Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has scheduled a hearing entitled, ``Taxation of Mutual Fund Commodity Investments.'' The Subcommittee hearing will examine the issuance of over 70 private letter rulings by the Internal Revenue Service allowing mutual funds to make unlimited indirect investments in commodities through controlled foreign subsidiaries or commodity-linked notes, despite longstanding statutory restrictions on mutual fund investments in commodities. Hearing witnesses will include senior officials from the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service.

The Subcommittee hearing has been scheduled for Thursday, January 26, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Elise Bean of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at (202) 224-9505.

Mr. President, once again, the Senate finds itself in an untenable situation. We can approve the legislation before us, which is inadequate to the needs of our Nation, or

we can reject this legislation and make matters even worse. I will vote to approve this legislation, but I will do so knowing that we have missed yet another opportunity to do the right thing for the people we represent. Instead, we are doing some damage to important goals, in order to avoid doing even greater damage.

We are in this position because our colleagues across the aisle, and their Republican allies in the House of Representatives, refuse to make even the most basic of concessions to reality. The truth is, more than 3 years after the beginning of a recession, too many Americans are still desperately in need of assistance. Those who are working need us to help support economic growth so their jobs are more secure and their incomes can grow. Millions are still without work not because they don't want it, but because the number of people seeking work is vastly greater than the number of available jobs and they need us to help support economic growth so they can find work to support themselves and their families.

Yet what our colleagues have insisted upon is to present us with two choices. The legislation before us would continue middle-class tax relief, the only economic boosts Republicans have allowed us to even consider, but pay for it in a deeply misguided manner because Republicans refused to consider more equitable ways to offset its costs. It would extend unemployment benefits, but in a way that leaves thousands of Michigan families facing a sudden loss of their benefits, because it effectively eliminates 20 weeks of the current 99-week maximum benefit for Michigan and other States where, though unemployment remains high, it is beginning to fall. And these extensions would last for just 2 months.

As bad as that is, the alternative rejecting this legislation is even worse. Without passage, economists tell us that the loss of middle- class tax relief could put our already slow economic recovery into even greater doubt. Without passage, even more families, in Michigan and elsewhere, will lose the economic lifeline of unemployment benefits. More than 26,000 Michigan families will lose their benefits under the inadequate provisions of this bill, but that number would grow to more than 100,000 by Spring without passage of this legislation. Michigan residents would lose eligibility for 73 weeks of emergency unemployment compensation if we do not act today, instead of the 20 weeks we would lose if we pass this bill.

Mr. President, my State would suffer in other ways if this bill does not pass. It extends the so-called doc fix that is important to health care providers in Michigan and elsewhere. And this bill continues an adjustment to the Medicare Program that provides crucial aid to nearly half of all Michigan hospitals. This so-called section 508 fix is technical and complicated, but extending it is vitally important to Michigan hospitals. Without it, their ability to continue providing care to Michigan's people would be hampered.

The method Republicans have demanded to pay for this legislation is also badly misguided. It uses fees paid to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to offset its costs. Those fees should be going to repair what we all, on both sides of the aisle, acknowledge is a massive financial problem at those enterprises. If we increase these fees, the money should be used to help stabilize the value of Americans' homes by reforming these enterprises.

The very fact that we have had to find ways to pay for middle-class tax relief is a remarkable acknowledgement by Republicans, given that it has been an article of faith among many of our Republican colleagues that tax cuts pay for themselves. Repeatedly, for decades, they have pushed for massive tax cuts for the wealthy and sold them with the promise that they will pay for themselves. Now, when we face the expiration of tax relief that overwhelmingly benefits middle-class families, they tell us that this tax cut must be paid for. Hopefully this inconsistency will not escape the notice of the American people.

It didn't have to be this way. Republicans had the chance to accept a fair alternative one that extended the payroll tax cut, unemployment insurance and other important tax and Medicare provisions, and that did so in a way that provides what our constituents demand from us: a balanced approach that asks all Americans to share in the sacrifices necessary to address our challenges.

That approach would ask Americans making more than $1 million a year to pay slightly more in taxes. A solid majority of Americans see this as common sense: The wealthiest among us have done extraordinarily well in recent decades even as middle-class incomes have stagnated, and asking those fortunate few to contribute along with middle-class families is only fair. Yet Republicans again rejected that equitable option out of hand. We will continue to press for it in the challenging year that awaits us.

Over the last few months, Republicans have been willing to risk the full faith and credit of the United States, the continued functioning of the government, tax relief for middle-income Americans, adequate funding for our military, health care for our seniors, and an economic lifeline for the unemployed, all in an effort to protect the interests of the wealthiest, most fortunate Americans. None of these threats would loom so large if Republicans would simply acknowledge what roughly two-thirds of our constituents now acknowledge: that the solutions to our fiscal problems must include a balanced approach that asks the wealthiest Americans to sacrifice along with working families. Today, they have demonstrated that they have not yet received that message, and they have once again forced us to choose between the unacceptable and the catastrophic.

Mr. President, I wish to comment on two specific issues regarding the conference report to H.R. 2055, the omnibus spending measure before us.

First, I am pleased that the conference report includes $22 million for the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, or FRIB, at Michigan State University. While this is less than the amount in the administration's budget request, it is a clear endorsement by Congress to move forward with this facility.

FRIB is critical to maintaining America's worldwide preeminence in nuclear physics and a major component of Michigan's economic future. MSU has solid and well-known expertise in the field of rare isotopes and nuclear physics. It has the largest nuclear physics faculty in the Nation and a nuclear physics graduate program ranked No. 1 in the country. Those were some of the reasons it was selected by the Department of Energy for design, construction, and operation of FRIB after an extensive competition over a multiyear period.

I am encouraged that particularly in these difficult budget times the Congress has endorsed the importance of this facility. Second, I would point to another critical component of my State's economic future, the Great Lakes.

I am disappointed that Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funding has been reduced from the originally planned funding levels. I am relieved, however, that $300 million is included in the conference report, $50 million more than the amount in the House bill.

The conference report includes two important provisions related to Asian carp and other invasive species that present significant threats to the Great Lakes. The conference report includes a provision I have requested authorizing the Army Corps of Engineers to implement emergency measures to prevent Asian carp and other invasive species from entering the Great Lakes. Also welcome is an increase of about $5 million in funding to operate electric dispersal barriers designed to prevent these fish from entering the Great Lakes, bringing funding for the barriers to $23.6 million. The conference report also includes about $3 million to continue study of possible separation of the Great Lakes from the Mississippi River watershed, which would significantly reduce risk to the Great Lakes from Asian carp. I will continue to work with colleagues to urge the Army Corps to accelerate this study.

I am disappointed that projects enabling Great Lakes harbor dredging continue to receive reduced funding. The conference report acknowledges that funding levels are inadequate to meet existing needs. I welcome the conferees' decision to include an additional $173 million in funding for navigation projects nationwide, and I will work to ensure that the Great Lakes, which face a substantial backlog of dredging and other operations and maintenance needs, receive a share of this funding consistent with the high level of need.

Mr. President, I yield myself 20 minutes.

Mr. President, on behalf of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am pleased to bring to the Senate the conference report on H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012. This conference report, which was signed by all 26 Senate conferees, contains many provisions that are of critical importance to our troops. This will be the 50th consecutive year in which a National Defense Authorization Act has been enacted into law.

I thank all of the members and staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee--and especially our subcommittee chairs and our ranking members--for the hard work they have done to get us to this stage. Every year we take on tough issues and we work through them on a bipartisan basis, consistent with the traditions of our committee. This year was a particularly difficult one because of the severely condensed timeline for floor consideration and conference on the bill.

I particularly thank my friend Senator McCain, our ranking minority member, for his strong support throughout the process. I know both of us thank the chairman and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon and Adam Smith, for their commitment to this bill and to the men and women of our Armed Forces.

The conference report we bring to the floor today authorizes $662 billion for national defense programs. While it authorizes $27 billion less than the President's budget request and $43 billion less than the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2011, I am confident this conference report, nonetheless, provides adequate support for the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families and provides them with the means they need to accomplish their missions.

This conference report contains many important provisions that will improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform. It will provide needed support and assistance to our troops on the battlefield. It will make the investments we need to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and it will provide for needed reforms in the management of the Department of Defense.

I ask unanimous consent that a list of some of the more significant provisions be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.

Probably the most discussed provision in the conference report is the provision relative to military detention for foreign al- Qaida terrorists. This provision was written to be doubly sure there is no interference with civilian interrogations and other law enforcement activities and to ensure that the President has the flexibility he needs to use the most appropriate tools in each case. The bill as passed in the Senate addressed this issue by including language that: No. 1, left it to the President to adopt procedures to determine who is a foreign al-Qaida terrorist and therefore subject to presumed military detention; No. 2, required that those procedures not interfere with ongoing intelligence, surveillance, or interrogations by civilian law enforcement; No. 3, left it to the executive branch to determine whether a military detainee who will be tried is tried by a civilian court or a military court; and No. 4, gave the executive branch broad waiver authority.

The conference report retains that language and adds additional assurances that there will be no interference with civilian interrogations or other law enforcement activities. In particular, the conferees added language that says the following:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the

existing criminal enforcement and national security

authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any

other domestic law enforcement agency with respect to a

covered person, regardless of whether such covered person is

held in military custody.

It also modifies the waiver language to give the President, rather than the Secretary of Defense, the authority to waive the requirements of the provision.

Under the provision in the conference report, law enforcement agencies are not restrained in apprehending suspects or conducting any investigations or interrogations. If a suspect is apprehended and is in law enforcement custody, the suspect can be investigated and interrogated in accordance with existing procedures. If and when a determination is made that a suspect is a foreign al-Qaida terrorist, that person would be slated for transfer to military custody under rules written by the executive branch. Again, however, any ongoing interrogations are not to be interrupted, and the President also has a waiver authority. If the suspect is transferred to military custody, all existing law enforcement and national security tools remain available to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, and even if the suspect is held in military custody, it would be up to the Attorney General, after consulting with the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, to determine whether the suspect will be tried in Federal court or before a military commission. The bill provides the Attorney General with broad discretion to ensure that whatever consultation is conducted does not impede operational judgments that may need to be made to pursue investigative leads, effect arrests or file charges.

The language in the Senate bill and in the conference report is intended to preserve the operational flexibility of law enforcement and national security professionals in the executive branch. Nothing in the language limits the President as to when he can waive the provision or for whom he can waive it.

For example, he is not required to wait for a coverage determination to be made before deciding to waive the requirements of the provision. Similarly, he is not precluded from waiving the provision with regard to more than one individual at a time--for example, with regard to a group of conspirators or potential codefendants.

In short, the waiver language in the conference report is broad enough to reflect circumstances in which it is in the national security interests of the United States for a President to waive the requirements of the provision with respect to a category of covered persons, if he so determines, in order to preserve the flexibility of counterterrorism professionals and operators to take expeditious action.

With the exception of those assurances, the detainee provisions in the conference report are largely unchanged from the provisions in the bill that was approved by the Senate on a 93-to-7 vote just 2 weeks ago. Those who say we have written into law a new authority to detain American citizens until the end of hostilities are wrong. Neither the Senate bill nor the conference report establishes new authority to detain American citizens--or anybody else.

The issue of indefinite detention arises from the capture of an enemy combatant at war. According to the law of war, an enemy combatant may be held until the end of hostilities. Can an American citizen be held as an enemy combatant? According to the law of war, an enemy combatant may be held until the end of hostilities. But, again, can an American citizen be held as an enemy combatant? I believe that if an American citizen joins a foreign army or a hostile force such as al-Qaida that has declared war and organized a war against us and attacks us, that person can be captured and detained as an enemy combatant under the law of war.

In 2004, the Supreme Court held in the Hamdi case that ``there is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.''

The Court cited with approval its holding in the Quirin case, in which an earlier court held that ``citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of . . . the law of war.''

But despite that view of mine, which I clearly expressed on the Senate floor a couple weeks ago, neither the Senate bill nor the conference report takes a position on this issue. Both the Senate bill and the conference report include

the language of the Feinstein amendment, which we drafted together and passed 99 to 1. That amendment leaves this issue to the executive branch and the courts by providing the following:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect

existing law or authorities relating to the detention of

United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United

States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in

the United States.

The more difficult issue for me--and I believe it goes to the heart of the concern of the detention policy--is the kind of war we are in with al-Qaida, and that issue is when does the detention end? In other words, when are the hostilities over? In this kind of nontraditional war, we are not likely to sign a peace treaty or receive a formal surrender or even reach an agreement on a cease-fire.

Under these circumstances, it is appropriate for us to provide greater procedural rights to enemy detainees than we might in a more traditional war. We have done so in this conference report. The conference report, for instance, requires periodic reviews of detainee cases in accordance with an executive order issued earlier this year to determine whether detainees pose a continuing threat or safely can be released. Under the conference report, enemy combatants who will be held in long-term military detention are told, for the first time, they will get a military judge and a military lawyer for their status determination.

The conference report includes many other important provisions.

It includes new sanctions against the financial sector of Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran. These sanctions would, among other actions, require foreign financial institutions to choose between maintaining ties with the U.S. financial system or doing business with the Central Bank of Iran.

It includes provisions addressing the problem of counterfeit parts that can undermine the performance of military weapons systems and endanger our men and women in uniform. This is one of the most important additional provisions we have in our bill; that is, the provisions relative to these counterfeit parts that are flooding our defense system with electronic parts that are counterfeited and come mainly from China. We were able to identify approximately 1,800 cases of suspect counterfeit electronic parts, covering more than 1 million individual parts, with most of them, again, coming from China. This conference report includes comprehensive reforms to keep counterfeit electronic parts out of the defense supply chain and provides proper accountability when suspect parts make it through that chain.

In particular, the conference report relative to this subject does the following:

It clarifies acquisition rules to ensure that the cost of replacement and rework that is required by the use of suspect counterfeit parts is paid by the contractor, not by the taxpayer.

It requires the Department of Defense and Department of Defense suppliers to purchase electronic parts from manufacturers and their authorized dealers or from trusted, certified suppliers.

It requires Department of Defense officials and Department of Defense contractors that become aware of counterfeit parts in the supply chain to provide written notification to the government.

It requires the Department of Defense and its largest contractors to establish systems and procedures to detect and avoid counterfeit parts.

It requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to consult with the Secretary of Defense on the sources of counterfeit electronic parts in the military supply chain and establish a risk-based program of enhanced inspection of imported electronic parts.

It authorizes Customs to share information from electronic parts inspected at the border with manufacturers to help determine whether the parts are counterfeit.

It strengthens criminal penalties for counterfeiting military goods or services.

We are very grateful for the support of Members of this body for that provision.

Relative to the strengthening of criminal penalties, I wish to add our thanks to Senator Whitehouse for his work on this subject, for his provisions relative to additional criminal penalties for counterfeiting military goods that are a part of this bill, and they are a very important part.

The conference report requires sound planning--this is another provision of this bill--and justification before we spend more money on troop realignment from Okinawa to Guam and on tour normalization in Korea. Those provisions follow detailed oversight that Senators Webb, McCain, and I have conducted.

On some other provisions: The conference report requires that the next lot of F-35 aircraft--lot 6--and all subsequent aircraft, be purchased under fixed-price contracts, with the contractor assuming full responsibility for any costs above the target cost specified in the contract.

Our conference report fences 75 percent of the money available for the Medium Extended Air Defense System--MEADS--until the Secretary of Defense submits a detailed plan to use those funds to close out the program or pay contract termination costs.

The conference report includes Senator Landrieu's bill to extend the Small Business Innovative Research--SBIR--Program for an additional 6 years. It has been about 6 years since we reauthorized this vitally important program, which provides a huge benefit to our small businesses so they can effectively participate in research programs that are funded by the Federal Government. In the defense arena, SBIR has successfully invested in innovative research and technologies that have contributed significantly to the expansion of the defense industrial base and the development of new military capabilities.

As to Pakistan, the conference report limits to 40 percent the amount of the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund that can be obligated until the Secretary of Defense provides Congress with a strategy on the use of the fund and on enhancing Pakistan's efforts to counter the threat of improvised explosive devices, those IEDs which kill so many of our troops and so many civilians.

Finally, the Department of Defense has informed us it does not need an exemption from section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 because that section does not apply to purchases at market prices from generally available fuel supplies and does not preclude the Department from purchasing any fuel it needs or expects to purchase in the foreseeable future.

We are in the final stages of withdrawing our combat troops from Iraq, but we continue to have almost 100,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines on the ground in Afghanistan. While there are issues on which we may disagree, we all know we must provide our troops the support they need as long as they remain in harm's way. The enactment of this conference report will improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform. It will give them the tools they need to remain the most effective fighting force in the world. Most important of all, it will send an important message that we as a nation stand behind our troops and we deeply appreciate their service.

In conclusion, I would, once again, thank Senator McCain, all our Members, and our majority and minority staff, led by Rick DeBobes and Dave Morriss, for their hard work on this bill. We could not have done this without them.

I ask unanimous consent that a full list of our majority and minority staff, who gave so much of themselves and their families, be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Selected Highlights of the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2012

--Authorizes a 1.6 percent across-the-board pay raise for

all uniformed military personnel and extend over 30 types of

bonuses and special pays aimed at encouraging enlistment,

reenlistment, and continued service by active-duty and

reserve military personnel;

--Extends authorities needed to fairly compensate civilian

employees and highly qualified experts who are assigned to

work overseas in support of contingency operations;

--Clarifies provisions of the Uniform Code of Military

Justice relating to the offenses of rape, sexual assault, and

other sexual misconduct to address constitutional

deficiencies in the existing law;

--Extends the authority of U.S. Special Operations Forces

to provide support to regular forces, irregular forces, and

individuals aiding U.S. special operations to combat

terrorism;

--Freezes the Department's spending on contract services at

fiscal year 2010 levels, to ensure that cost reductions and

savings are spread across all components of the DOD

workforce;

--Authorizes the Department to void a contract in

Afghanistan, if the contractor or its employees are

determined to be actively working with the enemy to oppose

U.S. forces in that country;

--Implements cost-saving programs to address rapidly

escalating costs for the operation and support of weapon

systems, including costs incurred as a result of corrosion;

and

--Enhances the role of the National Guard by including the

Chief of the National Guard Bureau as a member of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I spoke at some length before, but I want to repeat one sentiment in the statement that has to do with Senator McCain and his staff. The way in which he and our staff work together is in the finest tradition of this body. Our committee has had that reputation. It is a well-earned, well-deserved reputation that we are able to work on a bipartisan basis.

Senator McCain continues in a great tradition on the Republican side, and I would hope I strive at least to do the same on our side. We have had some great leaders of our committee over the decades, and Senator McCain is one of those leaders in that tradition, and I want to say what a great pleasure it is to work with him.

I know our staffs work beautifully together, and we are grateful for that. The Senator was right in pointing out who we are doing this for-- it is the men and women in uniform--but we couldn't do that without our great staffs, and I know he joins me, and has already in his statement, in a tribute to our staffs.

I think one on our side.

While we are talking about rays of lightness, we thank Senator Hagan, our Presiding Officer, who is a member of our committee. She provides a ray of light--one of the many rays of light on our committee. I see her presiding and smiling over this effort, and I wanted to acknowledge that she is an important part of it and to recognize her contribution as well.

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

Mr. President, section 1022(d) of the conference report states that ``nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.'' Would the Senator agree with me that this language is intended to ensure that the provision does not interfere with ongoing civilian interrogations and other law enforcement activities and that the President has the flexibility he needs to decide on the most appropriate law enforcement and intelligence tools for each individual case?

Section 1022 applies only to a person who is ``a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda.'' The statement of managers states that this language intentionally excluded the Taliban. Would the Senator agree with me that the requirements of section 1022--including the transfer restrictions applicable under that provision--do not apply to individuals detained by our forces in Afghanistan?

Madam President, I had not seen those remarks of Mr. Putin, but referring to his last comment, read by Senator McCain, I guess people would go nuts in the setting Senator McCain found himself in the Vietnam war. He probably is perhaps, only in that line, accurate that most people, indeed, could not have survived that experience. I know Senator McCain does not raise this matter, but those of us who work with him appreciate all he has done for this country and for this body. I wish we had a chance to straighten out Mr. Putin about Senator McCain. I don't think we will have that opportunity, but maybe his own people will do so in a free election someday.

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 now ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be recognized for up to 4 minutes each to address the depot provisions in the bill, and at the end of their remarks Senator McCain and I be recognized to address the same issue. This was the order we were given. They may want to change it: Senator Sessions, Senator Chambliss, Senator Inhofe, Senator Shaheen, Senator Ayotte, and Senator Hagan.

Mr. President, I appreciate and I understand the Senators' concerns about this issue as they have been expressed here this afternoon. I also very much appreciate their understanding relative to the extremely short period for conference this year where we worked through hundreds of provisions with our House colleagues in about a week, a process that usually takes a month or more.

While I am proud of what we were able to accomplish in this bill as a whole, it was probably likely that some language would need more consideration because of the time constraints we were operating under. Before I continue, I want to state my appreciation to the Members who spoke here this afternoon and members of the Armed Services Committee. They make major contributions to this committee.

I listened carefully to what our colleagues have had to say about the depot maintenance issue. I believe their concerns are substantive and merit careful consideration from the Armed Services Committee. This is an issue that was brought to our conference in the House bill.

The depot maintenance provisions that were approved by the House last

May arose out of a congressionally mandated independent review of the statutes, regulations, and policies guiding depot maintenance performance and reporting. The House conferees then proposed modifications to their own provisions based on the results of a series of discussions with stakeholders held throughout the summer at the National Defense University. We were told this process was comprehensive, that all stakeholders were invited, and that the resulting recommendations were widely accepted by all interested parties.

In particular, we understood the Department of Defense, private industry, and the House Depot Caucus had reached consensus on the revised House language. While those statements were made in good faith, it turns out they were not accurate. A number of key players, including stakeholders in government, private industry, and labor, did not participate in the process at National Defense University and were apparently unaware of the results.

Senators with a strong interest in the issue were not aware of the modified House language that was presented in our conference until it was too late to consider changes. I am aware that the depot maintenance issue has long been a sensitive one to our Nation and to many of our Members, and that the precise words in these provisions matter. The existing statutes, regulations, and practices have served to sustain both core logistics capabilities and the defense industrial base over the last decade, so any changes need to be fully understood.

I understand there are a number of unanswered questions about the provisions in the conference report that could have significant effects. For example, first, the new language substitutes the term ``core depot level maintenance'' for the existing term ``core logistics.'' Does this change impact National Guard readiness, sustainment maintenance sites, and other DOD facilities that are not depots? Does the change impact requirements for supply chain management and other logistics functions that are not performed by depots?

Second, the new language changes the wording regarding modifications in the definition of core depot level maintenance. Does this change impact planned public-private competitions for modifications and upgrades programs? Does the change preserve the distinction between modifications and upgrades on the one hand and acquisition programs on the other? Is this an expansion of core functions that will be required to be performed in the public sector with an adverse impact on the defense industrial base?

Third, the new language changes the wording of the exclusion for commercial items. Is this a change to the existing exclusion or merely a recodification? Will it impact maintenance requirements for commercial derivative aircraft and other major defense systems that are based on commercial technology?

Fourth, the new language includes a waiver rather than an exemption from core requirements for nuclear aircraft carriers. Will the new language result in any change in requirements for the maintenance and modifications of nuclear aircraft carriers?

Fifth, the new language includes the authority to waive core requirements for any weapons system that is ``not an enduring element of the national defense strategy,'' rather than an exclusion for a workload that is ``no longer required for national defense reasons.'' Does this new language mean something different from the existing language? If so, will it change the balance of work between the depots and the private sector?

I am committed to have the Armed Services Committee revisit the modifications to the depot maintenance laws included in this conference report and to give full consideration to the concerns our Members have raised. Over the coming months we will engage with interested Members and their staffs to review the language in detail. Together we will reach out to interested parties through a process that will include a full committee hearing if we determine one is needed. We will then take action to repeal or modify anything that needs to be repealed or modified in these provisions during our consideration of next year's National Defense Authorization Act. Many of my colleagues heard Chairman Buck McKeon make a similar commitment at our final conference meeting.

During the next year, while this review process is underway, I join my colleagues in urging the Department of Defense to proceed with caution in implementing this legislation. In particular, I urge the Department to make as little change as possible in the status quo with regard to these functions during the next year. It would be unfortunate if the Department were to change significant functions from one form of performance to another this year only to be required to change the decision again the year later.

Our objective has always been and always will be to ensure the Nation's depot maintenance system is structured and supported in a manner that efficiently and effectively provides for the readiness of our Armed Forces and our national security. I know this is a critically important issue. I look forward to working with Senators over the next year to take the steps we have discussed here today.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object--and I, of course, will not--how much time is left before our vote?

If the Senator will save me 30 seconds, I would appreciate it.

Madam President, let me first thank Senators Graham and Ayotte for their contributions this afternoon and long before this afternoon on this subject.

The best answer to some of the criticism we have heard this afternoon--the FBI has been successful. Why change it?--read the law, read the conference report.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the

existing criminal enforcement and national security

authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. . . .

It is flatout explicit in the law.

Something else we have heard: We are doing something for the first time--long-term custody for American citizens. Read the conference report:

Nothing in this section shall be con-

strued to affect existing law or authorities

relating to the detention of United States

citizens. . . .

I urge people to read our conference reports read the Senate bill, before they accept some of the arguments which have been made against this conference report.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of the Press Secretary for the President that was issued yesterday on behalf of the President be printed in the Record, including this line:

[W]e have concluded that the language does not--

The language in the conference report--

challenge or constrain the President's ability to collect telling intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people--

And the key words for many people--

and the President's senior advisors will not recommend a

veto.

Again, I want to thank all of my colleagues who participated in this debate.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar.) The question is on agreeing to the conference report.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

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

Mr. President, Congress cannot absolve itself of the responsibility to balance the budget by passing a constitutional amendment. Congress has an existing constitutional duty to control the purse. If Congress has the will to balance the budget, it can do so. If it does not have that will, no constitutional amendment can be a substitute.

We knew that in 1996, which I believe was the last time the Senate seriously evaluated a balanced budget amendment. While we did not pass the balanced budget amendment, we did adopt budgets and policies that created the first surpluses in decades, enabling the United States to begin to reduce its debt load. Unfortunately, that fiscal sensibility was washed away by irresponsible, unfunded Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and two unfunded wars. Once again, we find ourselves in a deep fiscal hole.

We can and must dig ourselves out of it, as we did in the 1990s, by taking a balanced approach, restoring revenues, and making sensible spending cuts. But that is not a constitutional question. That is a political one. Can we, as a Congress, pass the tough measures needed to restore fiscal discipline?

I have proposed a seven-point plan for reducing the deficit. Bipartisan commissions have proposed making spending cuts and increasing revenues and realistic folks from all parts of the political spectrum agree Congress needs to address revenues, as well as spending, if we are to achieve real deficit reduction.

Congress needs to make tough choices and is failing to do so. One more procedural promise--this time in the form of a constitutional amendment--is not going to get the job done.

While the details of the two amendments before us differ in many respects, there are real questions as to how either could be enforced.

For instance, the Udall amendment says:

The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by

appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of

outlays and receipts.

What would happen if Congress failed to adopt the implementing legislation that lives up to the terms of the amendment? If it does not have the will to make cuts and raise revenues, what makes people think Congress will be able to agree on implementing legislation?

The amendments raise far more questions than they answer. For example, would a court be willing to hear a case alleging a failure by the Congress to fulfill its duties or would a court treat such a challenge as a political question that is beyond its reach? Who would even be able to bring a case alleging a violation? Who would the case be brought against and what would the remedies be?

Could a judge nullify a budget or a law on the basis that it somehow violated the amendment? Which appropriations bill pushed us over the limit--the last one adopted?

Would a judge have the power to put the budget in balance by ordering specific spending cuts? How would those cuts be identified and set? Would the judge be tasked with reviewing the entire Federal budget and then making cuts? Would the judge be able to compel Congress to enact cuts? What would happen if Congress failed to comply with such an order? Does the judge make changes and substitute his or her priorities for those of Congress?

These same questions could be asked about revenue increases as well. A judge cannot mandate revenue increases under the McConnell amendment. The resolution, apparently, would allow judges to make spending cuts, however. But that dangerous shift of power to the judiciary arises only by implication in the McConnell resolution. What is explicit under McConnell is that taxes and revenues can only be raised by a two-thirds vote. So even closing loopholes to end tax dodges and raise revenue would require a supermajority. That is the opposite of a balanced budget amendment provision. That makes it more difficult to balance the budget.

The American people do not need new processes or hollow promises. They do not need a constitutional amendment that raises more questions than it answers. They need Congress and the President to do our jobs. A balanced budget amendment will not force Congress and the President to do anything, because it is, as a practical matter, unenforceable. And when it does not work, public cynicism would only deepen. It already is plenty deep. There is only one way to balance the budget. That is with the willpower to make the hard choices. Those of us elected to public office have that obligation now. And if we fail, we as individuals will be judged by our own electorate.

I yield the floor.

I agree that the authorities allowing for earlier receipt of Reserve retired pay should apply to members of the retired Reserve called to Active Duty in support of a contingency operation to the same extent it applies to other members of the reserves.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when we return to the bill, which will be after Senator Cornyn speaks, we move immediately to Feinstein amendment No. 1125, and that there be a 30- minute debate evenly divided and that the vote would occur immediately following that.

I withdraw my request.

Reserving the right to object.

Madam President, there is objection on this side, and I will attempt to bring together Senator Cornyn and the objectors so he can hear from them why they object, but in the meantime I object.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the pending Feinstein amendment No. 1125; that there be 30 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Feinstein amendment, with no amendments in order prior to the vote.

Reserving the right to object, I just want to know if the Senator from California understands that

the vote on the second Feinstein amendment would be at 4:00 and that the debate would begin at 3:00, with that hour equally divided.

So is a 4 o'clock vote after an hour of debate acceptable?

So it is agreeable, then, that there will be an hour of debate on the second amendment starting at 3 o'clock with a vote at 4 o'clock?

I also ask unanimous consent that there be no second- degree amendments to the Feinstein amendment.

Before the Senator yields time to the Senator----

Will the Senator refrain for 1 minute? While Senator Feinstein is here, I understand it is now preferable from our leader that the vote be at 2 o'clock, not immediately following this half-hour debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote, which was previously scheduled to occur at the end of the half hour of debate on this amendment, now be rescheduled for 2 o'clock.

Madam President, relative to the time between that half hour and 2 o'clock, that time, hopefully, would be used. It will be by me for my remarks on this amendment, by the way, because after the 30 minutes, if it is used totally, I would want an opportunity to speak during that time, if necessary in morning business. But there are other amendments we believe can be voice voted during that period of time, I believe my friend from Arizona would agree. So that time will be fruitfully used. But the time now is 2 o'clock for the vote on that first Feinstein amendment.

I thank my friend.

It will continue to be our intent. It was objected to before. But we hope that objection will be removed. If it is not removed, we will have to have all these votes at the end of the day instead of during the day.

No. I agree with what the Senator said and what the intent is here; that, hopefully, we could have an hour debate starting at 3 o'clock. We will try to lock that in at a later time, after giving folks notice. But if there is objection to votes before the time runs out, the 30-hour clock runs out, then we will have to have all those votes after the 30-hour clock runs out, and it does not make any sense to do that. But if there is going to be an objection, then that is the way it will have to be.

What Senator McCain is saying--and I totally agree with him--is, even if we are put in that position, which I hope we are not, that at least we could use the time between now and then for debate on those amendments which we would have to vote on at a later time. I totally agree with my friend from Arizona.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

On my time. Quick question. After the 30 minutes expires, because we are not going to have a vote now, there would be additional time should the Senator need it after that 30 minutes.

Madam President, I have no objection.

While Senator Graham is on the floor, I ask unanimous consent to have a colloquy with him about this section 1032, the section at issue.

I very much appreciate Senator Graham's remarks. He said the provision provides for military custody as a beginning or starting point. I wonder whether he would agree that not only is it a beginning point, but it is only for a narrow group of people who are determined to be al-Qaida or their supporters.

Would the Senator also agree with me that under the provision in the bill, on page 360--we were told that civilian trials are preferable to military trials, preferable to the detention of an unlawful combatant. Does the Senator agree that every one of those options is open to the executive branch and that there is no preference stated, one way or the other, for which approach is taken to people who are detained?

Yes.

That is exactly the point. This language, when it is described as language that says somehow or other it works against using civilian courts, is from folks who haven't read our language. The language is explicit. On page 360, lines 3 through 14 in the bill, it says the disposition of a person under the law of war may include the following--and then they talk about detention under the law of war, trial under title X, which is the military trial, transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction; that is, article III courts, and transfer or return of custody to the country of origin. There are no others. There is no preference stated for which of those venues would be selected by the executive branch.

That is absolutely true. Senator Graham brought to the floor something that was stated this morning by the top lawyer for the Obama administration. I think everybody ought to listen to this. There has been so much confusion about what is in the bill and what isn't. Right now, there is authority to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants. That authority exists right now. That is not me saying it, that is the Supreme Court that has said it as recently as Hamdi, when they said there is no bar to this Nation holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. That is current law. That is the Supreme Court saying that. Then, the Supreme Court also said in Hamdi that they see no reason for drawing a line because a citizen, no less than an alien, can be part of supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners and engaged in armed conflict against the United States.

Top lawyers for the President, this morning, acknowledged this. I wish every one of our colleagues could hear what Senator Graham brought to the floor. Top national security lawyers in the administration say U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida.

Are we then going to adopt an amendment that says to al-Qaida that if you attack us overseas, you are subject to military detention; but if you come here and attack us, you are not subject to military detention? That is what the first Feinstein amendment says.

I am sorry, I was distracted.

They have, and they have been held accountable.

There was a naturalized citizen involved in Quirin, who was arrested, as I understand it, on Long Island, and who was charged with crimes involving aiding and supporting the enemy.

And military detention.

Exactly. By the way, I think executed.

That is correct.

It is an issue, absolutely.

I do. And the top lawyers of the administration acknowledged as much this morning when they said U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida.

The provisions we are talking about in section 1032, which Senator Feinstein would modify so that it is only al-Qaida abroad who would be subject to this presumption of a military detention, but al-Qaida who come here--and, by the way, American citizens are not even covered under 1032. But the foreign al-Qaida fighters who come here to attack us are not going to be subject to that presumption of military detention which, again, can be waived. It has nothing to do with in what venue they are tried. The administration, the Executive, has total choice on that. It is just whether we are going to start with an assumption if they are determined to be al-Qaida, if they are a foreign al-Qaida person, they sure as heck ought to be subject to that same assumption whether they attack us here or whether they attack us overseas.

I wouldn't want to try to hold that position.

It has been made part of the battlefield without any doubt. On September 11, the war was brought here by al-Qaida. How do we suggest that a foreign al-Qaida member should not be subject to an assumption to begin with, if they are determined to be al-Qaida, that they are going to be detained--that we should not start with that assumption--subject to procedures which the administration adopts. It is totally in their hands. It cannot interfere with a civilian interrogation. It cannot interfere with civilian intelligence. We are very specific about it. The procedures are written by the executive branch. They can try them anywhere they want.

But if they bring a war here--they bring a war here--we are going to create an assumption that they can be subject, and are going to be subject, to military detention.

If I can interrupt, we have that right abroad against members of al-Qaida. But under this approach we would not be able to assume that military detention at home, again, subject to waiver and subject to all the other protections we have.

We could do that if we captured them in Afghanistan, but here we are going to be treating them differently. It ought to probably be worse. In other words, people who bring the war here, it seems to me, at a minimum ought to be subject to the same rules of interrogation as they would be if they were captured and part of al-Qaida in Afghanistan.

I don't understand the theory behind this. As a matter of fact, when we adopted the authorization for use of military force, it would seem to me the first people we would want to apply the authority of that authorization to would be al-Qaida members who attack this country.

The only group that is protected.

Exactly.

Mr. President, I understand there are other Senators who may be coming over to speak, and I will be happy to yield the floor whenever that happens because this is the time which is not structured before the scheduled vote at 2 p.m. But if I can continue, then, until another Senator comes to the floor, I want to just expand on this one point which has been made which has to do with whether there is something in this section of ours that would allow our military to patrol our streets. We have heard that.

Well, we have a posse comitatus law in this country. That law embodies a very fundamental principle that our military does not patrol our streets. There is nothing in section 1032 or anywhere else in this bill that would permit our military to patrol our streets.

I think Senator Graham is probably more familiar with what I am going to say than perhaps any of our colleagues. We have a posse comitatus statute in this country. It makes it a crime for the military to execute law enforcement functions inside the United States.

That is unchanged. That law is unchanged by anything in this bill.

I think we had a fear a couple hundred years ago that that might happen.

That is why we have very carefully pointed this provision 1032 to a very narrow group of people--people who are determined to be members of or associated with al-Qaida.

Then the question becomes, Well, how is that determination made? What are the procedures for that? The answer is it is left up to the executive branch to determine those procedures. Can there be any interference with the civilian law enforcement folks who are interrogating people that they arrest? If someone tries to blow up Times Square and they are being interrogated by the FBI, is there any interference with that interrogation? None. We explicitly say that there is no such interference.

What about people who are seeking to observe illegal conduct? Is there any interference with that? There is none. We specifically say those procedures shall not interfere with that kind of observation, seeking intelligence. We are not interfering with the civilian prosecution, with the civilian law enforcement at all.

The rules to determine whether someone is a member of al-Qaida are rules which the executive branch is going to write. They can't say, Well, this thing authorizes the interference with civilian interrogation when, as a matter of fact, it specifically says it won't, and the procedures to determine whether somebody is governed by this assumption are going to be written by the FBI and the Justice Department and the executive branch. And, on top of that, there is a waiver.

That guarantee is called habeas corpus. It has been in our law. It is untouched by anything in this bill. Quite the opposite; we actually enhance the procedures here. The Senator from South Carolina has been very much a part of the effort here.

With all the risks that are entailed of being misunderstood and all the rest. That is something the Senator from South Carolina has engaged in, to try to see if we can put down what the detention rules are--by the way, ``are''--because as the administration itself said in its statement of administration policy, the authorities codified in this section--authorities codified in section 1031 they are referring to--those authorities already exist.

Not only is what the Senator said accurate, but we have done something else in this bill. There is an Executive order that was issued some years ago that said there should be a periodic review process for folks who are being detained under the law of war. Because it is so unclear as to when this war ends, there is real concern about that. What do we do about that? So in this bill what we require the executive branch to do--and I am now quoting from section 1035--is to adopt procedures for implementing a periodic review process. Those procedures don't exist now. They are not formalized. So we want to formalize them for the very reason that the Senator from South Carolina addressed: because we want to make sure that since we don't know when this particular war is going to end, it is kind of hard to define it and everyone is concerned about that, you have got to have review procedures. The greatest review procedure of all is habeas corpus. But there are also requirements in the Executive order for a periodic review process of whether somebody is still a threat or not a threat, for instance. The war may still be going on, but the person may no longer be a threat.

Should there be an opportunity for the person to say that? Well, there should be. There surely should be a regular review process. The Senator from South Carolina has been very much involved in this kind of due process. But what we put into our bill--which would have been eliminated, by the way, if the Udall amendment had been adopted yesterday--is a requirement that the Executive order's procedures be adopted, because so far we haven't seen that.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

The Senator from California, my great friend, Mrs. Boxer, is correct. We are willing to accept the Boxer-Grassley amendment by voice vote.

In response to Senator Grassley's question, I am very much aware of what he referred to.

You do, indeed.

I thank the Senator from California and the Senator from Iowa for their efforts in this area.

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

Madam President, in a few moments, Senator McCain and I will be seeking unanimous consent that the following pending and germane amendments be considered en bloc, that the amendments be modified with the changes that are at the desk where applicable: Begich 1114, as modified; McCain 1220; Reed of Rhode Island 1146, as modified; Levin 1293, as modified; Boxer 1206; Chambliss 1304, as modified; Pryor 1151; Nelson of Florida 1236; Blunt 1133; Murkowski 1287.

Further, that the amendments be agreed to en bloc--we are not making that request now. We will be making that request in a few minutes. This is not the so-called managers' package, by the way. These are the pending germane amendments which have been before us for some time but which we believe have now been cleared, and there is no opposition; however, if there is, there is an opportunity for people to come down.

I would yield now to my friend from Arizona.

That was not on my sheet, but that is fine, and that would be added.

I doublechecked on this. The answer is no, and that is about as directly as I can say it. I checked with staff and the staff says they have been modified--in many cases as I indicated--but none in order to make them germane.

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

Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that the following pending germane amendments be considered en bloc; that the amendments be modified with the changes that are at the desk, where applicable: Begich No. 1114, as modified; McCain No. 1220; Reed of Rhode Island No. 1146, as modified; Levin No. 1293, as modified; Boxer No. 1206; Chambliss No. 1304, as modified; Pryor No. 1151; Nelson of Florida No. 1236; Blunt No. 1133, as modified; Murkowski No. 1287, as modified; and Brown of Massachusetts No. 1090, as modified; further, that the amendments be agreed to en bloc.

I ask unanimous consent now that the following two amendments be withdrawn: Collins No. 1105 and Collins No. 1158.

I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the conclusion of the postcloture time, the pending germane Feinstein amendment, No. 1126, be the pending business; that the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following Feinstein amendments in the order listed: Feinstein amendment No. 1126, Feinstein amendment No. 1456; that there be 2 minutes equally divided in the usual form prior to the second vote--there will be more time than that prior to the first vote; that no amendment be in order to either amendment prior to the votes, and that all postcloture time be considered expired at 6 p.m.

Mr. President, this has not yet been ruled on. I want to modify very slightly what I said in the unanimous consent request. I said that the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the following Feinstein amendments. I should have said the Senate proceed to votes on the Feinstein amendments in the order listed.

Mr. President, I have two other unanimous consent requests before we turn this over to the Senator from California. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to make a point of order en bloc against the list of amendments in violation of rule XXII that is at the desk.

I would hope and I ask the time between now and 6 o'clock be divided between the two sides. We will yield immediately to Senator Feinstein.

Mr. President, I have one more unanimous consent.

I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be withdrawn: Rubio amendment No. 1290 and Merkley amendment No. 1256.

I thank the Presiding Officer and all those who have been involved in working out this approach that allows us now to vote on two amendments, the original Feinstein amendment that is pending, plus an alternative which I think, hopefully, will command great support.

How much time is there on our side?

I wanted to have a couple minutes. I wonder if Senator McCain is here, if there is an objection to extending this by 10 minutes. Is there objection? I am not going to do that without him here.

Madam President, if the other side is ready to go, they can start using the time on their side.

Mr. President, I would ask that there be 5 additional minutes, evenly divided, so we could have 3 minutes left on our side. I would split that with the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. President, we are soon going to be voting on two amendments. The first amendment that is proposed, the first Feinstein amendment restricts the authority that was available and is available currently to the President of the United States under the laws of war. That authority is if an American citizen joins a hostile Army against us, takes up arms against us, that person can be determined to be an enemy combatant. That is not me saying that; that is the Constitution. That is the Supreme Court of the United States in the Hamdi case: ``There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.''

The problem with the Feinstein amendment is that current authority of the President to find and designate an American citizen who attacks us, who comes to our land and attacks us as an enemy combatant would be restricted. We should not restrict the availability of that power in the President. Now we have an alternative. In the second Feinstein amendment, which I ask unanimous consent to be a cosponsor of--

In the second amendment, we have an alternative because now it would provide the assurance that we are not adversely affecting the rights of the U.S. citizens in this language. Senator McCain, Senator Graham, and I have argued on this floor that there is nothing in our bill--nothing which changes the rights of the U.S. citizens. There was no intent to do it, and we did not do it.

What the second Feinstein amendment provides is that nothing in this section of our bill shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of the U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. It makes clear what we have been saying this language already does, which is that it does not affect existing law relative to the right of the executive branch to capture and detain a citizen. If that law is there allowing it, it remains. If, as some argue, the law does not allow that, then it continues that way. We think the law is clear in Hamdi that there is no bar to this Nation holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant, and we make clear whatever the law is. It is unaffected by this language in our bill.

Could I just interrupt with a unanimous consent request that prior to each vote there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form and that it start with the vote after this one.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, a number of my colleagues have asked where we are. We are going to have probably three or four more rollcall votes, hopefully including final passage. There is also a package--and everyone should listen to this because at least 70 of us are affected. There is a package of about 70 amendments which have been cleared. However, as of the moment, there is an objection to that package being adopted.

When I say the package has been cleared, what I am saying is there has been no objection to the substance of any of those 70 amendments. If there was an objection to the substance, they would not be cleared. So there is no objection to the substance of those approximately 70 amendments, but you should be aware, because most of us have amendments in that cleared managers' package, that unless that objection is removed, we cannot get that package adopted tonight.

Mr. President, I very much support this amendment, I am a cosponsor, and I hope we can all vote for it. This does what we said-- those of us who wrote this bill--the bill does and does not do all along. It does not change current law. This amendment reinforces the point that this bill does not change current law relative to this section of this bill. The section of this bill does not change current law relative to the detention of people in the United States.

Our time is yielded back.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, Senator Leahy authorized me and told me he was withdrawing this amendment relative to military custody because of all of the actions which have been previously taken. I am very confident that is what he told me, so I am going to withdraw that amendment on his behalf.

Mr. President, I think this can be accepted on a voice vote. I have great problems with it, but I think there is probably a majority here that will favor it and a distinct minority perhaps that would not. But it is something which basically doesn't add to the existing law, which says this is theoretically possible, and all this does is say it is possible one could be acquitted of a criminal case and still be held as an enemy combatant.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the germane Leahy amendment No. 1087 be modified with the changes at the desk; further, that the amendment, as modified, be agreed to.

There was a provision in the bill relative to the Freedom of Information Act which, by agreement, was modified.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote on the Leahy amendment.

Mr. President, there is a pending amendment which apparently the clerk will need to report at this point.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending germane Udall of New Mexico amendment No. 1202 be modified with the changes at the desk; further, that the amendment, as modified, be agreed to.

Mr. President, we are going to be making a unanimous consent request. I am not even going to use my 1 minute on this other than to say thanks to everybody who has been so heavily involved, which is just about everybody in this Senate.

I want to particularly thank Senator McCain. His staff and my staff have been utterly incredible. We have had hundreds of amendments we had to get through. We have done the best we can, and I want to tell my friends this so we can prepare a path for a unanimous consent agreement. It is not prepared yet, so I cannot read it, but it is going to be something like this. For those amendments which were germane, not because of modification, but were germane--

I believe we did.

Let me describe what this is about so we can be thinking about it before it is offered. There were 71 amendments, approximately, which were cleared. We spoke about those before. If anyone had an objection, they were not cleared. So by definition there is no objection on the substance of these amendments. However, there is objection for other reasons, one of them being that if an amendment was modified to make it germane, there would be an objection on that basis.

So what Senator McCain and I are talking about--and we will put it in a unanimous consent proposal and then you all can decide if you want to agree to this--is that we would work--we pass a bill tonight and do all the other things we need to do because that has to be done. We have to get to conference.

In the next couple of days Senator McCain and I, working with the Parliamentarian, would go through the 71 amendments, or whatever the number is. The Parliamentarian would then advise us as to which of those amendments is germane and were germane--and these are all cleared amendments. And for that group, whatever the number is, that we are informed by the Parliamentarian is germane and were germane, we would then put in a bill which would be introduced next week. If we can get that done, then the unanimous consent request would have that bill introduced, read a third time, and passed. That would be the most we could ask for.

It would seem to me if we could pass this tonight, we could do the same thing with a bill--providing Senator McCain and I agree after talking to the Parliamentarian--that the only amendments that would be in that bill would be amendments which were germane.

How do we get that bill into the conference report? We have not figured that out yet, but we are working on that piece as well. At least we can get the bill passed so we can go to conference and show the Senate passed these X number of amendments. This is the best we could do. It is the cleanest we could do. The Parliamentarian did not like the different idea that we proposed, and I don't blame him and her, but that is what we are going to be offering in a few minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon passage of S. 1867, the Armed Services Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1540 and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1867, as amended, and passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H.R. 1540, as amended, be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses; and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, with the Armed Services Committee appointed as conferees; that no points of order be considered waived by virtue of this agreement; and all with no intervening action or debate.

I thank everybody and I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I will be very brief for obvious reasons. But this is a golden moment for us. The proud tradition of the Senate Armed Services Committee has been maintained every year since 1961 and continues with the Senate's passage of the 50th consecutive national defense authorization bill. It always takes a huge amount of work to get a bill of this magnitude done. It could not happen without the support of all the Senators on the committee. I will not thank each and every one--the subcommittee chairs, the ranking members, our staff, the floor staff here, who do extraordinary work. But the bipartisanship of this committee dominates again, and we hope that flavor will continue to dominate forever in the committee and hope it will permeate this Senate.

We always have to work long and hard to pass this bill and no two of these bills are alike. But it's worth every bit of effort we put into it because it is for our security, for our troops, and for their families. I thank all Senators for their roles in keeping our tradition going.

Our committee's bipartisanship also makes this moment possible. I am proud to serve with Senator McCain and grateful for his partnership and friendship. I also want to thank our very dedicated and capable Senate floor staff on both sides of the aisle--Gary Myrick, Trish Engle, Tim Mitchell, and Meredith Mellody on the Democratic side and David Schiappa, Laura Dove, Ashley Messick, and Patrick Kilcur on the Republican side. They have all helped us get this bill across the finish line and we are very grateful to them and all others here on the floor and in both cloakrooms.

Finally, I thank all our committee staff members for their extraordinary drive and many personal sacrifices to get this bill done. Led by Rick DeBobes, our committee's staff director; Peter Levine, our general counsel; and Dave Morriss, our minority staff director, our staff really has given their all to get this bill passed. So to all of you and to all your families, thank you for your hard work. Take a few minutes to celebrate this moment and then put all your talents to work in conference with the House so we can bring a conference report back to the Senate before the holidays.

Mr. President, they all deserve recognition and, as a tribute to their professionalism and as a further expression of our gratitude, I ask unanimous consent that all staff members' names be printed in the Record.

To end my thanks--I do not see Senator McCain here. I think he had to leave for a few minutes.

He is here. Let me personally thank him. I thought Senator McCain had to leave.

I put in some thank-yous here on behalf of the committee, and I just want to tell the Senator how tremendous it is to work with him and how this tradition of bipartisanship in our committee has been maintained. The Senator is a very major part of the reason for that happening, and I thank him.

Mr. President, just as a building needs a foundation, every community needs pillars--people who provide strength, inspiration, guidance, and leadership, people to rally around in tough times. Today, the city of Flint, MI, is missing one of its pillars.

Bishop Odis Floyd of New Jerusalem Full Gospel Baptist Church died this week at the age of 71 after a long illness. For more than four decades, he was the spiritual leader of the church he helped his grandfather found. At an imposing 6-foot-6, with a powerful preaching and singing voice, he became known around the country for his stirring sermons and appeared on a number of gospel music albums. Whether in quiet conversation with a church member or in powerful preaching from the pulpit, he was a spiritual giant.

His faith taught him to reach out beyond his church, not just with spiritual guidance but to lend a hand to those in need. The church's charitable and outreach efforts under his leadership have had an enormous impact. They include programs to provide a safe and welcoming place for children; educational efforts; assistance to those who need medical care, food, and clothing; counseling and social work services, and much more.

Bishop Floyd also was a valued adviser to business and community leaders in Flint, in Michigan, and beyond. I was fortunate to visit with him on many occasions, and I valued those visits for his knowledge of the community and the quality of his counsel. His love and concern for Flint ran deep, and no matter the challenge, he was always at the forefront of those looking for solutions. His commitment to his community was profound and provided a shining example to others.

Whether it was in preaching the gospel he felt so deeply or in reaching out to help others, one word sums up the gift Bishop Floyd brought to those around him: hope. ``People need hope,'' he once told an interviewer, ``and that's always what I want to give them.''

His loss has deprived the community he loved of a strong and steady pillar. It now falls to all those who care about Flint to take up where he left off and to continue his work to improve the city and lives of its citizens.

Many will miss him, but none more than the family he loved: his wife and partner, Brenda; son Anthony; daughters, Nikki and Toyia, who served admirably as an intern in my office; and five grandchildren. Barbara and I send our condolences to them, to the members of New Jerusalem Full Gospel Baptist Church, and to the thousands who have, in ways great and small, been touched by Bishop Floyd's strength, generosity, and faith.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 1, 2011 at 10 a.m. in SD-106.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 1, 2011, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Spurring Job Growth Through Capital Formation While Protecting Investors.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 1, 2011, at 10 a.m.,

to held a hearing entitled, ``U.S. Strategic Objectives Towards Iran.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 1, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Insider Trading and Congressional Accountability.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 1, 2011, at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Deficit Reduction and Job Creation: Regulatory Reform in Indian Country.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on December 1, 2011, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December, 1, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The financial and Societal Costs of Medicating America's Foster Children.''

Madam President, just to reinforce something the Senator from Arizona said, these are amendments there is no objection to on the substance. We have worked very hard, working with all the Senators, to clear amendments. That process will continue after the cloture vote as well. But we now have this group we have worked very hard on. We know of no objection. If there were an objection, they would not be in a cleared package. So we know of no objection. None have been forthcoming. They have been here for a day or two now, and the Senate needs to work its will.

This is the way we should be operating, if there is no objection to an amendment, if people have had a chance to look at it. They have been cleared on both sides. Any committee on jurisdiction that has an interest has been talked to, and that has been taken care of. This is, it seems to me, the right way to proceed.

I commend Senator McCain for what he just said and join with him in that sentiment.

The bill we have before us that we will be voting cloture on at about 11 o'clock would authorize $662 billion for national defense programs. This is $27 billion less than the President's budget request. It is $43 billion less than the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2011. We have been able to find savings without reducing our strong commitment to the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families, without undermining their ability to accomplish the mission we have assigned to them that they handle so remarkably bravely and consistently. So we have identified and scrubbed this budget to find those savings, and the bill we will be voting cloture on--and, hopefully, adopting cloture-- reflects those savings.

Because of our action last night on the counterfeit parts amendment, the bill now contains important new provisions to help fight the tide of counterfeit electronic parts, primarily from China, that is flooding the defense supply chain. I went through the provisions last night, and I will not repeat them here other than to say we are taking strong action to make sure the parts that are provided to our weapons systems are new parts as required and are not counterfeit parts.

There are a number of steps in this bill. They are effective and strong steps. We require, for instance, that parts that are being supplied come from the original manufacturer of those parts or an authorized distributor of those parts or, if that is not possible because the parts are no longer being manufactured or there is no authorized distributor, that whoever is supplying those parts be certified by the Department of Defense, the way they currently are, by one part of the Department of Defense, the Missile Defense Agency, as being a reliable supplier.

We have had too many cases of missiles and airplanes that have defective parts, and the lives of our people in uniform depend upon these as being quality parts. We are not going to accept the status quo anymore in terms of counterfeiting, mainly from China, and we are taking this strong action in

this bill now, following last night's action, to make sure this status quo is reversed.

We have over 96,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines on the ground in Afghanistan. We have 13,000, as we speak, remaining in Iraq. There are many issues upon which we disagree. But every one of us knows we must provide our troops with the support they need and deserve as long as they are in harm's way. Senate action on the Defense bill will improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform. It will give them the tools they need to remain the most effective fighting force in the world, and it will also send a critically important message that we as a nation stand behind our troops and their families and we appreciate their service.

So I hope we can adopt the cloture motion which is before us so we can proceed to the postcloture period, where we can then resolve the remaining amendments that can be resolved, and then pass this bill, hopefully, tomorrow. But we have a lot of work to do today and tomorrow. We have many dozens of amendments yet to be voted on, disposed of, and hopefully cleared in many cases.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, the following amendments have been cleared by myself and the ranking member. We have cleared a number of amendments on both sides. We are working with many Members. There will be an additional package after this one. We are going to continue to try to clear amendments. We expect that we will. We know of no objection to any of the following amendments despite their being available for review.

They are amendments numbered: 1056 on behalf of Senator Wicker, 1066 on behalf of Senator Ayotte, 1102 on behalf of Senator Inhofe, 1116 on behalf of Senator Wicker, 1122 on behalf of Senator Shaheen, 1129 on behalf of Senator Reid, 1130 on behalf of Senator Reid, 1132 on behalf of Senator McCain, 1134 on behalf of Senator Blunt, 1143 on behalf of Senators Hagan and Portman, 1149, as modified by changes at the desk, on behalf of Senator Begich, 1162 on behalf of Senator Warner, 1164 on behalf of Senator Warner, 1165 on behalf of Senator Warner, 1166, on behalf of Senator Warner, 1167, as modified by changes at the desk, on behalf of Senator Warner, 1178, as modified by changes at the desk, on behalf of Senator Murray, 1180, as modified by changes at the desk, on behalf of Senator Collins, 1183, as modified by changes at the desk, on behalf of Senator Sessions, 1207 on behalf of Senator Coburn, 1210 on behalf of Senator Nelson (FL), 1227 on behalf of Senators McCain and Portman, 1215, as modified by changes at the desk, on behalf of Senator Casey, 1228 on behalf of Senators McCain and Portman, 1237 on behalf of Senator Shaheen, 1240 on behalf of Senator Warner, 1245 on behalf of Senator McCain, 1250 on behalf of Senator McCain, 1266 on behalf of Senator Warner, 1276 on behalf of Senator Baucus, 1280 on behalf of Senator McCain, 1281, as modified, on behalf of Senator McCain, 1298 on behalf of Senators Webb and Graham, 1301 on behalf of Senator Levin, 1303 on behalf of Senators Levin and McCain, 1315 on behalf of Senator Hatch, 1317 on behalf of Senator Portman, 1324 on behalf of Senator Cochran, 1326 on behalf of Senator Risch, and 1332 on behalf of Senators Lieberman and Cornyn.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider these amendments en bloc, that the modifications at the desk be adopted, the amendments be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I thank Senator McCain and our staffs. We are going to continue to work to clear additional amendments following the cloture vote. We are now voting on cloture. We all as leaders and managers, of course, hope that this will pass.

Madam President, the only additional suggestion I would have is that Members who come here who have amendments that are both pending and germane, assuming we get cloture, if they could check with us, either side here, to see where they are on the chronology, they will get a feel as to where they are, because we are going to attempt to move down the chronology as amendments were made pending.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Cardin amendment, No. 1073, be withdrawn. That has the approval of the sponsor of the amendment.

Mr. President, I support the amendment of the Senator from Tennessee. It is a balanced amendment which deals with a very complex situation. What Senator Corker is doing is pointing out very important facts. One is that Pakistan has received a lot of funds from the United States for this particular purpose which is aimed at helping the success of our operations in Afghanistan. The whole purpose of the coalition support fund is to reimburse Pakistan for the support they provide--for instance, in providing security for trucks and other equipment that is going through Pakistan that have oil, fuel, food going into Afghanistan to support the effort in Afghanistan. That is the purpose of these funds. It is a good purpose. This is not a foreign aid deal; this is a reimbursement deal.

The problem is that while on the one hand the Pakistanis are assisting us, on the other hand they are assisting our enemy and the enemy of mankind and the enemy of the Afghan people and the enemy of the coalition forces in Afghanistan. That is the problem. That is the dilemma which we all face and which this amendment seeks to address. Again, it does so in a way which doesn't prejudge the outcome of the assessment, but it makes a very important point, which is, as is now stated in the amended final paragraph, that we need recommendations given this ``on the one hand they are with us, on the other hand they are against us'' situation. We need recommendations from the administration, if any, relating to potential alternatives to or termination of reimbursements for the coalition support fund, the Government of Pakistan, taking into account the transition plan for Afghanistan.

I agree with my friend from Arizona that we send condolences to the families of troops in Pakistan who have recently lost their lives. We also have to understand that Pakistan has paid a huge price for terrorism in their country against their people. They have paid a massive price. But what is unacceptable to us is that they are making us pay a price by providing a safe haven for the Haqqanis and for the Quetta Shura. Our troops, our families, coalition troops, coalition families, Afghan troops, and Afghan families are paying a heavy price because of the Pakistan support through their ISI for the insurgency in Afghanistan.

Admiral Mullen, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put it very succinctly. He said the Haqqani Network is a veritable arm of the Pakistan intelligence service. When he was pressed on that formulation, he said he meant every word of it.

So we have to send an important message to Pakistan, and the message is that we want a normal relationship if we can have one, but we cannot have a normal relationship if you are, on the one hand, supporting the very people who are attacking us in Afghanistan and, on the other hand, purporting to help us through the protection of supplies going through Pakistan, helping us succeed in Afghanistan.

We cannot have it both ways. They cannot have it both ways. This amendment sends a very significant and important message, I believe, to the Pakistanis and to our coalition allies and to our Afghan partners that what is going on inside Pakistan has to come to an end. I believe this will help bring that important result about. So I very much support the amendment of Mr. Corker, the Senator from Tennessee, and hope we can adopt it.

If there is no further debate about it--there may be others who do want to debate, so I yield the floor.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I believe Senator Cantwell will want to be recognized.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Not only does 1031, the overall section, not change the law, it incorporates it, according to the administration's own statement of policy on what the current law is. The Senator is right. There is nothing in here which in any way affects habeas corpus, nor should we seek to do so. Habeas corpus remains exactly as it is. We could not change it if we wanted to, and we don't want to.

While the Senator asked me a question, I wish to answer a question with a question to him. Is it not true that for the first time, we provide that where there is going to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent who could be held in long-term detention under the law of war--for the first time we provide a judge and a lawyer to that person; is that right?

I read this yesterday, and I will read it again now. The Senator is right. I don't know how anybody reading this can reach any other conclusion but what the Supreme

Court says, not because they are right or wrong but because of the Supreme Court: ``There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.''

By the way, nor should there be, in my judgment.

They have, and they have been treated as enemy combatants.

I agree.

It is good policy. If they decline, under the procedures under our language, the person should be first interrogated for whatever length of time those procedures provide--by the FBI, local police or anybody else. They have the right to do that.

Yes.

Mr. President, I want one quick moment to respond and then I will propound a unanimous consent request.

We couldn't change the Constitution here if we wanted to, and nobody does want to. And that includes the right of habeas corpus. All the constitutional rights which the Senator from Illinois talked about are constitutional rights. They are there. They are guaranteed. They couldn't be changed by the Congress if we wanted to, and I hope nobody wants to change those rights.

But what the Senator ignores, and what has been ignored generally here, is that there is another path, and the Supreme Court has approved this path so that if any American citizen joins a foreign army in attacking us, that person may be treated as an enemy combatant. That is not me speaking. That is the Supreme Court in Hamdi.

There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.

If you join an army and attack us, you can be treated as an enemy combatant. The Supreme Court has said so more than once.

My unanimous consent request is the following: that the Senator from California be recognized first for whatever comments she wishes to make, then the senior Senator from Illinois be recognized to speak on whatever subject he wishes--on the amendment of the Senator from California or whatever--and then Senator Merkley's amendment be in order to be called up by Senator Merkley.

It does not.

I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question. Would the Senator agree that the majority opinion in Hamdi said the following:

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

citizens as an enemy combatant.

Would the Senator agree that specifically referred to there is that a citizen being held as an enemy combatant is--excuse me. Would the Senator agree that what he read refers to the exact statement of the Justice that a citizen who is held as an enemy combatant is entitled to certain rights? Would the Senator agree that that, by its own terms, says that a citizen can be held as an enemy combatant?

She did not say that. She said ``a citizen.'' I know what the facts of the case are. She did not limit it to the facts of the case.

She did not limit it to that. She described the facts of that case.

I agree with the Senator that Justice O'Connor said what the Senator said she said. Would the Senator agree with me that Justice O'Connor said:

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

citizens as an enemy combatant.

Would the Senator agree that she said that?

Would the Senator agree she said that, however?

I am giving the Senator an exact quote. I know the facts of the case.

You already have. Given the facts of the case. I understand the facts of the case, that it was somebody captured in Afghanistan. My question is, of the Senator: Would he agree that Justice O'Connor said--she is talking about this case, of course----

``There is no bar to this Nation holding one of its own citizens''?

Would the Senator agree that the Justice said the following, that a citizen, no less than an alien, can be ``part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners'' and ``engaged in an armed conflict against the United States,'' and would pose the same threat of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict? Would the Senator agree that she said that?

Would the Senator agree that she quoted from the Quirin case, in which an American citizen was captured on Long Island?

Did she cite that with approval?

I understand.

My question, though--my question is: Did Justice O'Connor say that, in Quirin, that one of the detainees alleged that he was a naturalized United States citizen, we held that--these are her exact words:

Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of

the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and

direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy

belligerents within the meaning of . . . the law of war.

Did she say that?

She is quoting with approval from the Quirin case in which one of the detainees was----

According to a unanimous consent agreement which was entered into----

I understand Senator Merkley was going to be recognized next to offer his amendment. That was according to the unanimous consent agreement. I understand the Senator from New Hampshire, I don't know for how long, needed to make a unanimous consent request. Am I correct? No? I am incorrect.

According to the existing unanimous consent agreement, which was entered into----

I believe it is now in order for Senator Merkley to offer amendment No. 1257, as amended, with the amendment at the desk. The amendment at the desk has four words added to the printed amendment, and those words are ``NATO and coalition allies''; is that correct?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I wonder if the Senator would just seek the right to--the Senator has a right to speak on another amendment without setting aside this amendment. So I ask that the Senator not set aside the pending amendment but just simply speak on whatever amendment he wishes to speak.

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

Mr. President, let me just ask Senator Merkley a question, and then I think we can proceed from there.

It is my understanding that the original language in this and related amendments had the dates 2012 and 2014 in them, and it could have been interpreted that the Senator was trying to press those dates forward rather than address--as I interpret the Senator's current amendment-- the pace of reductions after consultation with the people the Senator has identified. Am I correct?

Mr. President, unless there is someone else here who wants to speak, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I understand the Senator from New Hampshire----

Mr. President, while the Senator from Minnesota is here, let me add my voice of thanks and appreciation for what she continually is fighting for in the area of sexual assault. Her amendment makes great sense. We have cleared it on our side. We hope it gets cleared so that we can get this into a package--and we hope we can get a package that is adopted.

But I want to just commend the Senator for her intrepid effort that is awe inspiring on behalf of people who need all of the fight and all of the protection that we can give them, those are people who have been assaulted sexually. I commend the Senator.

Before the amendment is adopted, I just wanted to indicate our support of the amendment. It is in a very significant area which has to do with our force structure in the Pacific. Senator McCain has been very active wanting to look at that because we have to look at it in depth. He has agreed that this study, which will be done in consultation with people who have knowledge, can be done independently and in a prompt way with an independent study.

I think he has reached that conclusion. I think he is right. I believe Senator Webb, if he were here, would want to indicate his strong support because the three of us have worked together for this kind of an effort.

With that, I would indicate my strong support.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we indeed have been making progress, No. 1. We made significant progress today both on the pending amendments that needed to be addressed by the full Senate, as well as a major package of amendments which has been cleared on both sides.

There is another package of amendments to which there has been no-- they have been cleared, which means they are available to everybody, and

there is no objection by anybody to the substance of those amendments. If there is any objection, then they are not going to be cleared. They would then have to be brought up to the whole body.

Tomorrow we have a number of significant amendments to address, including the Feinstein amendments, the Menendez-Kirk amendment on Iran sanctions, just being a few of them. But there are a number of other ones as well. In a moment, what I am going to be asking for is unanimous consent that when we come in tomorrow the first amendment pending be my amendment, No. 1293, on high-speed ferries, which apparently will require a rollcall vote.

So I just want to alert everybody that while we are preparing a unanimous consent agreement laying out what the order will be for tomorrow, what we will start with, that is our intention. I have talked already, of course, to Senator McCain about that. He is agreeable that we start with that amendment, No. 1293.

Mr. President, the Sessions amendment, as modified, has been reviewed. I know it has cleared on this side. I am confident it has been cleared by both sides of the aisle.

The amendment would require the Department of Defense to report to Congress on the findings and conclusions of the Department's Homeland Missile Defense Hedging Strategy Review, including a discussion of the feasibility and advisability of establishing a missile defense site on the east coast of the United States.

The administration officials have committed to providing Congress with the results of its Hedging Strategy Review. This amendment would make it clear that the Department is required to do exactly that, and I just want to thank the Senator for his amendment, for modifying it, and I hope now we can adopt it.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Now I believe we have one other, Senator Inhofe's amendment, which now I think is agreeable on both sides.

Amendment No. 1098, as Modified

Mr. President, I thank Senator Inhofe for the modification of his amendment. It is agreeable on our side.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I believe Senator Inhofe may wish to be recognized to talk about another amendment or a couple amendments that he has. We will not take any further action on those amendments now.

I think we are perhaps, hopefully, ready soon to offer a unanimous consent on what I described a moment ago--how we will begin in the morning. We will wait for that to be prepared.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wonder if while the Senator from Oklahoma is here--we are trying to get a current list of amendments. Is it his intent to withdraw amendment No. 1101 on C-12 aircraft?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for helping us to get our list of amendments whittled down to where we can hopefully have a manageable group for tomorrow. We are going to have a very busy day tomorrow. We have a lot of amendments to address and dispose of. It is doable because we have had the cooperation of Senators. It is our goal--we must finish this by 6 o'clock.

Everybody has a right to a vote if their amendment is germane. We hope we will have a chance to debate all these amendments as well as vote on them. I believe we will be coming in at 9:30. That is the current plan, and we will be back on the bill at 11. We have to start off immediately. I hope we will vote on my amendment within a few minutes after it is offered. There will be some debate in opposition to my amendment, I understand.

Hopefully, the Senators who oppose it will be notified tonight that my amendment is first up and we are going to be prepared to debate this at 11 o'clock.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of S. 1867, the Defense authorization bill, tomorrow, December 1, 2011, the pending amendment be the Levin amendment No. 1293, relative to high-speed ferries.

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 suggest the absence of a quorum.