Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and colleague, Senator Kyl, in introducing legislation that will ensure that monies in the Crime Victims Fund are used for their intended purpose, to help victims of crime.

Senator Kyl and I have long worked together to improve the treatment of victims in our criminal justice system. In 2004, we passed the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Because of that legislation, for the first time, victims were given the right to be heard in what is really their own case, and to participate in the proceedings against the accused.

The legislation we are introducing today will strengthen another area of federal law that has a profound impact on the ability of victims to navigate the criminal justice system. In 1984, Congress established the Crime Victims Fund to provide support for victim compensation and assistance programs. This past year, $37 million from the Crime Victims Fund was used to support over 300 victim-witness coordinators and specialists within the Department of Justice's 93 U.S. Attorney's Offices and the FBI's 56 field offices. These personnel advise victims of their rights, update victims on the status of criminal proceedings against the accused, and otherwise assist victims with understanding the operation of the judicial system.

However, it was recently brought to the attention of Senator Kyl and myself that these victim-witness coordinators and specialists are being asked to perform duties unrelated to the provision of services for victims. The diversion of funds from victim services prompted the National Organization for Victim Assistance to send a letter this past June, which I am submitting for the record, calling on Congress to clarify the purposes for which monies in the Crime Victims Fund may be used. Senator Kyl's and my legislation would do just that. It will make clear that resources available under the Crime Victims Fund may be used only to support services for victims.

A person who is a victim of a crime may have never stepped foot inside a courtroom or had any other interaction with our legal system prior to the commission of the crime. Yet, so much is at stake for that victim when the accused is prosecuted. Congress established the Crime Victims Fund to ensure that victims are able to fully participate in their case. We must make certain that 100 percent of these funds are used to support victims during their time of great need.

The legislation Senator Kyl and I are introducing today has already passed out of the Judiciary Committee as part of the Justice For All Reauthorization Act of 2011. While that broader legislation has unfortunately stalled, it is my hope that the Senate and House can quickly pass this one specific, uncontroversial piece, to ensure that victims of crime have all the support that they need and deserve.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend and colleague, Senator Kyl, in introducing legislation that will ensure that monies in the Crime Victims Fund are used for their intended purpose, to help victims of crime.

Senator Kyl and I have long worked together to improve the treatment of victims in our criminal justice system. In 2004, we passed the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Because of that legislation, for the first time, victims were given the right to be heard in what is really their own case, and to participate in the proceedings against the accused.

The legislation we are introducing today will strengthen another area of federal law that has a profound impact on the ability of victims to navigate the criminal justice system. In 1984, Congress established the Crime Victims Fund to provide support for victim compensation and assistance programs. This past year, $37 million from the Crime Victims Fund was used to support over 300 victim-witness coordinators and specialists within the Department of Justice's 93 U.S. Attorney's Offices and the FBI's 56 field offices. These personnel advise victims of their rights, update victims on the status of criminal proceedings against the accused, and otherwise assist victims with understanding the operation of the judicial system.

However, it was recently brought to the attention of Senator Kyl and myself that these victim-witness coordinators and specialists are being asked to perform duties unrelated to the provision of services for victims. The diversion of funds from victim services prompted the National Organization for Victim Assistance to send a letter this past June, which I am submitting for the record, calling on Congress to clarify the purposes for which monies in the Crime Victims Fund may be used. Senator Kyl's and my legislation would do just that. It will make clear that resources available under the Crime Victims Fund may be used only to support services for victims.

A person who is a victim of a crime may have never stepped foot inside a courtroom or had any other interaction with our legal system prior to the commission of the crime. Yet, so much is at stake for that victim when the accused is prosecuted. Congress established the Crime Victims Fund to ensure that victims are able to fully participate in their case. We must make certain that 100 percent of these funds are used to support victims during their time of great need.

The legislation Senator Kyl and I are introducing today has already passed out of the Judiciary Committee as part of the Justice For All Reauthorization Act of 2011. While that broader legislation has unfortunately stalled, it is my hope that the Senate and House can quickly pass this one specific, uncontroversial piece, to ensure that victims of crime have all the support that they need and deserve.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize today an extraordinary public servant and a dedicated leader of the U.S. intelligence community, Ms. Caryn Anne Wagner, the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis--I&A--at the Department of Homeland Security. After 30 years of devoted Federal service, Caryn came out of retirement in 2010 when the President nominated her to the Under Secretary position. She was confirmed for this position and has proven herself a manager and leader of what had been a troubled agency. After nearly 3 years in the job, Ms. Wagner will retire again on Friday, December 21. I am sorry to see her leave but wish her the very best as she prepares for her next chapter.

I came to know Caryn when she was nominated to be the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis. Since then, she has drawn on the depth and breadth of her experience in the intelligence community and the Congress to build the foundations of a Homeland Security intelligence office that will long outlast her tenure. The mission of I&A is to provide the Department of Homeland Security with the intelligence and information it needs to keep the homeland safe, secure, and resilient and to bring to the intelligence community the information and analysis from the Department's thousands of officers posted at our Nation's airports, borders, and numerous other places around the world. It also informs and empowers State, local, and tribal governments and law enforcement on the frontlines of our homeland defense against terrorism.

Caryn's many years of experience in the intelligence community, combined with an indepth knowledge of the National Intelligence Program, collaborative instincts, and insightful thinking on intelligence matters have been key components of her success. She previously held senior positions involving oversight of the collection and analysis of intelligence to include: the Director of Analysis and Production and Director of the Military intelligence staff for the Defense Intelligence Agency, where she was responsible for development and management of the General Defense Intelligence Program; the Defense Intelligence Agency's senior representative to the U.S. European Command and North Atlantic Treaty Organization--NATO--Assistant Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Management and the first chief financial officer for the National Intelligence Program; as well as the Executive Director for Intelligence Community Affairs. In that role, she was responsible for the Community Management staff, which provided strategic planning, policy formulation, resource planning, program assessment and budget oversight for the intelligence community. Adding to her experience in the executive branch, she also served for a brief time in the private sector, where she provided support to military operations, intelligence planning, and intelligence systems architecture development. She also served our Nation in uniform for 8 years as a signals intelligence and electronic warfare officer in the U.S. Army, and in the Congress as budget director for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

But I want to note in particular her role as Under Secretary in the Department of Homeland Security. Caryn stepped into a relatively new organization that had some notable problems,

to include an unclear mission, a shocking overreliance on a workforce in which government contractors outnumbered employees, and major shortfalls in office budgeting and spending. Drawing upon her considerable experience, Caryn was able to shape I&A's personnel structure to match as closely as possible that of the larger intelligence community; thereby greatly decreasing the number of contractors, flattening the Federal grade structure, and moving junior and midgrade personnel into career ladder positions. She also addressed and conquered basic management challenges that had previously gone unnoticed and unaddressed. As a result, I&A now has a functioning process to develop a budget request and execution plan; procedures in place for hiring and training qualified personnel; and procedures for identifying the need for policies, then writing, publishing and enforcing them.

While overseeing the Department of Homeland Security's intelligence functions, Under Secretary Wagner has promoted information sharing and engagement with State, local, and tribal partners and has championed the consolidation of the Department's counterintelligence mission. In the critical area of cyber security, Caryn has overseen I&A's close collaboration and analytic support to the Department's National Protection and Programs Directorate.

Under Secretary Wagner has approached every issue with a pragmatic and professional approach that should be a model for all who follow her.

I would also like to note that over the past year or so, I have had a series of dinners and informal gatherings with senior women in the intelligence community. In that context, I have gotten to know Caryn on a more personal level, and I hope that we will continue our friendship after her retirement.

Our Nation owes this public servant a tremendous debt of gratitude. I wish to thank her on behalf of the committee for her decades of exceptional service to our country and to wish her and her husband Chad the very best in the days and years ahead. Caryn can at long last dedicate more time to her love of gardening, travel, theater going and fine dining, and I wish her all the very best.

Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for the nomination of Fernando Olguin, whom I recommended to President Obama to be a U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California after he earned a strong recommendation from my bipartisan judicial selection committee.

Born and raised in the greater Los Angeles community of Azusa, Judge Olguin lives in the Los Angeles area today.

He is a graduate of Harvard University and the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.

After serving for 2 years as a law clerk to a Federal district court judge in Arizona, Judge Olguin joined the U.S. Department of Justice through the Attorney General's Honors Program.

From 1991 through 1994, Judge Olguin served as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division in Washington, DC, enforcing numerous Federal statutes, including the Fair Housing Act and the Public Accommodations Act.

He then joined the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, or MALDEF, serving as its national education program director from 1994 to 1995 in Washington, DC.

Judge Olguin then came back to California, becoming a partner at the law firm Traber, Voorhees, and Olguin, where he practiced civil litigation from 1995 to 2001.

He was appointed to serve as a magistrate judge in 2001, where he has built a stellar record. In his 11 years on the bench, he has managed a docket of hundreds of cases at a time and issued hundreds of published opinions, as well as nearly 2,000 decisions and orders.

In 2011, he had the best record of any magistrate judge on the court at working with litigants to settle their disputes. This is very important in a busy district like the Central District, whose judges carry the seventh-highest civil caseload in the Nation.

Judge Olguin is well respected in the L.A. community, and he is supported by the law enforcement community including L.A.P.D. Chief Charlie Beck, L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca, and the Los Angeles Police Protective League.

Chief Beck says Judge Olguin's record ``has been characterized by fairness, thoroughness, sound judgment, and evenness of temperament.''

In short, Judge Olguin is well-qualified, seasoned, and fair. I am very proud to support him, and I urge my colleagues to support him as well.

I also want to urge the confirmations of other judicial nominees from my home State, many of which have been pending on the executive calendar for months.

Including Judge Olguin, four of the 13 District Court nominees on the executive calendar are from California. The other nominees are: Superior Court Judge Jon Tigar and Bill Orrick, nominees to the Northern District recommended by Senator Boxer; and Superior Court Judge Troy Nunley, a nominee to the Eastern District whom I recommended to the President.

All three were approved by bipartisan votes in the Judiciary Committee, two of them by voice vote.

Each of these districts is in a judicial emergency according to the Judicial Conference of the United States.

The Northern District's caseload is over 20 percent above the national average. It now takes over 50 percent longer for a case to go to trial than it did a year ago in the Northern District, which hears some of our country's most complex technology cases.

The Eastern District is the most overworked district in the Nation by far. With over 1,100 weighted filings per

judgeship, its caseload is over twice the national average.

With this extreme crisis, I especially urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to allow Judge Troy Nunley to be confirmed this year.

Judge Nunley essentially was a career prosecutor and State Department of Justice lawyer before joining the State bench over 10 years ago. He is highly qualified and experienced. He also earned unanimous support in the Judiciary Committee, so he is uncontroversial.

I am very pleased we recently confirmed Jesus Bernal to the Central District, and I urge my colleagues to support Judge Olguin as well.

My State--more than any other--urgently needs us to take prompt action on judicial nominees. I am pleased with the progress we have made in the lameduck, and I very much hope the three other California nominees who remain on the calendar will be confirmed.

Madam President, today I wish to express my support for legislation granting permanent normal trade relations, PNTR, to Russia.

We need to act now so that our exporters can take advantage of Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization, WTO, in August.

The House voted to approve PNTR for Russia on November 16th on a 365- 43 vote. The Senate Finance Committee approved its version of the bill on a 24-0 vote in July.

The legislation enjoys widespread support among manufacturers, service providers, and farmers.

It has been endorsed by, among others, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Farm Bureau.

As a part of joining the WTO, Russia negotiated agreements with each member, including the United States, making commitments to eliminate non-tariff barriers, protect intellectual property, liberalize key sectors such as services, and improve its business climate.

For example, Russia agreed to: lower tariffs on industrial products from an average rate of 10 percent to 7 percent; not raise tariffs on 90 percent of agricultural products and keep them at 15 percent or lower; join the WTO Information Technology Agreement and eliminate tariffs on major IT products within 3 years; abide by WTO rules on enforcement of intellectual property rights; and remove limitations on foreign equity in telecommunications companies, insurance companies, banks, and wholesale and retail enterprises.

These commitments will be subject to the WTO's dispute settlement process and help promote greater transparency and a more stable business environment for foreign investors.

Since the United States is a member of the WTO, this agreement includes only concessions by Russia. The United States will not lower a single tariff, provide any market access benefits, or make any changes to U.S. trade law.

Under WTO rules, however, in order for the United States to take advantage of Russia's commitments, it must enact permanent normal trade relations for Russia.

Currently, Russia enjoys normal trade relations, NTR, status--the status enjoyed by a trading partner that faces the most favorable U.S. tariffs in exchange for similar benefits for U.S. exports.

This status must be renewed on an annual basis due to a provision enacted in the Trade Act of 1974--the so-called ``Jackson-Vanik'' amendment--in response to concerns about Jewish emigration from the former Soviet Union.

That law conditions normal trade relations status on a country allowing its citizens to emigrate freely.

Russia has consistently met the requirements of Jackson-Vanik since the fall of the Soviet Union and its NTR status has been renewed annually without debate since 1994.

Yet, WTO rules mandate that its members provide each other with unconditional or ``permanent'' normal trade relations. That is, we have to treat each member equally, extending them the most favorable U.S. tariffs in exchange for similar benefits without restrictions.

Otherwise, they are under no obligation to extend the same favorable treatment to U.S. exports.

Since the United States only grants Russia conditional or annual normal trade relations status, the United States is not in compliance with these rules and Russia can refuse to extend the market access commitments it made to join the WTO to U.S. exports.

This is putting our exports at a competitive disadvantage because every other WTO member--155 in total--has permanent normal trade relations with Russia and has been receiving the benefits of Russian membership in the WTO since August.

So while we delay, our manufacturers, service providers, farmers, and workers are losing out on a fast-growing market.

Russia has a gross domestic product of $2.2 trillion, the sixth largest in the world. Its economy is expected to grow by 4 percent annually through 2015, according to the International Trade Administration.

U.S.-Russia trade grew by 37.9 percent in 2011 and total U.S.-Russia trade stood at $42.9 billion.

This mutually beneficial relationship will continue to grow by enacting this legislation.

Let me repeat: for those who may be concerned about this legislation's effects on U.S. jobs, it is important to

point out that the United States will not have to lower a single tariff or make any market concessions on Russian imports by approving permanent normal trade relations.

All concessions will be made by Russia as a part of its agreement to join the WTO.

What does this legislation mean for my home State of California?

Among U.S. States, California is currently the 4th largest exporter to Russia, according to the Coalition for U.S. Russia Trade. According to the Business Roundtable, California exported $665 million worth of goods to Russia in 2011, supporting 2,000 California jobs.

In 2011 California's exported $156 million of computers and electronics to Russia, our top export. Yet, U.S. companies only held 4.2 percent of the Russian import market compared to 36.5 percent for the European Union, EU.

As part of its WTO accession, Russia agreed to eliminate tariffs on IT products and take additional actions to protect IPR, including joining the WTO Information Technology Agreement.

In 2011, California exported $47 million of pharmaceuticals to Russia, but the EU held 77 percent of the import market. As a part of its WTO accession, Russia agreed to lower its tariff to 4.4 percent.

In 2011, California exported $90 million of cars to Russia, the world's 6th largest car market. U.S. cars, however, make up only 4 percent of Russian imports while Japan has 40 percent of the market and the EU has 35 percent.

As a part of its WTO accession, Russia agreed to reduce its tariff on cars from 20-35 percent to 15 percent.

In addition, for California agriculture, Russia has agreed to: lower tariffs on dairy from 19.8 percent to 14.9 percent; reduce its tariff on grapes from 10 percent to 5 percent within 3 years; lower tariffs on cereals from 15.1 percent to 10 percent; and establish lower in-quota tariff rates for pork, poultry, and beef.

Unless we pass permanent normal trade relations, our foreign competitors will be able to use the concessions Russia made when joining the WTO to protect their companies and workers and increase their market share, while the United States will not be able to do the same for our companies and workers.

As a result, failure to pass this legislation will only make it harder for California and U.S. companies to compete in Russia.

The legislation would also impose sanctions on individuals linked to the incarceration and death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky.

Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian attorney who was arrested in 2008 after alleging wide-scale tax fraud by several law enforcement and government officials. He died in prison a year later due to health complications while awaiting trial.

Investigations later found that Mr. Magnitsky was beaten and did not receive proper medical attention. His case gained international attention and was used to highlight systematic violations of human rights in the Russian judicial system.

It is my hope that this provision will help bring those responsible for Mr. Magnitsky's death to justice and encourage Russia to do more to tackle corruption and promote a greater respect for human rights and the rule of law.

This is critical if Russia is to enjoy the full benefits of WTO membership and attract more foreign investment.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I oppose this amendment, and I ask Members to vote against it. The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire just said that any transfer of Guantanamo detainees out of that facility essentially endangers Americans. But consider how effectively we hold terrorists in the United States today.

We have 180 terrorists in Federal prisons in the United States of America who are in maximum security, and they cannot escape. We have supermax prisons. We have prisons where for 23 hours a day individuals are in a cell that is all concrete with just a small viewing place.

What this amendment would do is prevent any flexibility forever in how the U.S. government can handle those held in Guantanamo Bay. For example, the Guantanamo detainees could not be moved to a supermax prison in the United States. I don't think preventing options is the right thing to do. No one in all these years has escaped from a supermax prison in the United States of America. So clearly, the detainees could be held safely and securely.

Additionally, I believe this amendment could bring on a veto by the President. Today, a statement of administration policy was issued that indicated concern about restricting the transfer of Guantanamo detainees.

I believe Guantanamo has been a blight on the image of our country across this world and it should be closed down. It is important to note that there are reasons to have the flexibility that Senator Ayotte's amendment would restrict.

For example, there are detainees at Guantanamo who could be transferred to the U.S. to be convicted in federal criminal courts. Others try to leave, like the Uighurs, for instance, but there is no place for them to go. And this amendment restricts them from being transferred here to the United States.

Many say, why would we let terrorists come to our backyard? Well, let's consider the hundreds of terrorists that are already in our backyard serving time at 98 facilities across the United States, according to a GAO report released yesterday.

The Blind Sheik is incarcerated in a Federal prison in the U.S. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's nephew, Ramzi Yousef, is in a Federal prison here. Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber, is in a Federal prison here. Najibullah Zazi and Adis Medunjanin, who plotted to bomb New York subway system, are both in Federal prison here.

I have a list of terrorists arrested here, 98 of them since 2009, who will go to Federal prisons. Let me describe a few of these arrests. One of the examples was earlier this month, Ralph Deleon, with Miguel Alejandro Santana Vidriales and Arifeen David Gojali were arrested by the FBI. They were planning to travel to Afghanistan to attend terrorist training and commit violent jihad. They will do time in a Federal prison here. Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis plotted to bomb the New York Federal Reserve Bank on October 20, 2012. He will do time in a Federal prison here. Adel Daoud plotted to bomb a downtown Chicago bar in September 2012, and he will do time in a Federal prison here.

Our Federal prisons hold terrorists already and they will continue to hold them. So to remove any kind of flexibility on Guantanamo and to say that you cannot move a detainee out of the facility and into a Federal prison in the United States is a mistake. I very strongly believe perpetuating Guantanamo forever is a mistake. So I ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

I yield the floor.

I do not need additional time. I would be willing to add an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I have heard a lot of hyperbole tonight. Of course we are at war. Part of the glory of this country is the values we hold dear. We have a Federal court system that has worked. We have 373 people connected to terrorism serving time in the Federal prisons of the United States of America. They are under an entity called the Bureau of Prisons that sees that the facilities are run the way they should be. Most are in isolated areas, such as the one in Florence in Colorado. It is far from the city--I think some 30 miles--and is a maximum security prison in part.

The GAO report just released yesterday showed that the Federal prison system can hold Guantanamo detainees safely and securely. To keep Guantanamo open forever, to say that there is no flexibility as to what you can do with the detainees in terms of transferring them into the United States, into Federal custody, I think is wrong.

I have seen and watched on the Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee real problems with military commissions. I think Senator Graham understands that and has seen it as well. I do not believe the rate of convictions in Military Commissions any way equals the rate of convictions in Federal courts and think about how much time it has taken to get the Military Commission trials going compared to federal courts.

I really think this is very much a kind of political movement, that Guantanamo, isolated from everything, run by the military, has to keep people for the rest of their lives. Maybe that is what some people think. But a terrorist act is also a criminal act. It is a heinous criminal act, but one which our federal criminal courts can provide justice. Not just Guantanamo. So I really urge a ``no'' vote on this. Hopefully, if it passes, it can be removed in conference.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3018.

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

I note that Senator Lee is on the floor, and I know he wants to speak as he is a cosponsor of this amendment. So I will yield to him, and then when he finishes I will speak.

Mr. President, the amendment before us is cosponsored by the distinguished Senator who just spoke, Senator Lee, as well as Senators Coons, Collins, Paul, Lautenberg, Gillibrand, Kirk, Tester, Johnson, Sanders, Whitehouse, Heller, Baucus, DeMint, Webb, Klobuchar, Bingaman, Rockefeller, Begich, and Boxer. An amendment similar to this received 45 votes in the last session.

I wish to spend a moment on the genesis of this amendment because, for me, it goes back to April 1942, the day a Western Defense Command and Fourth Army Wartime Civil Control order went out in San Francisco with instructions to all persons of Japanese ancestry, that: All Japanese persons, both alien and nonalien, will be evacuated from the above designated areas by 12 o'clock noon on Tuesday, April 7, 1942. No Japanese person will be permitted to enter or leave the above described area after 8 a.m. Thursday.

That was in the city of San Francisco.

What was created was an internment camp near the city which became a staging area for the placement of Japanese Americans in detention camps without charge or trial for the remainder of World War II.

This was Tanforan Racetrack, directly south of San Francisco. One Sunday afternoon--I was a small child in 1942--my father took me down to show it to me. This is what I saw. We see stalls made into bunk houses. We see the center of the field made into barracks. We see the little places where individuals were kept. We see Japanese-American citizens who did nothing wrong who were being interned for years during World War II.

It was shocking. Then it took until 1971 for a bill to be passed and then signed by President Nixon reversing the policy. That bill was called the Non-Detention Act of 1971, and it repealed a 1950 statute that explicitly allowed detention of U.S. citizens. That 1971 bill said--and I quote:

No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the

United States except pursuant to an act of Congress.

Since then and after 9/11, various cases were litigated and went as far up as the Supreme Court. One of them in 2004 was Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and it addressed a very narrow issue involving a citizen captured on the battlefield of Afghanistan. Then a second case, Padilla v. Rumsfeld, in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals involved an American citizen captured in the U.S.

So the question is whether the Non-Detention Act of 1971 prevents U.S. citizens captured in the U.S. like Padilla from being detained or whether the AUMF passed after 9/11 authorizes such law of war detention in the U.S.

What we are trying to do with this simple amendment is what is called a clear statement rule, to say once and for all:

An authorization to use military force, a declaration of

war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the

detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful

permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the

United States unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes

such detention.

I know this is a sensitive subject, but I believe we stand on the values of our country, and one of the values of our country is justice for all. And we have a Constitution that has 7 articles and 27 amendments that give us fundamental protections.

This amendment, which builds on the continuing application of the principles behind the Non-Detention Act of 1971, would provide very clearly that no military authorization allows the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens or green card holders who are apprehended inside the United States. Some may ask why just include citizens and green card holders. Let me be clear, if I could further and add ``all persons'' and get as many votes, I would. I do not think it would, and we have looked into how to do this for a year now. So we have limited it to what we believed could get the maximum number of votes in this body.

Here is the point of this amendment: What if something happens and you are of the wrong race in the wrong place at the wrong time, and you are picked up and held without trial or charge in detention ad infinitum? We want to clarify so this cannot happen; so that the law does not permit an American citizen or a legal permanent resident to be picked up and held without end, without charge or trial.

I want to say that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have proven time and time again that they are up to the challenge of detecting, stopping, arresting, and convicting terrorists found on U.S. soil.

I have a document that was prepared by the Intelligence Committee staff lists 98 terrorists who have been arrested and are on their way to conviction and will do time, many of them life sentences, in Federal prisons, and these are just those arrested in the last 3 or 4 years.

Since January of 2009, there are 98 who have been successfully arrested. I think it is important to understand that suspected terrorists who may be in the United States illegally can be detained within the criminal justice system under four options that exist today. They can be charged with a Federal or State crime and held. They can be held for violating immigration laws. They can be held as material witnesses as part of a Federal grand jury proceedings. They can be held under section 412 of the PATRIOT Act for up to 12 months.

This amendment is not about whether citizens such as Hamdi and Padilla--or others who would do us harm--should be captured, interrogated, incarcerated, and severely punished. They should be and they are.

It is about the innocent American, again in the wrong place, at the wrong time, who gets picked up, like these innocent Japanese Americans shown in this picture who just happened to live in a certain part of the United States, in my hometown, San Francisco. But this was what happened. People were picked up and held for the duration of the war-- just because of their race.

Finally, I want to quote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote for the plurality in the Hamdi decision in 2004:

As critical as the Government's interest may be in

detaining those who actually pose an immediate threat to the

national security of the United States during ongoing

international conflict, history and common sense teach us

that an unchecked system of detention carries the potential

to become a means for oppression and abuse of others who do

not present that sort of threat.

So it is my hope we can clarify U.S. law to state unequivocally that the government cannot indefinitely detain American citizens or legal residents captured inside this country without trial or charge.

We live with the stain of how we treated some of our own people during World War II. It should not be repeated.

I thank the Acting President pro tempore, and I would like to yield to the distinguished Senator Paul, if I may.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

I will wait until the very end and give the distinguished chairman the opportunity.

If Mr. President could tell me what the respective times for either side in this amendment are?

I will.

I just wanted to thank everybody. I think we had a good debate. I think we ended in a good place. I am very hopeful that the body will pass this now by a large majority. So I hope we are successful tonight in achieving something that hasn't been achieved for decades.

I want to thank everybody, our cosponsors, the chairman of the committee, and Senator Graham for the debate.

Mr. President, in 1971, Congress passed and President Nixon signed into law the Non-Detention Act of 1971, which repealed a 1950 statute that explicitly allowed detention of U.S. citizens.

The Non-Detention Act of 1971 clearly states:

No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the

United States except pursuant to an act of Congress.

Despite this history, during last year's debate on the Defense authorization bill some in this body advocated for the indefinite detention of American citizens. This is an issue that has been the subject of much legal controversy since 9/11.

Proponents of indefinitely detaining U.S. citizens argue that the Authorization for Use of Military Force, AUMF, that was enacted in the wake of 9/11 is ``an act of Congress,'' in the language of the Non- Detention Act, that authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens regardless of where they are captured.

We heard this argument again tonight from Senators Levin and Graham. They assert that their position is justified by the U.S. Supreme Court's plurality decision in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. However, that position is undercut by the 2003 case of Padilla v. Rumsfeld in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

But let me discuss the facts of Hamdi because it is important to note that Yaser Esam Hamdi was a U.S. citizen who took up arms on behalf of the Taliban and was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. The Supreme Court effectively did uphold his military detention, so some of my colleagues seize upon this to say that the military can detain even U.S. citizens who are arrested domestically.

However, the Supreme Court's opinion in that case was a muddled decision by a four-vote plurality that recognized the power of the government to detain U.S. citizens captured in such circumstances as ``enemy combatants'' for some period, but otherwise repudiated the government's broad assertions of executive authority to detain citizens without charge or trial.

To the extent the Hamdi case permits the government to detain a U.S. citizen ``until the end of hostilities,'' it does so only under a very limited set of circumstances; namely, citizens taking an active part in hostilities who are captured in Afghanistan and who are afforded certain due process protections, at a minimum.

Additionally, decisions by the lower courts have contributed to the current state of legal ambiguity, principally those decisions involving Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who was arrested in Chicago. He was initially detained pursuant to a material witness warrant based on the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In Padilla v. Rumsfeld the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the AUMF did not authorize his detention, saying:

We conclude that clear congressional authorization is

required for detentions of American citizens on American soil

because . . . the Non-Detention Act . . . prohibits such

detentions absent specific congressional authorization.

The Second Circuit went on to say that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force ``is not such an authorization, and no exception to [the Non-Detention Act] otherwise exists.''

I think this history is particularly important in light of tonight's debate.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman.

I am going to offer an amendment--a version of it was introduced as a separate bill last year as S. 2003. The cosponsors of the amendment are Senators Paul, Lee, Coons, Collins, Lautenberg, Gillibrand, and Kirk. I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Tester, Johnson of South Dakota, Sanders, Whitehouse, and Heller as cosponsors to the amendment.

This amendment is almost identical to the bill I introduced a year ago. That bill has a bipartisan group of 30 cosponsors. It is called the Due Process Guarantee Act, and the co- sponsors include five Republicans: Senators Lee, Paul, Collins, Kirk, and Moran. Thanks to Chairman Leahy, the bill had a hearing earlier this year in the Judiciary Committee, as the Presiding Officer will so note, on February 29, 2012.

The amendment I will offer clarifies questions that arose during last year's defense authorization bill about the U.S. Government's power to detain its citizens indefinitely. Last year's bill had detention provisions in it that never had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, the Intelligence Committee, or the Armed Services Committee.

Let me just take a minute to describe why this is such an important issue for me.

When I was a very young girl--I remember it was a Sunday because my father worked every other day of the week--my father took me down to a racetrack just south of San Francisco

called Tanforan. It was the beginning of World War II. The racetrack was then a staging point for Japanese Americans en route to more permanent detention centers.

Here is the edict that was put out:

Western Defense Command and Fourth Army Wartime Civil

Control Administration, Presidio of San Francisco,

California, April 1, 1942, Instructions to All Persons of

Japanese Ancestry, Living in the Following Area:

Then it describes the area. It says:

All Japanese persons, both alien and non-alien, will be

evacuated from the above designated area by 12:00 o'clock

noon Tuesday, April 7, 1942.

No Japanese person will be permitted to enter or leave the above described area after 8:00 a.m., Thursday, April 2, 1942, without obtaining special permission from the Provost Marshal of the Civil Control Station.

This was an order which remanded all persons of Japanese ancestry into custody for the duration of World War II.

Let me show you a little of what these facilities looked like. Shown in this picture I have in the Chamber is Tanforan Racetrack, and these are the barracks that were put up to house Japanese-American citizens and non-citizens--only because they were of Japanese ancestry.

In this next picture, this is what it looked like close up. This is a young person walking out of this small cell in that barrack.

In this next picture, these are Japanese Americans standing in line-- and here is the racetrack--either to get food or for some other reason.

This stuck in my memory, and I believe it was a stain on the greatness of this country. As I saw the barbed wire, these men, women, and children housed in horse stables, in small buildings, as you can see, it was an experience I will never forget.

To ensure that this shameful experience was never repeated, almost 30 years after the 1942 evacuation order was issued, Congress passed and President Nixon signed into law the Non-Detention Act of 1971, which repealed a 1950 statute that explicitly allowed detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial.

The Non-Detention Act of 1971 clearly states:

No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the

United States except pursuant to an act of Congress.

Despite this history, during last year's debate on the Defense authorization bill some in this body advocated for the indefinite detention of American citizens. This is an issue that has been the subject of much legal controversy since 9/11.

Proponents of indefinitely detaining citizens apprehended in the U.S. argue that the Authorization for Use of Military Force--what we call the AUMF--that was enacted in the wake of 9/11 is ``an act of Congress,'' in the language of the Non-Detention Act, that authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens regardless of where they are captured.

They further assert that their position is justified by the U.S. Supreme Court's plurality decision in the 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. However, that position is undercut by the 2003 case of Padilla v. Rumsfeld in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. So we have a kind of muddle.

But let me discuss the facts of the Hamdi case because it is important to note that Yaser Esam Hamdi was a U.S. citizen who took up arms on behalf of the Taliban and was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. The Supreme Court effectively did uphold his military detention, so some of my colleagues seize upon this to say that the military can today indefinitely detain even U.S. citizens who are arrested domestically.

However, the Supreme Court's opinion in that case was a decision by a 4-to-4 plurality that recognized the power of the government to detain U.S. citizens captured abroad as ``enemy combatants'' for some period, but otherwise repudiated the government's broad assertions of executive authority to detain citizens without charge or trial.

To the extent the Hamdi case permits the government to detain a U.S. citizen ``until the end of hostilities,'' it does so only under a very limited set of circumstances; namely, citizens taking an active part in hostilities who are captured in Afghanistan and who are afforded certain due process protections, at a minimum.

Additionally, decisions by the lower courts have contributed to the current state of ambiguity. For example, consider those decisions involving Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who was arrested in Chicago. He was initially detained pursuant to a material witness warrant based on the 9/11 terrorist acts.

In Padilla, the Second Circuit held that AUMF did not authorize his detention, saying:

We conclude that clear congressional authorization is

required for detentions of American citizens on American soil

because . . . the Non-Detention Act . . . prohibits such

detentions absent specific congressional authorization.

The Second Circuit went on to say that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force--and I quote--``is not such an authorization, and no exception to [the Non-Detention Act] otherwise exists.''

So here is the problem. We have the Supreme Court that says one thing in a limited way and a federal appeals court that says another thing on an issue not directly addressed by the Supreme Court. When we debated this issue on the Senate floor last year, the Senate ultimately agreed to a compromise amendment which passed by an overwhelming 99-to-1 vote. I worked on that with Senators Lee, Paul, Levin, McCain, Durbin, Leahy, and the amendment provided the following:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect

existing law or authorities relating to the detention of

United States citizens, or lawful resident aliens of the

United States, or any other persons who are captured or

arrested in the United States.

Now, that was adopted to say, leave things as they are right now. It preserved the current state of the law, continuing to leave it to the courts to resolve who is right about whether the AUMF authorizes the military detention of anyone apprehended domestically.

I believe strongly the time has come now to end this legal ambiguity and to state clearly once and for all that the AUMF or other authorities do not authorize such indefinite detention of Americans apprehended in the United States.

To accomplish this, we are offering an amendment which affirms the continuing application of the principles behind the Non-Detention Act of 1971. It amends that act to provide clearly that no military authorization allows indefinite detention of U.S. citizens or green card holders who are apprehended inside the United States.

The amendment states, ``An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.''

That affirms the Second Circuit's clear statement rule from the Padilla case. Some may ask why this amendment protects green card holders as well as citizens. Others may ask why the amendment does not protect all persons apprehended in the United States from indefinite detention? Let me be clear. I would support providing the protections in this amendment to all persons in the United States whether lawfully or unlawfully present.

But the question is, Is there enough support in this body to expand this amendment to cover others besides U.S. citizens and green card holders? I do not believe there is. We got 45 votes last year on a similar amendment protecting U.S. citizens. We have re-worked the amendment and gained more support this year, as reflected in the co- sponsors we have today. So my hope is that at least we can clear up the law with strong protections for citizens and legal permanent residents.

Wherever we draw the line on who should be covered by this legislation, I believe it violates fundamental American rights to allow anyone apprehended in the United States to be detained without charge or trial. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have proven time and time again they are up to the challenge of detecting, stopping, arresting, and convicting terrorists found on U.S. soil, having successfully arrested, detained, and convicted hundreds of these heinous people, both before and after 9/11.

For example, since January 2009, 98 individuals have been successfully arrested inside the United States by the

FBI and other Federal or local law enforcement officers on terrorism- related charges. Last month, the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee compiled a list of the individuals arrested in the past 4 years as part of more than 50 different terrorism investigations. The list was based on publicly available information from the FBI, the Congressional Research Service, and media reports. I have it here and I ask unanimous consent to have the list printed in the Record.

It is also important to understand that suspected terrorists who may be in the United States illegally can be detained within the criminal justice system using at least the following four options: One, they can be charged with a Federal or State crime and held; two, they can be held for violating immigration laws; three, they can be held as material witnesses as part of Federal grand jury proceedings; and, four, they can be held under section 412 of the PATRIOT Act for up to 6 months.

I wish to be very clear about what this amendment is and what it is not about. It is not about whether citizens such as Hamdi and Padilla or others who would do us harm should be captured, interrogated, incarcerated, and severely punished. They should be. But what about an innocent American? What about someone in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong skin color?

The beauty of our Constitution is that it gives everyone in the United States basic due process rights to a trial by a jury of their peers. That is what makes this Nation great. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the plurality in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld:

As critical as the Government's interests may be in

detaining those who actually pose an immediate threat to the

national security of the United States during ongoing

international conflict, history and common sense teach us

that an unchecked system of detention carries the potential

to become a means for oppression and abuse of others who do

not present that sort of threat.

Just think of it. If someone is of the wrong race and they are in a place where there is a terrorist attack, they could be picked up, they could be held without charge or trial for month after month, year after year. That is wrong. Experiences over the last decade prove the U.S. is safer now than before the 9/11 attacks. Terrorists are behind bars, dangerous plots have been thwarted. The system is working and hopefully improving each day.

So I think now is the time to clarify U.S. law to state unequivocally that the government cannot without trial or charge indefinitely detain Americans and green card holders captured inside this country.

The Federal Government experimented with indefinite detention of U.S. citizens during World War II, a mistake we now recognize as a betrayal of our core values. Let's not repeat it. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield the floor for Senator Paul.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Baucus be added as a cosponsor to my amendment No. 3018.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dorothy Englehardt, a military fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on this bill.

Mr. President, I am thrilled, along with my friend and fellow Giants fan Senator Boxer, to support a resolution honoring Major League Baseball's 2012 World Series champions, the San Francisco Giants.

Behind the best starting pitching in baseball, a shutdown bullpen, brilliant defense and timely hitting, our Giants are, once again, kings of the baseball world.

They defeated the American League Champion Detroit Tigers 4 games to none in the 108th World Series to win their second title in just 3 years.

It is the seventh title in the long, storied history of the franchise, and their second since moving to San Francisco in 1958.

Indeed, these are truly the glory days of Giants baseball in San Francisco.

The 2010 Giants were known as a band of misfits and castoffs who shocked the baseball world by winning the Giants' first World Series title in 56 years.

This Giants team can only be described as resilient, a diverse collection of veterans, rookies, and midseason acquisitions who banded together with a ``never-say-die'' spirit to overcome the greatest of odds to win it all.

Down two games to none in the best of five Division Series against the Cincinnati Reds, outfielder Hunter Pence gathered his teammates together before the third game and urged them not to give up, to play for each other, win each moment, and leave it all on the field so they could spend another day together.

He was not ready to go home, and neither were the Giants. They won that game and the next two, stunning the Reds and advancing to the National League Championship Series against the defending World Series champion St. Louis Cardinals.

In that series, the Giants once again found their backs against the wall, down three games to one in the best-of-seven series. In game 5 at St. Louis, Giants pitcher Barry Zito overcame years of adversity to pitch the game of his life, bringing the series back to San Francisco.

The Giants won the next two games to clinch the National League pennant in front of their loyal and passionate fans.

They became the first team in more than 25 years to win six elimination games in one postseason.

So it was on to the World Series against the Tigers, a formidable team that looked unbeatable to most baseball experts.

But with all due respect to the Tigers--and my friends and colleagues from Michigan--after the adversity they had faced against the Reds and the Cardinals, nothing was going to stop the Giants.

In game 1, World Series Most Valuable Player Pablo Sandoval became just the fourth player in World Series history to hit three home runs in one game as the Giants won 8 to 3.

In games 2 and 3, starting pitchers Madison Bumgarner and Ryan

Vogelsong were dominant as the Giants both games by a score of 2 to 0.

And in the deciding game 4, the Giants rallied as National League Series MVP Marco Scutaro gave the Giants a 4 to 3 lead in the 10th inning, knocking home Ryan Theriot with a two-out base hit. In the bottom of the inning, Sergio Romo struck out the side and the Giants were champions once again.

And what a run it was.

The Giants closed out the post-season by winning seven straight games, beating the Cardinals and Tigers by a combined score of 36 to 7 with four shutouts.

In the World Series, Giants pitchers limited the Tigers to just six runs in four games and held them to a .159 batting average.

I congratulate all the Giants players for their heart, determination and teamwork.

When your backs were up against the wall, you epitomized the best of San Francisco and came together as a team, setting aside egos, sacrificing individual glory and battling for each other, one game at a time, until you were the last team standing.

I would also like to congratulate president and CEO Larry Baer, general manager Brian Sabean, manager Bruce Bochy and the rest of the coaching staff for putting together this team and establishing a culture of excellence that is the envy of all of baseball.

Mr. President, I was privileged to be mayor of San Francisco when the 49ers--led by Eddie DeBartolo, Bill Walsh, Joe Montana, Ronnie Lott and many others--began their run of five Super Bowl titles that established the 49ers as a dynasty.

With their second World Series win in just 3 years, the Giants are on their way to establishing their own dynasty, once again solidifying San Francisco's status as not just a world-class city but a city of champions.

I would, and I thank my colleague.

Madam President, if I may, I want to compliment Senator Lieberman on his steadfast determination to get this bill passed. I think he and his ranking member, Senator Collins, have done a very fine job. I think it is important for everyone to know about those hours when we sat down with other Members trying to negotiate something people might agree to on this cyber bill. Unfortunately, we could not.

I am very worried. I am very worried there will be a major cyber attack on this Nation. I do not say that without intelligence to back it up. On the Intelligence Committee, we receive regular warnings from the Intelligence Community that tell us cyber attacks are increasing in number, sophistication, and damage.

Unfortunately, despite significant changes made to the Cybersecurity Act that Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, Senator Rockefeller and I agreed to in July and August, many on the other side of the aisle filibustered the bill. Since that time we have learned of additional major cyber attacks.

In October and September of this year, at least nine major U.S. banks were hit by a series of attacks that blocked their customers from accessing their banking information or making online transactions. This list of victims includes the country's largest, most sophisticated financial institutions: the Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, the U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo, PNC, Capital One, BB&T Corporation, and HSBC--all cyber attacked.

These attacks systematically hit banks for 5 weeks. They disrupted traffic at each bank for a day or two before moving on to the next victim. It was a well planned and coordinated cyber attack from bank to bank to bank to bank. It disrupted the banking system, but it did not destroy it. But that doesn't mean the attackers do not have the ability to destroy it. This is a real wake-up call, and I think we ignore it at our own peril.

I have come to believe it is negligent to fail to pass a bill with the warnings that are out there today. I remember, I was on the Intelligence Committee when the CIA Director, then-Director Tenet, came before the committee in the middle of the summer in 2001 and said to us: We anticipate an attack. We don't know where. We don't know when. That attack came, and it was 9/11. Today there is the same anticipation of a big attack, a big cyber attack. And we need to put in place the legal procedures to prevent that.

Let me mention other recent cyber attacks. In August, a foreign country or organization used computer code to destroy 30,000 computers at the world's largest energy company, that is Saudi Aramco, and that is Saudi Arabia's state-owned oil company. How is this done? According to the New York Times, the cyber attackers ``unleashed a computer virus to initiate what is regarded as among the most destructive acts of computer sabotage on a company to date. The virus erased data on three- quarters of Aramco's corporate PCs--documents, spreadsheets, e-mails, files--replacing all of it with an image of a burning American flag.''

If anything is a harbinger of things to come, that is clear. Why would one put their signature on a major cyber attack by showing burning American flags unless they had some additional intent against the U.S.? We cannot underestimate the threat. To do so is sheer negligence on the part of this body.

In the 5 months from October 2011 through February 2012, over 50,000 cyber attacks were reported on private and government networks with 86 of

those attacks taking place on critical infrastructure networks. So we have 86 attacks on critical infrastructure networks.

Keep in mind these 50,000 incidents were only the ones reported to the Department of Homeland Security. So they represent but a small fraction of cyber attacks carried out against the United States. This year, 2012, Nissan, MasterCard, and Visa joined the ranks of other major companies already hacked--Sony, Citi, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Google, Booze Allen Hamilton, RSA, L-3, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as victims of hacking last year.

We also know that last year for at least 6 months, 48 companies in the chemical, defense, and other industries were penetrated by a hacker looking to steal intellectual property. The cyber security company Symantec has attributed some of these attacks to computers in Hebei, China.

Here is the point. We know we are being attacked by other countries. I hear it in the Intelligence Committee. It is classified so I cannot go into it here. But suffice it to say that we know it is happening. Things are only going to get worse, as Secretary Panetta said in a recent major address in New York. Let me just read one section of his speech:

The collective result of these kinds of attacks could be a

cyber Pearl Harbor, an attack that would cause physical

destruction and loss of life. In fact it would paralyze and

shock the nation and create a new, profound sense of

vulnerability.

Members of the Senate, we are warned. We are warned clearly, we are warned directly, and we are warned by the Head of Cyber Command, General Alexander, as well as the Secretary of Defense. Yet we do nothing.

I strongly believe we need to pass this bill. Then it will go to the House. And then there will be a conference. Along the way, there will have to be some accommodations made. But, there is no reason for this Senate, knowing what we know, not to pass this bill.

We also know the President would sign this bill, and we know the President would not sign the House bill as is. So we have an opportunity by moving forward with this bill.

I want to remind my colleagues of efforts made to negotiate an agreement on this bill. Before the bill came to the floor in July, and while the Senate was considering it, there were numerous meetings every day by a dozen or more Senators. The authors of the bill met with Senators McCain, Chambliss, Hutchison, the sponsors of the SECURE IT Act, as well as Senators Kyl and Whitehouse, and a group they convened. We had multiple meetings with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber's largest concern with Title VII on information sharing was over the liability protections in our bill--which is what the Intelligence Committee staff worked on and prepared.

I asked the Chamber where they thought our language was deficient. I asked them if they could improve on the immunity provisions, to please send us bill language. Did they? No. They did not. I think that is some testimony that is worth thinking about.

Over the summer, the majority leader offered to vote on a set list of amendments. He asked if the minority could put together the 10 votes it wanted, and as long as they were relevant and germane to the bill, we would consider them. No list was provided. So we voted, and by a vote of 52 to 46, cloture was not invoked.

Again, after the vote, the staff from both sides of the Homeland Security Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the Intelligence Committee held numerous meetings to negotiate a compromise. The effort did not succeed. So if we are to address the major problem of cyber attacks and potential cyber warfare, we have no option but to bring the Lieberman-Collins bill back on the floor.

I know my time is limited here today. And I know the Nation's cyber laws are woefully out of date. Let me touch on one more thing regarding the information sharing part of the bill. I received a call from a CEO of a high-tech company about the homeland security portal or exchange, as we call it in the bill. That CEO said, We would like our information to go directly into the Department of Defense. Let me note that would create a big problem. It created a problem with a number of U.S. Senators who are concerned about the military getting this kind of cyber information. And it created a big concern with the privacy organizations throughout our country. So it was changed so that the portal would be run most likely by Homeland Security. But here is the point I wish to make. The transfer of cyber information is with the click of a mouse. It moves instantaneously, so that as information----

I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to conclude.

So as information comes in, it goes instantaneously into the correct area. The CEO who called me said, I didn't know that. Thank you. I have no problem with that.

So I would ask my colleagues who have voted against this bill to reconsider. We are never going to do the perfect bill. The bills are going to have to be changed and amended as time goes on. But I think passing a bill is important. I think to leave this country vulnerable, not to pass a bill because somebody doesn't like this part or that part, is negligent, it is irresponsible, and God forbid if we have that major cyber Pearl Harbor that Secretary Panetta referred to in his speech. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.

I thank the Chair for the extra time, yield the floor and ask that my remaining remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to speak in opposition to the Paul amendment, and to put this debate over foreign aid in some context.

As chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I see the threats this Nation faces around the world.

We are no longer in a world where we can focus on ballistic missiles from Russia or troops pouring into Europe through the Fulda Gap. Instead, we face asymmetric threats--terrorist attacks, the potential use of chemical weapons, and the thousands of attempted cyber intrusions that hit our networks every day.

In this environment, our partnerships with other nations are more important than ever, as attacks can emanate from anywhere, and the responses to those threats often require bilateral or multilateral support.

I agree with Senator Paul that there are areas where other nations can and should do more to combat these threats; after all, terrorism and extremist ideologies are not U.S. problems, they are global problems.

On the subject of Pakistan, I strongly agree that Dr. Shakil Afridi should be released from prison.

He helped play an important role in making the intelligence case that Usama bin Laden was at that compound in Abbottabad, and his actions helped this Nation eliminate the world's most wanted target.

I had the opportunity to make this case directly to Pakistan's Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar and Pakistan's Ambassador to the United States Sherry Rehman in a meeting on Wednesday.

But is the appropriate response to cut off all U.S. assistance to Pakistan--including economic and humanitarian assistance--because of Dr. Afridi? No, clearly, it is not.

I joined an effort by Senator Graham on the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill to cut $33 million in Foreign Military Financing for Pakistan in FY 2013--$1 million for every year of Dr. Afridi's prison sentence. It was a targeted effort, and it enabled us to send a public message to Pakistan.

The United States and Pakistan have had a series of confrontations over the past couple of years, and the relationship has been sorely tested. There has been fault on both sides.

And we are now improving our coordination and partnership in key areas, including on counterterrorism. We absolutely need to continue to press Pakistan to do more, and to release Dr. Afridi--and we are.

But eliminating all foreign assistance without a national security waiver is a knee-jerk reaction that will cause the United States more harm than good.

The amendment would also cut off all foreign assistance to the nascent governments in Egypt and Libya because elements of their populace or foreign fighters attacked the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and the consulate in Benghazi.

Both of those governments have denounced the attacks, and both have increased the security they are providing to U.S. missions.

We are still learning who was behind these attacks, whether motivated solely by a stupid video put out by someone with no regard for religious tolerance or the safety of Americans overseas or by terrorist elements who used the protests as a pretext to carry out an agenda of violence against the United States.

But one thing is pretty clear: the anger and violence directed against the United States by the people of Libya, Egypt, and perhaps numerous other Middle Eastern countries will not be lessened by reducing American aid.

The Paul amendment goes even further, though. It would prohibit any direct U.S. assistance to any country in which a U.S. diplomatic facility was attacked, trespassed upon, breached, or attempted to be attacked, trespassed upon, or breached even if the host government provided every possible measure of security and support, and no matter how small the infraction.

I believe in a strategy of engagement. I believe that the United States should work with countries to root out terrorists and denounce extremism of all forms.

And I believe that we should use foreign aid--which, by the way, accounts for only 1 percent of the U.S. government's budget--to bring humanitarian relief, support democratization, and help other governments improve their own security and law enforcement efforts to defeat terrorism and extremism.

Indeed, at this time, we should look to the example set by Ambassador Chris Stevens, a man who dedicated himself to learning the language and the culture of the Middle East and promoting the universal values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law--from his time as a Peace Corps volunteer in Morocco, to tours as a

Foreign Service Officer in Jerusalem, Damascus, Riyadh, and Cairo, and, finally, as our Ambassador to a democratic Libya.

Ambassador Stevens worked tirelessly to help the people of Libya build a new country and new future after years of brutal dictatorship.

He knew that path would not be easy and there would be many challenges. But he also knew that the Libyan people could succeed and that leadership and support from the United States would be crucial.

This amendment will turn America away from the commitment to the Middle East that Ambassador Stevens championed and towards isolation.

It will harm America's interests, will harm our national security, and will promote anti-Americanism in precisely the parts of the world where we need to be more, not less, engaged.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Paul amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who was killed in service to his country, a man who hails from my State of California, Ambassador John Christopher Stevens.

I was shocked and saddened to learn of the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and the other three Americans who were killed during the horrible attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya. My deepest condolences go out to their families. They remain in my thoughts and prayers.

He was struck down in the consulate by an act of mob violence which should never have taken place. There is simply no justification for this type of action and I condemn it in the strongest terms.

I would like to begin by telling you a little bit about this dedicated public servant, someone with a unique and distinguished biography.

Born and raised in Piedmont CA, Ambassador Stevens graduated from Piedmont High School before receiving his undergraduate degree from the University of California at Berkley in 1982 and a J.D. from the University of California's Hastings College of Law in 1989.

Before he joined the Foreign Service in 1991, he was an international trade lawyer in Washington, DC, and from 1983 to 1985 he was a Peace Corps volunteer in Morocco.

His overseas postings were consequential and showed he was an effective Foreign Service officer. He served as the deputy principal officer and political section chief in Jerusalem, a political officer in Damascus, a consular/political officer in Cairo, and a consular/ economic officer in Riyadh.

In addition to his service abroad, Ambassador Stevens was the director of the Office of Multilateral Nuclear and Security Affairs, a Pearson Fellow with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, special assistant to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Iran desk officer, and staff assistant in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.

He also served twice in Libya before becoming Ambassador: as deputy chief of mission at our Embassy in Tripoli from 2007 to 2009 and special representative to the Libyan Transitional Council from March 2011 to November 2011.

In May 2012, he became the first U.S. Ambassador to Libya following the fall of Qadhafi.

As you can see, he had a long and distinguished career as one of our top diplomats, someone who learned the language and culture of a region of the world critical to U.S. national security interests.

Clearly, this was someone who was committed to helping the Libyan people achieve their goal of a free and democratic country after decades of brutal dictatorship.

As Ambassador, he immediately went to work to help Libya build a new future, engaging government officials, academics, businessmen, and civil society leaders on a daily basis.

Sadly, his term as Ambassador and his service to his country ended far too soon.

This attack and the assault on our Embassy in Cairo serve as sobering reminders that we must continue to pay attention to the events in the countries involved in the Arab Spring.

While in some countries like Egypt and Libya autocrats have fallen and the people have elected new leadership, tensions remain high and uncertainty about the future abounds.

There is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that these countries fully embrace democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

It is critical that those responsible for these acts are brought to justice. And I call on the Governments of Libya and Egypt to work closely with the administration to ensure that this does not happen again.

Ambassador Stevens was one of our best. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the budget proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan, which has been approved twice by the House of Representatives.

The Ryan budget, which is purported to be a measure of fiscal responsibility, is in fact an attempt to rewrite the social contract in this country while at the same time adding to the national debt.

Let me explain. There are four major components of the Ryan budget.

The first is another round of tax cuts for the wealthy. According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, the Ryan tax plan would add an additional $4.5 trillion to the Nation's debt. That is on top of the staggering cost of the Bush tax cuts.

Second, the Ryan budget would virtually eliminate spending on domestic programs, imposing debilitating funding cuts for education, air quality, roads, bridges, railways, national parks, first responder programs and a host of other vital national interests.

Third, this budget ends Medicare as we know it and converts Medicaid into a block-grant program with capped funds. The Ryan budget endangers our two most vital sources of health care services for seniors, the poor and those with disabilities.

Finally, the budget repeals the health reform law, reducing the solvency of Medicare and eliminating critical consumer protections.

The tax proposal in the Ryan budget is especially troubling. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Ryan budget would mean a tax windfall of $265,000 a year for millionaires.

At the same time, the middle class and working poor would see few if any benefits.

The Ryan tax plan is very similar to that of Mitt Romney. Both plans would substantially reduce tax rates on the wealthy, and both are supposedly paid for by closing unspecified tax loopholes.

The Tax Policy Center has already analyzed Mitt Romney's plan. In order to substantially lower tax rates and remain revenue neutral, the Romney plan would have to eliminate so many tax credits and deductions that it would actually raise taxes on the middle class.

To make matters worse, the Ryan budget does not stand up to scrutiny. This is a question of basic arithmetic.

How do you reduce the national debt while at the same time handing massive tax cuts to the wealthy? Congressman Ryan already took one option off the table--reducing the Defense Department budget. In fact, his budget proposes to spend even more money on defense, money the Pentagon does not even want.

That leaves deeper cuts to domestic programs and entitlement spending as the only remaining options. And it is important to note that Congressman Ryan refuses to specify what those cuts would be--because they would be so painful to so many Americans.

Medicare in particular would be savaged by the Ryan budget.

Beginning in 2023, his budget ends the traditional guaranteed benefits structure of Medicare, instead offering vouchers to purchase either a private health insurance plan or traditional Medicare.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, that means new Medicare beneficiaries would pay $1,200 more out of pocket by 2030 and $5,900 more by 2050. Experts say the Ryan budget would also likely lead to reduced access to health care and diminished quality of care for beneficiaries.

Essentially, seniors would be forced to purchase more expensive care with less.

Consider that in 2010, half of all Medicare beneficiaries had incomes of less than $21,000 and you can see why this proposal is so dangerous.

The Center for American Progress estimates that if the Ryan budget were to pass, someone who is 54 years old today would face increased costs of $59,450 during retirement. Someone who is 29 years old today would spend $331,000 more over the course of their retirement.

I would also note that the Ryan budget includes $700 billion in Medicare savings the exact same amount that was included in the health reform law he seeks to repeal.

The difference is that rather than applying those savings to lower costs and increased benefits for seniors, the Ryan budget diverts those savings to even more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

Speaking of Congressman Ryan's desire to repeal health reform--his efforts to unwind that law, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court, would add tens of millions of Americans to the ranks of the uninsured, it would eliminate critical consumer protections, and it would hasten the insolvency of Medicare by 8 years.

House Republicans want to put insurance companies back in the driver's seat, able to charge higher rates based on gender and deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions. They would remove protections that guarantee children the right to health insurance.

American families would again be at risk for bankruptcy because of costly illnesses like cancer. More than 12 million Californians would once again face lifetime limits on their health coverage.

The budget would reopen the prescription drug ``doughnut hole,'' forcing 5.2 million seniors to once again dip into their pockets to cover the full cost of prescription drugs.

In California, 3.4 million seniors would be forced to pay more for preventive services, such as cancer screenings and mammograms, meaning fewer seniors would have access to these services.

Let me be clear: the health reform law extended the life of Medicare by 8 years. In addition to forcing seniors to pay more for services, the Ryan budget would place the Medicare Trust Fund on a track for insolvency by 2016.

Medicaid is another big loss in the Ryan budget. He would change Medicaid from a State-Federal match program to a block grant program, including dangerous funding caps. Millions more of the most at-risk Americans would become uninsured or underinsured because of this budget.

Medicaid spending would be slashed by $810 billion over 10 years, a 22 percent cut.

This would jeopardize health care for nearly 7.3 million Medi-Cal beneficiaries in California, many of whom would see reduced eligibility, coverage of fewer services and increased out-of-pocket expenses.

Low-income pregnant women who depend on Medicaid could be dropped from the program, a threat to health of both mother and baby.

Let me be candid: The Ryan budget is just another salvo in the war against the middle class and working poor.

It would mean more tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of investments in our future, it would lead to greater numbers of uninsured and it would demolish some of the most vital safety net programs in the Nation.

Let's set aside the politics and get to work on real solutions for the country.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S. 3326, a trade package that includes legislation sponsored by myself and Senator McConnell to renew the import ban on Burma for another year.

I have been involved in the struggle for freedom and democracy in Burma for 15 years.

In 1997, former Senator William Cohen and I authored legislation requiring the President to ban new U.S. investment in Burma if he determined that the Government of Burma had physically harmed, rearrested or exiled Aung San Suu Kyi or committed large-scale repression or violence against the democratic opposition.

President Clinton issued the ban in a 1997 Executive order.

In 2003, after the regime attempted to assassinate Aung San Suu Kyi, Senator McConnell and I introduced the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, which placed a complete ban on imports from Burma. It allowed that ban to be renewed one year at a time.

It was signed into law and has been renewed annually since then.

It expired on July 26 which is why this legislation is before us today.

In past years, the debate on renewing the import ban on Burma has focused

on more than two decades of violence, oppression, and human rights abuses by the ruling Burmese military.

They annulled the last free parliamentary elections won by Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy.

They kept Suu Kyi in prison or under house arrest, detained hundreds of political prisoners, and ignored democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

They drafted a new constitution that maintained the military's grip on power and prevented Suu Kyi and her party from participating in the political process.

But, I am pleased to report that this year is different. We have seen some remarkable changes in Burma over the past year which appear to have put Burma on the path of reform and rejoining the international community.

Hundreds of political prisoners have been released.

New legislation broadening the rights of political and civic associations has been enacted; and negotiations with ethnic minority groups have begun and some cease-fires have taken effect.

In addition, Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy, NLD, were allowed to compete in by-elections for 45 open seats in the new parliament in April 2012.

Suu Kyi and the NLD won 43 of the 44 seats they contested.

For those of us who have been inspired by her courage, her dedication to peace and her tireless efforts for freedom and democracy, it was a thrilling and deeply moving event. Years of sacrifice and hard work had shown results--the people of Burma had spoken with a clear voice in support of freedom and democracy.

The United States has responded to this reform process in a number of ways.

Secretary Clinton traveled to Burma last December and met with Suu Kyi and President Thein Sein.

The United States and Burma resumed full diplomatic relations, with Ambassador Derek Mitchell becoming the first U.S. ambassador to Burma in 22 years.

Earlier this month, the administration announced that it was suspending U.S. sanctions on providing financial services to Burma and investing in Burma.

I supported these actions. It is entirely appropriate to acknowledge the steps Burma has already taken and encourage additional reforms.

Some may ask then: why stop there? Given the reforms, why renew the import ban?

The fact of the matter is, the reforms are not irreversible and the Government of Burma still needs to do more to respond to the legitimate concerns of the people of Burma and the international community.

First, it must address the dominant role of the military in Burma under the new constitution.

The military is guaranteed 25 percent of the seats without elections and remains independent of any civilian oversight.

In addition, the commander in chief of the military has the authority to dismiss the government and rule the country under martial law.

It goes without saying that such powers are incompatible with a truly democratic government.

Second, Burma must stop all violence against ethnic minorities. I am particularly concerned about reports that the Burmese military is continuing attacks in Kachin State, displacing thousands of civilians and killing others.

Third, the government must release all political prisoners.

I applaud the decision of the Government of Burma to release hundreds of political prisoners, including a number of high-profile democracy and human rights activists.

Yet, according to the State Department, hundreds more remain in detention.

Unfortunately, the Government of Burma maintains there are no more political prisoners. We must keep the pressure on Burma until all democracy and human rights activists are free and able to resume their lives and careers.

I believe that renewing this ban will help keep Burma on the path to full democratization and national reconciliation and support the work of Suu Kyi, the democratic opposition, and the reformists in the ruling government.

It will give the administration additional leverage to convince Burma to stay on the right path.

And the administration will still have the authority to waive or suspend the import ban--as it has suspended sanctions on investment and financial services--if the Government of Burma took the appropriate actions.

If we do not renew the import ban, however, and Burma backslides on reform and democratization, we would have to pass a new law to reimpose the ban.

By passing this legislation, we ensure that the administration has the flexibility it needs to respond to events in Burma as it as done so with financial services and investment.

Suu Kyi herself has argued that ``sanctions have been effective in persuading the government to go for change.''

I think renewing the import ban will push it to go further.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.