676; that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that no further motions be in order on the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 508, S. 2170.

I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; the committee-reported title amendment be agreed to with no intervening action or debate; and that any related statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from consideration of S. Res. 518 and that the Senate proceed to its consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 605, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any related statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of S. Res. 606, which was submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any related statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of S. Res. 607, which was submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m. on Monday, December 3, 2012; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the DOD Authorization Act, S. 3254; and that at 5 p.m. the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order; further, that following disposition of the order with respect to the Grimm nomination, the Senate immediately resume consideration of S. 3254 and then proceed to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture; and that the second-degree filing deadline for amendments to S. 3254 be at 4 p.m. on Monday.

Mr. President, there will be two rollcalls on Monday at 5:30. I emphasize the two rollcall votes I am referring to would be at 5:30. The first will be confirmation of the Grimm nomination and the second will be cloture on the DOD authorization bill. There could be additional rollcalls to the two I referred to on Monday.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the provisions of S. Res. 607 as a further mark of respect to the memory of former Senator George McGovern of South Dakota.

Mr. President, before Senator Reed leaves the floor, I want to first thank him for his comments about myself and Senator McCain and the other members of our committee. Senator Reed of Rhode Island has and will continue to make--and, hopefully, for many decades to come--an extraordinary contribution to the work of this body. I have seen it firsthand on the Armed Services Committee where he is the chairman of the SeaPower Subcommittee, but way beyond that. He brings an experience and a thoughtful commitment to this work which is second to none, and it is incredibly valuable to every member of our committee to have him as a member of the committee. I cannot express how grateful I am for that, and I cannot exaggerate how grateful I am for his presence and for his work.

Mr. President, in a few minutes I hope to be able to lay out a roadmap for our work here--at least for the next couple hours. We hope to be able to deal with a modified Kyl amendment as well as dispose of, we hope, an Ayotte amendment and a Hagan amendment. There will be debate with each of those, and this is just tentative because I want to discuss this, obviously, with Senator McCain. But if this works out, there could be a couple votes in an hour or so. But, again, I am not announcing that; I am just sort of giving as early a warning as I can to our colleagues as to what is at least a likely prospect at this time. But, again, that is going to have to await the presence of Senator McCain, with whom I am working so closely on this matter.

So with that, 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 ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that the following amendments be called up and agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate: Kohl No. 2888, Manchin No. 2924, Webb No. 2949, Wyden No. 2960, Sessions No. 2963, Heller No. 2969, Hoeven No. 2991, and Barrasso No. 3083.

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

Madam President, we are waiting for Senator Cornyn to come to the floor, and he will be speaking on the modified Cornyn amendment. We also are waiting for Senator Inhofe to come to the floor, and he will be speaking on a Hagan amendment. Then we would expect, after a fairly short amount of debate--perhaps 10 minutes but not set yet--by each of them, perhaps a minute or two by the sponsors of the amendment, particularly in the case of the Hagan amendment, to describe the amendment, we would then go to a rollcall vote on both of those amendments. That is the plan. It is not yet in a UC agreement formally because we want to make sure we are protecting the Senators in terms of the length of time they need to describe either their opposition to the Hagan amendment in the case of Senator Inhofe or their support of the Cornyn amendment in the case of Senator Cornyn.

We hope Senator Klobuchar will now be recognized for a few minutes to describe a couple of amendments she has filed. She is not going to call them up at this point, but this would be a period for her to describe those two amendments.

If the Senator would yield, we thank him for noting that.

Senator Hagan did have an opportunity last night to go into her amendment, and she was willing to do that at that time. We understood that, of course, the Senator would like an opportunity to speak against the Hagan amendment, which is the opportunity that is being provided now, and then I think it would be appropriate for someone to take Senator Hagan's place at the Presiding Officer's position so she can speak for a few minutes in support of her amendment after the Senator has completed. If the Senator could give us an idea about how long he expects?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next

amendment in order to be called up is the Cornyn amendment, No. 3158; that after the Cornyn amendment is reported it be in order for Senator Hagan or designee to call up her amendment, No. 3095; that there be up to 10 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member or their designees prior to votes in relation to the amendments in the order offered; finally, there be no amendments in order to either amendment prior to the votes.

That means we would be voting on the amendment of Senator Cornyn first, the amendment of Senator Hagan second.

I yield the floor.

I think Senator Cornyn only needs about 5 minutes. We have cleared that amendment. There is support for it.

Senator Hagan only needs, I believe, 5 minutes. That means that in about 10 minutes----

Unless there are others who wish to speak. A couple of votes.

Between the first and second votes we are having now, we will have an announcement as to the next part of this roadmap. I hope all Senators who wish amendments to be considered will come between and during these votes to Senator McCain and myself and our staffs to discuss other amendments which are out there and which there is interest in pursuing.

Mr. President, first, members of the Armed Services Committee, immediately after you vote on this second vote, please, we are trying to clear nominations in the hallway, so stay around for a couple minutes, members of the Armed Services Committee.

Secondly, I know the leader was going to make this statement, but he had to leave for a minute, so I will make it for him. We are planning on staying late tonight, and everyone can expect to be here tomorrow. We are going to have votes tomorrow unless we somehow or other finish this bill tonight. The leader would have said that if he were here, so I am saying it for him.

Next, after this vote, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Baucus be recognized for 10 minutes to speak on amendments we have either adopted or are going to adopt.

Then we will line up some additional amendments. There are two we can line up now. I thought it was going to be four, but it can only be two at the moment that we would take up immediately after Senator Baucus speaks.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that following Senator Baucus's remarks we then turn to Senator Merkley, who will call up amendment No. 3096 on Afghanistan, and following him Senator Portman, who will call up amendment No. 2995, and I do not have the subject of that amendment. I ask unanimous consent that be the order.

Mr. President, we will try to get time agreements on those two amendments. In the meantime we are continuing to work through amendments. We are going to have more cleared amendments. We are going to get to the detention issue today. We are going to try to get to all of the issues people want to raise today so we can finish by the end of the day tomorrow. We have assured everyone who is interested in the detention issue that we will be getting to that later this afternoon.

Vote on Amendment No. 3095

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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 suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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, I move to reconsider the vote.

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.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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 move to reconsider the vote.

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?

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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 the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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 move to reconsider the vote.

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.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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.

I wonder if we could get to the Feinstein amendment. I am sure Senator Feinstein will be happy to yield time to the Senator from Utah.

How much time is there left on our side?

Mr. President, it would be my intent, if we need additional time, unless there is something else that is needed at about 9:30 or so when this time runs out, to seek additional time for both-- for anyone who needs it, frankly. I do not know about both sides, because this is a multifaceted debate that we are going to have here tonight on this issue.

I would yield myself 10 minutes. I would ask to be notified when I get to 10 minutes.

The Feinstein amendment provides that no authorization for the use of military force may be construed to authorize the detention of U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens who are captured inside the United States, unless--and this is a big ``unless''--an act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.

As I read the amendment, it says the military detention of U.S. citizens may be authorized in accordance with the law of war as long as this action is expressly authorized by Congress. Further, the amendment's requirement for express authorization applies only to the detention of U.S. citizens who are captured inside the United States. So no such authorization would be required for the detention of a U.S. citizen in the course of military operations overseas. I believe it is appropriate that Congress focus on the issue of military detention at the time they authorize the use of military force, as would be required by the Feinstein amendment.

As the Supreme Court has stated: Detention is a fundamental and accepted incident to armed conflict. Without such authority, our Armed Forces could be put in the untenable position of being able to shoot to kill but not to capture and detain enemy forces.

As to the ongoing conflict, I believe the 2001 authorization for the use of military force authorized the detention of U.S. citizens when appropriate in accordance with the laws of war.

I base this view on the fact that the Supreme Court has said so.

In the Hamdi case, the Supreme Court considered the relationship between the AUMF and the nondetention act which prohibits the detention of a U.S. citizen except where authorized by an act of Congress. The Supreme Court held in Hamdi that this statute does not preclude the detention of U.S. citizens on the battlefield in Afghanistan because the 2000 authorization for the use of military force, quoting the Supreme Court, ``is explicit congressional authorization for the detention of individuals'' in such circumstances. The Court explained that such detention is so fundamental and accepted as an incident to war as to be an exercise of the ``necessary and appropriate force'' that Congress authorized the President to use in the AUMF. In other words, the Supreme Court has already concluded that the authorization to use necessary and appropriate force is an explicit authorization to detain enemy combatants in accordance with the law of war, and that meets the test of the Feinstein amendment.

Any other conclusion would lead to absurd results, under which we would tie the hands of our Armed Forces even

in the face of an actual invasion. For example, if a group of terrorists were to approach one of our Navy bases in boats loaded with bombs, our sailors protecting those ships at that base would be in the untenable position of being able to shoot to kill, but not to capture the enemy forces if Hamdi did not reach the conclusion it did.

Similarly, in the unthinkable event that we were to experience a 9/ 11-type attack, our military would be in the untenable position of having the authority to shoot down the hijacked aircraft but not to force them to land and to capture the enemy hijacker. Of course, we could not expect our military to inquire as to whether any of the enemy force were American citizens before deciding on the level of force to be applied.

As the Supreme Court explained in its Hamdi decision, ``the capture, detention, and trial of unlawful combatants, by 'universal agreement and practice,' are 'important incidents of war''' and a ``fundamental and accepted incident to war.''

What the Supreme Court said in Hamdi is explicit in the AUMF, in the authorization for use of military force, the core ``law of war'' authority for our military to capture and detain those who join enemy forces at a time of war and plan or participate in attacks against us. This core authority to use less than lethal force, rather than lethal force, in appropriate circumstances must be available to our military whenever and wherever it engages with the enemy.

Again, Senator Feinstein's amendment does not prohibit the military detention of U.S. citizens who are captured or apprehended inside the United States because a U.S. citizen who joins a foreign army and attacks the United States should be subject to detention as an enemy combatant if it does not prohibit military detention and if it is expressly authorized by law. I read this as a statute authorizing the use of military force itself or some other act of Congress.

This is a major difference between or from the amendment Senator Feinstein offered last year, which included no exception for congressional authorization. This new approach is appropriate because I believe that Congress ought to address the issue of detention of U.S. citizens when captured in the United States at the time that we authorize the use of force.

The Supreme Court in Hamdi held that the existing authorization for use of military force does address this issue and does explicitly, in their words, authorize detention of U.S. citizens in that situation which was on the battlefield in Afghanistan, but that it explicitly, again in the words of the Hamdi Court, authorized the detention of U.S. citizens in the case of an individual who was captured in Afghanistan who was attacking U.S. forces.

I believe the same reasoning applies to persons who join foreign armies and attack us militarily here in the United States when they bring the war here to the United States and attack us here. If they attack a Navy base and are captured by sailors defending their ships, the same logic that Hamdi applied to an attack in Afghanistan against our forces applies here. That is the same reason they used in that case to find that there was an explicit authorization for the detention of U.S. citizens in the Afghanistan circumstance; that it is an inherent fundamental function of war, that you be able to capture and detain people who are at war with you, applies when that act of war is carried out here in the United States, such as in the attack on a Navy base.

I request 1 additional minute.

The Feinstein amendment provides an appropriate signal to Congress that in an authorizing context they should be aware of detention authority issues. Therefore, I intend to vote for the Feinstein amendment.

I yield the floor.

That is my opinion, and that is the fundamental core ruling in the Hamdi case. Now, we have to be accurate. Hamdi applied circumstances to citizens that were captured in Afghanistan, but the reason they use led them to conclude there was an explicit--explicit-- authorization to detain those citizens even though they are American citizens. Their argument was that capture and detention was inherent, in their words--so fundamental--to capture and detain as such is an accepted incident to war as to be an exercise of the necessary and appropriate force which Congress authorized the President to use.

So in my analogy, if a boatload full of al-Qaida, including an American citizen, comes to a Navy base and attacks that base and is captured by those sailors, that is surely an incident of war, and I believe the capture and detention of those al-Qaida terrorists would be the exercise of necessary and appropriate force which we authorized the President to use in the authorization for military force.

That is correct.

Coming into America and attacking us on a Navy base or----

I do.

It is. As part of that point, it cites the Quirin case, which says:

Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent

does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency

which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war.

And here are the key words:

Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of

an enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction

enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy

belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention.

If the Senator would yield.

We are significantly over our time, I believe. We would be happy to accommodate Senator Feinstein or others.

Reserving the right to object, I am wondering if the Senator from Alabama would repeat the request.

I wonder if the Senator would speak on the amendment, though, without calling up the amendment.

I hope not. I don't even know what is in the amendment. But we are trying to accommodate the process where everybody could have a chance, hopefully, to call up their amendments. We have to do it in order where we know what is in the amendment, we have to have our staffs have an opportunity to make sure we understand what is in the amendment. We are working on this amendment. So I have no objection whatever to the Senator talking about the amendment. We are working hard on the amendment to get it in order.

And we are working on it. But if the Senator could just not proceed to call it up but speak to it, we would appreciate it.

I ask unanimous consent that the filing deadline for first-degree amendments to S. 3254, the Department of Defense authorization bill, be set at 9:45 tonight.

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

Mr. President, I understand that amendment No. 3199, an amendment of Senators Durbin and Inhofe, has now been cleared on both sides. So I ask unanimous consent that this amendment now be called up and considered.

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

I know of no further debate.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, let me thank Senators Durbin and Inhofe for again focusing on a critical issue. I know Africa seems far away and some of these events seem far away, but they have tried to bring them home to us and, hopefully, we will be listening, all of us, to what they have accomplished and what they have done tonight. I hope the American people realize the importance of this issue and that the message will be clear to those who are violating civil rights so horrendously.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

We are going to be making a unanimous consent request, and would like to do it right now, that tomorrow morning there be debate and votes on the following five amendments: Senator Sessions on bilateral discussions with Afghanistan, Sessions amendment No. 3009; Cardin amendment No. 3025 on civilian personnel; Menendez amendment No. 3232 on Iran sanctions; Bill Nelson amendment No. 3073 involving widows and orphans; and Coburn amendment No. 3254 involving second amendment rights for veterans.

My request is that we have--I will make a unanimous consent request now that tomorrow morning, at whatever time is allotted for morning business by the leaders----

There will be no morning business--that we then proceed. Now we don't have time agreements yet on these five. That is going to take a few minutes. My unanimous consent request is that immediately after prayer tomorrow we move to these five amendments. We will allocate as little time as we can tonight after this unanimous consent agreement is agreed to, if it is.

This will.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the last unanimous consent which was objected to listed the five amendments. I am now going to list the first four of those five amendments so everybody knows what I am doing.

I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the following first- degree amendments to be offered tomorrow, with no more amendments tonight: Sessions 3009, Cardin 3025, Menendez 3232, and Nelson of Florida 3073.

Mr. President, along the same lines, I would hope that at least with these four amendments--which are now ready to be debated and voted upon--that our friend from Oklahoma would allow that to proceed, with the notice that from thereon he would not allow any unanimous consent agreement. But this has been worked on for so long and these four amendments are lined up so nicely for debate tomorrow that I would urge him to relent and allow us to at least proceed to those four amendments. And he has now put the body on notice that he would not agree to any additional beyond that.

I happen to agree with my friend from Arizona. We are going to debate, folks. Sooner or later, these amendments are going to be debated, unless a cloture motion--which is going to be filed tomorrow-- is approved on Monday. And then we are right back in the same problem we have had, which has just been eloquently described by Senator McCain. And if we don't vote cloture, this bill isn't going anywhere. If we do vote cloture, then we will have made it impossible for some people to offer amendments, which they should be allowed to offer.

Let us be clear on what is happening tomorrow, to the extent it is possible--which is not very extensive. And I want to get the Chair to confirm this. There is a pending amendment. It is a modified Kyl amendment. This has been modified so that it was been worked out with Senator Kerry. That is pending. Is the Senator correct?

It is pending and will be modified tomorrow.

At that point the Chair is going to ask whether there is any additional debate on that amendment. If there is no additional debate, then the Chair is going to put the question. If there is a request for a rollcall, there will be a rollcall. If there is not, it will be voice voted. At that point, the floor is open. And I intend to then offer the Sessions amendment, the first one on this list, and then that is going to be open to debate. And if our colleagues want to come here tomorrow and filibuster or prevent a vote on the Sessions amendment, they are going to have to come here and debate.

But we have tried the best we know how to move this bill forward. We have done everything we know how, and we have made great progress, with the Members of this body being extremely cooperative. We are not giving up.

So the only technique left to us, given these two objections, is the one I just identified: to have the pending Kyl

amendment, after it is modified, debated. If no one wants to debate, the Chair is going to put the question, or we will have a rollcall on it if people want it. And then the floor is open, and I will be offering the next one in line, which is the Sessions amendment. Then if people want to debate that or filibuster that, the rules of the Senate allow you to do it. But I don't think that is what is going to happen.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order for the following first-degree amendments to be offered: Sessions No. 3009, Cardin No. 3025, Menendez No. 3232, Nelson of Florida no. 3073; that at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, tomorrow, November 30, following the prayer, that the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the amendments in the order listed; that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote; that there be no amendments in order to the amendments prior to the votes.

That is correct. We will work out time agreements----

The only time agreement we have in yet is the time we come in, not a time for a vote.

Oh, I did not state that correctly. I believed, and I am now wrong, that there would be a time agreement on each amendment that we would attempt to arrive at. That is not what this says. This provides, and I am going to read it again, and I did not listen to my own reading--that at 9:30, following the prayer tomorrow, the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the amendments in the order listed and that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote; and there be no amendments in order to the amendments prior to the votes.

I think we ought to have more debate on some of these amendments than that. The debates could take place tonight.

Tonight is open for debate.

Mr. President, I now call up a list of 17 amendments which have been cleared by myself and Senator McCain. I am going to list these amendments:

Blumenthal amendment No. 2940, Brown of Massachusetts

amendment No. 3036, Toomey amendment No. 3064, Levin

amendment No. 3114, Casey amendment No. 3193, Risch amendment

No. 3213, Wicker amendment No. 3220, Johanns amendment No.

3222, Coburn amendment No. 3237, Levin amendment No. 3243,

Lieberman amendment No. 3256, Cornyn amendment No. 3260,

McCain amendment No. 3261, Kyl amendment No. 3271, Webb

amendment No. 3275, Nelson of Nebraska amendment No. 3279.

I ask unanimous consent that regarding these amendments, which I believe by the Chair's ruling have been--are to be considered en bloc, also that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

I thank the Presiding Officer. My understanding is now that the Senate floor is open to debate. Hopefully people who want to debate on these four amendments will debate tonight so the 2 minutes tomorrow will be adequate.

I yield the floor.

No.

Amendment No. 3232

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, what Senator McCain and I and our staffs are going to attempt to do tomorrow morning is that shortly after the fourth vote that is now scheduled, the fourth rollcall vote, we hope to be able to announce a finite list of amendments which would need to be disposed of before completion of this bill. That is going to be our goal, and we are going to repeat that goal the first thing in the morning. But it is important people know that. That is now something that is important that we do because we expect there will be a cloture motion tomorrow that will be filed, and if we can put together a finite list of amendments that need to be disposed of before final passage of this bill, that step may be unnecessary.

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 ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the adoption of Durbin amendment No. 3199, it be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, tomorrow night will be bittersweet in Jackson, MI; it is the night the Community Action Agency will bid a formal farewell to its leader and CEO, Marsha Kreucher. For nearly a quarter century, the Community Action Agency has been guided by a leader with vision and compassion. Her work has been squarely focused on making the lives of those in need better. She has gone about this work with humility and tenacity, ensuring that her work and the work of the agency she leads does its part to improve the lives of the countless people served by the Community Action Agency.

The roots of poverty are complex and deep. Marsha's work, which takes a holistic and innovative approach to promoting self-sufficiency among at-risk and low-income residents, has sought to identify the issues associated with poverty and develop programs to alleviate them. Her efforts have reaped many rewards for the residents of Jackson, Lenawee, and Hillsdale counties and have improved their economic, social, and health conditions as a consequence.

In the late 1980s, when she began working at the Community Action Agency, the agency administered about two dozen programs and had a budget of roughly $4 million. Nearly a quarter century later, the agency serves more than 27,000 residents annually through more than 80 programs with a budget that averages around $20 million. This is impressive growth and a testament to the quality of service the agency provides and the talent of those leading the way.

It doesn't take very long to observe the profound impact the Community Action Agency has had on this region in the last two decades. The Center for Healthy Beginnings was established and currently provides full health care services to more than 27,000 residents annually. The Partnership Park Downtown Neighborhood Project was formed to help revitalize and redevelop a 23-block area in Jackson, MI, through $15 million in investments. More than 1,000 children a year receive early childhood education opportunities through agency activities. And thousands of families receive free assistance filing their income tax returns each year. These are but a few examples of the good work of this impressive agency and a glimpse

of the range of services they provide with Marsha Kreucher as a driving force.

Marsha is not just an accomplished leader; she is also a willing mentor and tireless community servant. She sits on a number of nonprofit boards and works to bring various stakeholders together to seek out fresh ways to combat the issues related to poverty. She is always willing to lend an ear or to provide insight to others. Her vision and her ideas have helped spark innovation and creativity, planting the seeds for a brighter future.

Marsha recently said to a local paper about her life after retirement, ``It's almost hard to comprehend the difference my life will have without it.'' I say to her today that it is hard to imagine how different the Jackson community would be without her vision, leadership, and hard work over the last two decades. She has worked tirelessly and fiercely to make a positive impact on the lives of those in need, and she has done so with grace and determination. I congratulate her on a job well done and wish her the best as she begins her next, exciting journey.