Floor Statements

Mr. President, as our office is winding down from my Senate term beginning this week, the field offices in Virginia ceased their functioning, and it is going to be my pleasure later on today to host a lunch for all my staff and to thank them for the work they have done. I just want to take this opportunity to talk about why I have said so many times since I came to the Senate that my greatest legacy will be the work of our staff.

When I first came to the Senate, people were asking: Will you be remembered for the GI bill if you get it done--which we did--or maybe some great transportation project or something of that sort? I said: No, the most important thing a leader can do is to bring good people around him or her and to work them to the full extent of their capacity and then to provide them the opportunity to grow professionally in the spirit in which we have worked together.

It is not going to surprise the Presiding Officer or anyone else when I say the greatest learning experience for me in that regard was when I served as a rifle platoon and company commander in the U.S. Marine Corps. When we were in training to go to Vietnam, we got a lecture from a battle-hardened lieutenant colonel who fought as an enlisted marine in World War II, rifle platoon commander in Korea, and then as a battalion commander in Vietnam.

One of the things he said to us was, You may carry a side arm, you may carry a 45 pistol, you may carry an M-16 rifle, but a Marine officer is only successful if he fights with his marines. It is the same concept here. A person is no better as a leader than the people he or she leads. We worked hard on our staff for 6 years to find the most talented people in America, to work them to their full capacity, to instill in them my personal views of the principles of leadership and the philosophy of governance which are at the core of what I wanted to bring to the Senate, and I believe we did that.

We started with Paul Reagan and Kathy Wilmoth. Paul Reagan, my chief of staff, is a veteran with 25 years of Democratic politics and governance inside Virginia. He worked for Congressman Rick Boucher. He worked for Jim Moran as his chief of staff. He worked for two other Members of Congress, and he had been the communications director with Mark Warner when he was Governor. We were what some people would call the political odd couple early on. Paul was a master of every detail inside Virginia politics. My experience for many years had been on the national level of policy. We worked very hard to screen every single applicant to make sure these were people who met the standards we were trying to put into place.

Kathy Wilmoth, in my view, is something of a legend here. She became our office director. She knows every Capitol Hill policeman. She probably knows every person sitting here working on the Senate floor. She is an absolute gold star administrator. Before she came to work for us, she worked for Senators John and Lincoln Chafee. When I was a 25- year-old marine, I worked on Senator John Chafee's staff when he was Secretary of the Navy. I know I am biased, but I would challenge anyone to rebut that we have had the best run staff on Capitol Hill.

We set up a communications shop. We had Jessica Smith and Kimberly Hunter, two very talented and invaluable communicators, who understood the job was not simply to respond to media requests but to proactively explain what we were doing, what our purposes were, what our goals were, and what the philosophical approach we were taking happened to be to local and national media rather than simply entertaining interview requests and those sorts of things.

On the State level, we were able to have Conaway Haskins and Louise Ware. They set up the State administrative structure. We were constantly able to listen and respond to the needs and to the opinions of people throughout this extraordinarily complex demographic jurisdiction that is the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Sometimes we forget about what happens on these phones in our offices when we are off in our meetings. The people who have run our phones and have done our casework at times have astounded me. We go back to the votes on health care reform. We know all the debates that were going on here. We took a count in our office, and we received--just in our office--226,000 pieces of advice just on health care reform; in fact, a total of 300,000 pieces of communication on that debate of which approximately 50.1 percent of the people who called in to us may have been happy with the eventual vote that I took. But I could walk out of the office when that was going on and I could see the young people on those phones and see how battered they often were, from the advice which, quite frankly, wasn't always pleasantly given.

With respect to casework, I had the great pleasure and unique experience when I was 25 years old, on the Secretary of the Navy's staff, of how to do casework. It opened my eyes to how many people there are in this country who simply don't know how to open the door to get their needs solved by the government that has set its requirements on them. I did this for John Chafee when he was Secretary of the Navy, and I did it for John Warner when he was Secretary of the Navy. I strongly emphasized to the people who handled our casework what an important job it was they were doing.

In the time we have been in the Senate, our staff has resolved more than 40,000 personal cases. More than 40,000 people who had not known, in many cases, even how to approach their government have received personal assistance that has helped them solve other problems in their lives. In fact, Andrea Trotter, JoAnn Pulliam, Debra Lawson, Gwen Sigda, and Debby Burroughs are on our staff, and each one of them resolved more than 3,000 cases during the time I have been in the Senate.

On legislative and political issues I would say that before I came to the Senate, I made promises on the campaign trail and we kept those promises. The greatest achievements, in my view, during this term were made right out of our office, not because we were responding to the suggestions of some committee work or from the executive branch saying they wanted something, but because we continually made suggestions to those committees and to the executive branch about what we thought needed to be done.

My first day in office I introduced a new GI bill. I had talked about it for years. The logic was very simple. These people who had been serving since 9/11 deserved the same chance at a first class future as those who had served during World War II. Within 16 months, with the strong support, by the way, of Leader Reid, we were able to pass this legislation, the most important piece of veterans legislation since World War II.

Most of that effort, again, came directly out of our office from the work of people on our personal staff, led by Mike Sozan, who at that time was our legislative director and has since moved on to be the chief of staff for Senator Mark Udall.

We said during my campaign and after I got here that the United States desperately needs to reform its criminal justice system. We have 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the world's prison population. If we ask the average American, two-thirds of them will tell us they feel less safe in their own community than they did a year ago. It is not a political issue. To me, it has always been a personal issue, a leadership issue. I was warned when I first started raising this issue in Virginia 7 years ago that this could actually kill my political campaign. It didn't. People responded.

So since I was not on the Judiciary Committee, we worked on this legislation to create a national commission to examine all the aspects of the criminal justice system, and we did it right out of our office, with Doug Ierley being the point person for the entire country to get this debate going in a way that it hadn't been debated before. We met in our own office with more than 100 different organizations in our conference room. We had a bill a little more than a year ago that reached the floor of this Senate.

I would ask the Presiding Officer or any of my other colleagues when is the last time they have seen a criminal justice bill endorsed by--I have two pages of organizational endorsements--the National Sheriffs Association, the Marijuana Project, the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the ACLU, and the Sentencing Project. We got a buy-in from across the philosophical spectrum for a mere $14 million commission where we could receive the advice from the experts in this country on an issue that we have not received their advice on since the 1960s.

One of the great disappointments of my time here has been the fact that this simple, sensible piece of legislation was filibustered. We got 57 votes on it. For some reason, the people on the other side of the aisle decided this shouldn't happen. We did get four votes from the other side of the aisle. Even the National Review, which is one of the most conservative magazines in the country, said filibustering this piece of legislation was ``insane.''

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this time the endorsers of that legislation for the historical record.

We have had a lot of discussion over the last 6 years about the so-called pivot to Asia. I will say as someone who has spent a great deal of time in and out of east Asia that this pivot was heavily influenced by the actions, again, taken directly out of our office. We looked for people to come and work with us who had expertise and the intellect to work not only on the Hill, not only with Members of Congress, and not only with the State Department, but with our embassies around the world, with foreign leaders, with validators, to take a different approach and to refocus the energy of the United States on this most vital part

of the world. David Bonine, Marta McLellan Ross, Gordon Peterson, and Philip Brady were among them.

Our many visits to this part of the world sometimes included five countries in 2 weeks, traveling solely via commercial air rather than with military codel support, and included repeated meetings with the top leadership of countries such as Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, and Burma, all of which represent the future of the United States in terms of trade, security, and cultural growth in the coming decades.

With respect to Burma, it was a great moment for me to be able to sit down with and see Aung San Suu Kyi, recognized by the Congress a month or so ago, coming to this country as an elected member of their Parliament. We began the change in that relationship directly from our office based on work I had begun and become interested in over a period of 6 years before I was elected to the Senate.

I am very proud to say we laid the groundwork for a historic visit in 2009 from inside our office--often, I would say, against the will and against the advice of our own State Department. We used validators. We talked to people we knew in the region. I became the only American leader ever to meet with GEN Than Shwe, the leader of the military junta, to express my belief that we could work forward and have a different relationship. We met with Aung San Suu Kyi. I hope those who had some doubts about the wisdom of opening this relationship now can see the benefits as we are seeing the political situation beginning to truly change in Burma.

We worked heavily with Japan. This is a critical yet often overlooked relationship. It involved an effort to resolve basing issues on Okinawa that don't always get the attention they deserve in the Congress but have at times absolutely paralyzed the political debate inside Japan. Ironically, I first began working on these issues as a military planner in 1974 after I left the Marine Corps and was in law school. Our staff has met--and I have been a part of most of these meetings--with more than 70 delegations from Japan, in our office, organized and conducted by our staff.

In Korea, we led an effort to bring Democratic Senators onboard to support the critical free-trade agreement that is so important not only to our bilateral relations but to the signals of the United States in that part of the world, and we began what I believe is something of a pioneering effort to get Korea and Japan to come together at the table to realize their common security interests.

As to Vietnam, I have visited and worked inside Vietnam for 18 out of the last 21 years in addition to having served there as a marine, I would say.

I fought in Vietnam because I believed in the importance of that country to our relationships in Asia. I have spent a great deal of energy for more than 30 years now in an effort to heal the final wound of that war, which is the relationship between our Vietnamese community here in the United States and the government inside Vietnam.

We have worked in Thailand, Singapore, Laos. I was the first American Senator to visit Laos in 7 years, the first Member of Congress to visit Cambodia in 2 years when we visited Indonesia. We worked hard on the sovereignty and maritime issues in the South China Sea. We initiated and sponsored two important Senate resolutions regarding China's recent aggression in the South China Sea. Again, we initiated this from the staff members in our office.

I could go on. Let me just say that the other areas--important areas--that our staff has worked on in the past 6 years include our pioneering work in economic fairness, the need for stronger programs in the area of adult education, the efforts from inside our office to encourage a full spectrum of energy development, the preservation of Civil War battlefields, and the vital need to rebalance the constitutional relationship between the Congress and the Presidency, which I have pursued in both administrations that have been in office while I have been a Member of the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, at this point, because I really will not have time to list all of the contributions by my staff members, I ask unanimous consent that the names and the positions of my staff members be printed in the Record.

So to my staff, a heartfelt thanks, and to each of those who have served with us, I say again, thank you for your contributions to our staff and, most importantly, to our country. And I say also again that I will continue to expect great things from you in the future. You are my legacy. Never forget that the people you might have the honor of leading as you move forward in your careers, wherever you end up, will someday become your legacy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, December 5 marks the 85th birthday of His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand. I would like to offer my sincerest congratulations to His Majesty and to the people of Thailand as they commemorate his 66-year reign of Thailand.

The United States and Thailand have had an extensive, close relationship for nearly 200 years, beginning with the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in 1833. This treaty--the first U.S. treaty in Asia-- cemented the friendship between the American and Thai people. King Bhumibol has nurtured this relationship in line with our shared values of democracy and rule law. He has been a vital supporter of a free and open society in Thailand and a stabilizing force in the government's transitions of political power. As the world's longest serving monarch, he has placed his commitment to the Thai people above all.

I have visited Thailand many times over a span of more than 30 years. As chairman of the East Asia and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee, I was fortunate to continue this close relationship, visiting Thailand numerous times to meet Thai leaders, and reaffirm my support for a strong alliance with the United States. I would like to thank King Bhumibol and the Thai government for the courtesies extended to me over the past 6 years of my service in the U.S. Senate. Going forward, I am confident that the U.S.-Thai alliance will continue to be a critical partnership in guaranteeing stability in the Asia-Pacific region.

Mr. President, I am so pleased to join the people of Thailand in celebrating the birthday of His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej, and extend my best wishes to His Majesty for his good health.

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

Mr. President, we are about to wrap up the Defense bill. This is the sixth Defense bill I have had the privilege of working on as a member of the Armed Services Committee. It is also the final Defense bill I will be working on as a Member of the U.S. Senate. I want to take this opportunity to say what an honor and privilege it has been to serve as a member of that committee and express my thanks to Chairman Levin.

As someone who began his time on Capitol Hill as a full-committee counsel on the House side many years ago and then spent 5 years in the Pentagon--often working over here on the Hill--and now after 6 years in the Senate, I can say that Senator Levin is a five-star committee chairman. He is what one always hopes for when he or she serves on a committee in the U.S. Congress. It has been a true honor.

This committee is an example of how committee work should be undertaken in the U.S. Congress. People like to say this is the 51st consecutive year we have, hopefully, been able to pass a Defense authorization bill. I would suggest to my colleagues that perhaps that example should be used more broadly in this body. I think it would make for good governance if it did.

I want to also express my appreciation to Senator McCain, the Senator from Arizona. I have known him as a colleague and friend for more than 30 years. He comes from a family that has a long tradition of military service to our country that continues even until today. Senator McCain and I have had occasional disagreements on the conduct of foreign policy, but I think it has been very rare that we have seen differently as to our views of how the Department of Defense should undertake its responsibilities.

As the subcommittee chair of the personnel subcommittee, I want to express my appreciation to my staff, Gary Leeling, Jon Clark, Brie Fahrer, and Jennifer Knowles. They have always been accessible and extremely professional. It has been a great privilege to work with them.

I also want to take a special moment of privilege here to recognize Gordon Peterson, who has been my military assistant throughout my time in the U.S. Senate. Gordon Peterson and I graduated from the Naval Academy in the same year. He was a very fine and respected athlete at the Naval Academy. He went on to become a helicopter pilot in combat in Vietnam. He gave our country 30 years of distinguished service as a naval officer. He was later the editor in chief of Seapower magazine, and was a special assistant to the Commandant of the Coast Guard. He has been unflagging in his attention to detail in everything we have worked on in the last 6 years.

We were talking a few days ago about whether either of us would have thought that during the days of our plebe summers so many years ago we would be sitting on the floor of the U.S. Senate as stewards of the well-being of our country and of the people who served it. I give a special thanks to Gordon Peterson as he moves on to other challenges in his life.

Again, it has been my privilege to serve on this committee.

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

Mr. President, I would like to take a couple of minutes this morning to discuss Senator Sessions' amendment which we will be voting on shortly, amendment No. 3009, which I cosponsor, and explain my views on why this amendment is important in terms of the balance this body traditionally and historically should have with the executive branch of our government.

There are two clarifications in this amendment that I believe are important in terms of how we develop long-term relationships, security relationships, with other countries. The first is that, as we know, recently the President of the United States entered into what they have termed an ``enduring strategic partnership agreement'' between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan which proposes to establish an enduring strategic partnership. This has been done without the consent of the Congress. It has been justified based on the authority of the President to use force in order to respond to these incidents that began on 9/11.

I believe it is important for us as a body to make the distinction that the authorization for the use of military force does not in and of itself authorize the executive branch to enter into long-term security agreements with another country that can affect the number of forces that are there. It can affect a broad range of governmental issues that are far beyond the use of force in terms of dealing with international terrorism.

This is true in our history. It is actually true in the way these other countries--Iraq and now Afghanistan--have been dealing with the same documents. I can recall during the previous administration when they signed a strategic framework agreement, and then we began working on the status of forces agreement with Iraq. I called at that time for this agreement, the strategic framework agreement, which is a long-term relationship proposed between the United States and Iraq, to be submitted to the Congress for review. I actually had to go into one of these rooms where you close the door as if you were reading a top- secret document even to examine the strategic framework agreement, which was not classified and which the Iraqi Parliament voted on twice. We did not even get to vote on it. I do not think that is the way our system of government should be working.

We are seeing the same situation here with Afghanistan. We should not be entering into a long-term security relationship with Afghanistan purely at the discretion of the executive branch. The Congress should have a part to play in this. That is the second point. The question is, What should the role of Congress be? I think that is what has paralyzed us as a body for the 6 years I have been here in the Senate.

This is not a treaty. This would not be a treaty, so we would not have to go through the entire consent process of a treaty, which could paralyze our foreign policy. The Presiding Officer and I both have worked for several years here now trying to get the Law of the Sea Treaty into place. It has been bouncing around for decades. But it should be more than what they call ``consultation.'' Every time we talk to the executive branch--and I am a former member of the executive branch. I spent 4 years in the Pentagon in the Reagan administration. They say they have ``consulted,'' and the definition of the ``consultation'' could be the Secretary of State calling the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee or the Secretary of Defense calling the chairman of the Armed Services Committee or coming over for a meeting. That is not the level of discussion and involvement the Congress should have when we are talking about long-term commitments with countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

This amendment is not Draconian. It is very sensible. It basically says that in the situation where we have entered into this proposed relationship with Afghanistan, the key committees over here in the Congress should have 30 days to review the documents before they are put into play. There is no great urgency in terms of when these documents are implemented. It is the same courtesy--it is not actually as far as what the Afghan Parliament is going to be able to do on the other side. For that reason, I commend the Senator from Alabama for having decided to come forward with this amendment. It has my support.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I would like to speak on the Udall amendment. I have great admiration and respect for the Senator from Colorado as well as his cousin who now presides. I have concerns about this amendment that were raised during the committee markup. I think they have become even more of a concern since that time period.

Let me begin by saying as someone who spent 5 years in the Pentagon, one as a marine and four as a defense executive, I would hope that the top order of business for our President as he begins his next term would be to call for a reexamination, a rigorous reexamination of all of the programs in the Department of Defense.

In other words, not quite to zero-based but to examine the justifications for all of the programs that are in place with an eye toward the realities of the future, I think we could benefit as a country. People who care about national security, but also care about the tax bills they are getting, would benefit as well from something of a triage of the programs in the Department of Defense.

We should ask the Secretary of Defense and his people who work--or her--with these programs to examine which programs in DOD are the must- haves, which are absolutely vital to our national security, and which programs are the need-to-haves, the programs that might place our national security at some level of risk if they were to be altered or modified. Then we also need to have some painful examination of programs that might be called the nice-to-haves, those that are essentially ancillary to the harder definitions of national security, even though they have been supported.

I would say these, the costly biofuels programs, in the sense that we are proposing to fund them in the operational environment at this time, would have to qualify as nice-to-haves. That does not mean we should eliminate the biofuels programs. There is money in R&D to continue to examine them.

But I will tell you, Mr. President, what a must-have is. A must-have is our shipbuilding program. When I was commissioned in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1968, we had 930 combatant ships in the U.S. Navy. By the time we went into the post-Vietnam drawdowns, we had 479 combatants.

When I was Secretary of the Navy in 1987-1988, we were able to rebuild the Navy up to 568 combatants. Since that time, national strategy has changed. Our commitments have changed, but the size of the Navy has been dramatically reduced down to the point where today it is about 285 operational combatant vessels.

We have been trying, since I came to the Senate, to rebuild the Navy up to a

minimum of 313 combatants. It is very difficult to do this when we have other programs in place that are not directly contributing to our national security but are competing for programs.

I understand the concerns about energy independence. I also would like to remind my colleagues of the advances we have made in this country in that area just over the past few years in a way that many of us could not even have imagined 6 years ago when I came to the Senate. The International Energy Agency just made a report called ``The World Energy Outlook,'' and in this report as summarized by Reuters the United States, according to their estimates, will overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world's top oil producer by 2017.

IAEA Chief Economist Faith Birol told a news conference in London that he believed the United States would overtake Russia as the biggest gas producer by a significant margin by 2015, and by 2017 it would become the world's largest oil producer.

Will this prediction hold out? I don't know, but are we on our way toward significant gains in terms of our energy independence? Yes, we are. The language in section 313, which this amendment proposes to strike--I want to be very clear about this--does not affect programs that have been discussed here in such areas as hydrogen fuel as a fuel of choice for engine design or doing away with R&D dollars. It is just not true.

It states, in part, that this restriction goes to the cost of producing or purchasing alternative fuels if they exceed the cost of producing traditional fossil fuel that would be used for the same purpose--very narrowly defined.

There is a second paragraph in section 313 that goes to an exception to this program, which only applies to 50-50 blends of fuels. I personally believe that section should be modified and actually could be modified in conference. I think it is too narrow. But in general this is not a paragraph that totally does away with the biofuels program in the Department of Defense.

We have to make decisions. We have to get competitive programs into the Department of Defense. We must increase the readiness. We are not proposing to decrease the research and development programs. For those reasons, I will be opposing this amendment with the hope that we can continue the R&D programs for biofuels.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take some time at this point to talk about some events in Asia. I think we all need to be paying very close attention to them. Before I do that, I would like to clarify my position on the vote we are going to be taking this afternoon.

First, I wish to emphasize that I agree with all those comments that have been made by my Democratic colleagues about needing to keep these tax cuts in place for our lower income workers, our middle class; I just happen to believe we need to keep them in place for everyone who is making their income through what we call ordinary earned income.

Earned income, ordinary earned income, is the strongest indicator that a person in this country is actually accumulating wealth, which is the American dream, and it is not necessarily that you have wealth-- whatever the amount may happen to be. Passive income, which is income from capital gains, such as investment in stocks or dividends, is one of the best indicators that you actually have accumulated a certain amount of wealth--you have enough money to set aside and invest it.

So my long belief has been that if we are going to raise taxes on income, in addition to these other things we have been talking about with respect to tax loopholes and subsidies and those sorts of things, we really ought to be doing so in the fairest place, and the fairest place is from passive income, not ordinary earned income. I have said since the day I announced for the U.S. Senate years ago that I will not vote to raise taxes on ordinary income of any amount. I gave a rather detailed set of floor remarks several months ago about this issue.

I would like to share this particular chart with my colleagues today before I begin speaking on the situation in the South China Sea. This shows sources of income for the top 0.1 percent. We keep talking about these people at the top who are not paying their fair share. Well, two- thirds of the money that is being made by the top 0.1 percent in this country--that is 140,000 taxpayers--is being made from passive income. It is being made from capital gains and dividends, which are taxed at a much lower rate than ordinary income--right now, 15 percent.

So in addition to fixing the larger Tax Code, I would like to say again to my colleagues that this is the area where we really should have the courage to make some decisions.

I was reading an article in the Economist--this week's edition-- pointing out that American profits, corporate profits as a percentage of GDP, are actually higher now than they were at the high point before our economic crisis. In other words, corporate profits have gone up to a point where they are now about 15 percent of our GDP at the same time our wages have stagnated and gone down. They made one point in here where they said there is an irony that a high share of GDP for profits automatically results in a low share for wages. Why? Because the people who are making the money by running these companies--the executives-- are selling their stocks, their stock options, taking the lower percentage on capital gains in order to make their money.

So I am not going to vote for raising taxes on ordinary earned income. But, again, I will renew my suggestion to this body that we take a good, hard look at this because this situation is creating the greatest disparity among our people.

South China Sea

Mr. President, for many years, since well before I came to the Senate, I have had the pleasure to work and travel inside East Asia in many different capacities--as a marine in Okinawa and Vietnam, as a journalist, as a government official, as a guest of different governments, as a filmmaker, as a business consultant.

What we have been able to do, I think, in the last 5 or 6 years in order to refocus our country's interest on this vital part of the world is one of the great success stories of our foreign policy. But at the same time, we have to always be mindful that the presence of the United States in Southeast Asia is the guarantor of stability in this region.

If you look up here at the Korean Peninsula, you will see that for centuries there has been a cycle where the power centers have shifted among Japan, Russia, and China. This is the only place in the world where the geographical and power interests of those three countries intersect, and they intersect, with the Korean Peninsula being right in the middle of it.

We saw earlier, actually in the middle of last century, what happened when Japan became too aggressive in this part of the world. The Japanese fought Russia in the early 1900s. They defeated them. This is when they moved into Korea, occupied Korea, moved into China.

This resulted in our involvement in the Second World War. And since the Second World War, our presence has been the guarantor of stability. We have seen blowups, the Korean war when we fought China in addition to North Korea, the Vietnam war, in which I fought. But generally the long-term observers of this region, people such as Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, will say that the presence of the United States in this region has allowed economic systems to grow and governmental systems to modernize. We have been the great guarantor of stability.

The difficulty we have been facing in the past 10 to 12 years has been how to deal with the economic and international growth of China in this region. Before China's expansion, when I was in the Pentagon in the 1980s, we had seen the reemergence of the Soviet Union. When I was in the Pentagon at that time, on any given day Russia's dream of having warm-water ports in the Pacific had been realized, to where they would have about 20 to 25 ships in Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam, at the end of the Vietnam war. But for the past 10 to 12 years, the challenge has been for us to develop the right sort of relationship with China so we can acknowledge their growth as a nation but maintain the stability that is so vital in this part of the world.

The last few years have been very troublesome. There have been a number of issues out here in the South China Sea that for a long time our military leaders assumed were simply tactical engagements where Chinese naval vessels and fishing vessels would be involved in spats with the Philippines off the coast of Vietnam. But it became very clear--and also in the Senkaku Islands near Japan.

It became very clear after a while, though, that what we are seeing are sovereignty issues. People were talking for many years about solving the situation in Taiwan, the sovereignty issue in Taiwan. It was clear--I was speaking about this for many years--that there are many other sovereignty issues once Taiwan is resolved: the Senkaku Islands, which Japan and China both claim, the Paracels, which China and Vietnam both claim, the Spratlys, which are claimed by five different countries, including China, Vietnam, and the Philippines.

So we started seeing a resurgence of incidents that became military confrontations over the past couple of years. Our Secretary of State and this administration were very clear 2 years ago, almost to the day, that these situations were not simply Asian situations, that they were in the vital interests of the United States to be resolved peacefully and multilaterally.

We have been struggling on the Foreign Relations Committee to try to pass the Law of the Sea Treaty where these sorts of incidents--which, by the way, are more than security incidents, they involve potentially an enormous amount of wealth in this part of the world. We have had a very difficult time getting a Law of the Sea Treaty passed where most of the countries around the world recognize the basic principles of how to resolve these international issues through multilateral involvement.

In the absence of a Law of the Sea Treaty, and, I think, with the resurgence of the Chinese--a certain faction of the Chinese tied to their military, China has become more and more aggressive. This past month has been very troublesome. On June 21, China's State Council approved the establishment of what they call the Sansha City

Prefectural Zone. This is literally the creation from nowhere of a governmental body in an area that is claimed also by Vietnam.

Unilaterally on Friday, July 13, because of disagreements over how to characterize the South China Sea situation, ASEAN--the Association of East Asian Nations, a 10-nation body, which has been very forthcoming in trying to solve these problems--failed to issue a communique about the South China Sea issues, a multilateral solution of the South China Sea issues.

On July 22, the Central Military Commission of China announced the deployment of a garrison of soldiers to the islands in this area. The garrison will likely be placed in the Paracel Islands right here, as I said, claimed by Vietnam, within the exclusive economic zone of Vietnam.

July 23, China officially began implementing this decision. It announced that 45 legislators are now to govern the approximately 1,000 people who are occupying these islands. They have elected a mayor and a vice mayor. They have announced that a 15-member standing committee will be running the prefecture. They have announced that this city they are creating will administer more than 200 islands, sandbanks, reefs, covering 2 million square kilometers of water.

In other words, they have created a governmental system out of nothing. They have populated with a garrison an island that is in contest in terms of sovereignty, and they have announced that this governing body will administer this entire area in the South China Sea.

China has refused to resolve these issues in a multilateral forum. They claim these issues will only be resolved bilaterally, one nation to another. Why? Because they can dominate any nation in this region. This is a violation, quite arguably, of international law. It is contrary to China's own statements about their willingness to work with ASEAN, to try to develop some sort of code of conduct. This is very troubling. I would urge the State Department to clarify this situation with China and also with our body immediately.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about today's guest chaplain, the Reverend Elizabeth Evans Hagan, Senior Pastor at Washington Plaza Baptist Church in Reston, VA. I am pleased to welcome Reverend Hagan and her husband, Kevin, to the United States Senate today.

Reverend Hagan holds a degree in education from Samford University, and received her Master of Divinity in 2006 from Duke University. Prior to serving at Washington Plaza, Reverend Hagan served as Associate Pastor for Education and Youth at First Baptist Church of Gaithersburg, MD, and several pastoral internships in Alabama, North Carolina, and Washington, DC. She is passionate about building a strong community of faith, and has traveled extensively to places such as Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, Burma, Thailand and Argentina.

Since March of 2009, Reverend Hagan has led the large and growing congregation at Washington Plaza, which includes a large African- American, Chinese, and growing Hispanic representation. It is welcoming and affirming of all people, and a church where seekers feel at home.

Through the many ministries and programs at Washington Plaza Baptist Church, Reverend Hagan has made a profound impact on the lives of many members of my constituency. I am certain that she will continue to guide her congregation for many years to come, and I look forward to seeing the direction of Washington Plaza under her leadership.

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

Mr. President, I ask to speak on an amendment I have sent to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask to speak on the bill I send to the desk.

Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Parliamentarian for that clarification.

(The remarks of Mr. Webb pertaining to the introduction of S. 3372 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. President, I am introducing this bill today in response to a recent Supreme Court holding that invalidated the provisions of what has become known as the Stolen Valor Act of 2006. The Supreme Court decision regarded a place in the Stolen Valor Act that made all false statements about the receipt of military decorations a crime. It states that this act, in the view of the Court:

. . . seeks to control and suppress all false statements on

this one subject in almost limitless times and settings

without regard to whether the lie was made for the purpose of

material gain.

Basically what the Supreme Court was saying is that we cannot freeze all first amendment rights to make claims about anything in this society unless there was a purpose at the end of it in terms of some sort of a material gain.

I understand and fully accept the Court's holding in this case about the overly broad measures of the Stolen Valor Act of 2006. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to remedy this issue and to bring criminal penalties to those who falsely claim military service or the receipt of unearned awards, medals, and ribbons if these statements were made in pursuit of a tangible benefit or a personal gain.

This legislation is drafted under the guidance of the holding of the Supreme Court in this case. I am a strong believer in the first amendment. I believe it is sacrosanct in our society. I believe the freedom to speak one's mind and to dissent when one opposes a proposal or an issue or a government policy is the very foundation of a truly free society.

At the same time, the very special reverence with the first amendment should be measured against the equally special place our society holds for military service. There are strongly emotional reasons that this is so and there are clearly other tangible benefits that derive from military service.

I would point out something that for many of us seems obvious, but I think it needs to be restated as we consider the Supreme Court decision on the Stolen Valor Act and what the implications are for the legislation I am introducing. The experience of military service, particularly hard combat, is a unique phenomenon in our society. There was a saying when I was in the Marine Corps many years ago that ``For those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor that the protected shall never know.'' Once someone has been in hard combat, they will never see life around them in the same way again. That doesn't mean they will be worse or particularly better or damaged or in some way empowered, but for the rest of their lives they will truly see a lot of things differently. They will have seen horrible events that strain their emotions, yet increase their ability to understand tragedy and to value human courage in many different stripes and forms. They will have learned to appreciate the inherent contradictions between the pristine intellectual debates about war and the reality of a blood-soaked battlefield where decisions must be made in an instant while human lives hang precariously in the balance.

These lives comprise the burden and the value of military service. Neither the scars nor the lessons disappear when one leaves the battlefield or when one leaves the military. The men and women who step forward to serve carry this burden and share these values for the rest of their lives. Our veterans have given a portion of themselves to our country, and our country has always been good at reciprocating. Our veterans love America and America loves our veterans.

It is important to understand the impact that military service can have on one's life in order to comprehend what a disservice it is for others to pretend to have served. There is an old country song that says ``You've got to suffer if you want to sing the blues.'' Those who have not served, have not paid the price that comes with earning that respect. In many cases they are indeed attempting to gain tangible benefits that have been designed to reward and honor military service when they pretend to have served.

Here are a few of those benefits that are in the legislation I am outlining: benefits relating to the military service provided by the Federal Government or a State or local government; the ability to gain employment or professional advancement; financial remuneration, for instance, receiving money for books or writings related to the notion of having served; seeking an effect

on the outcome of criminal or civil court proceedings; and seeking to impact one's personal credibility in a political campaign. There are others, but those are clearly tangible benefits that come from stating that one served in the military when one did not.

The journey of this Stolen Valor legislation begins with one individual whom I have known for a very long time. His name is Jug Burkett. He was a Vietnam veteran, like myself. He grew up in the military. His father had a career in the military. He identified this problem many years ago and looked at the impact of those who had claimed to have served or who had claimed to have served in areas where they did not on all the areas I just mentioned.

He wrote a book many years called ``Stolen Valor.'' He had quite a journey with this book and has pursued the issue of honesty and integrity in our legal process and in other ways. It was largely because of Jug Burkett's effort that the Stolen Valor Act was passed in 2006.

I do not believe the Supreme Court decision in any way invalidates the concerns Jug Burkett and others have had. In fact, I think what we are doing with this legislation is to make sure proper concerns are laid out without being overly broad so that any words said in a bar room or someone sitting around personally is not going to have legal authorities measuring every single word anyone says.

We have designed this very specifically with respect to the concerns the Supreme Court laid out. I may be offering this bill as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. My hope is this amended language could gain the support of all of our colleagues and that we could move this bill quickly, perhaps as an independent bill.

This bill respects the first amendment. It respects military service, and it assures a special place in our society that has always been reserved for those who have stepped forward and gone into harm's way on our behalf.

Mr. President, I am introducing this bill today in response to a recent Supreme Court holding that invalidated the provisions of what has become known as the Stolen Valor Act of 2006. The Supreme Court decision regarded a place in the Stolen Valor Act that made all false statements about the receipt of military decorations a crime. It states that this act, in the view of the Court:

. . . seeks to control and suppress all false statements on

this one subject in almost limitless times and settings

without regard to whether the lie was made for the purpose of

material gain.

Basically what the Supreme Court was saying is that we cannot freeze all first amendment rights to make claims about anything in this society unless there was a purpose at the end of it in terms of some sort of a material gain.

I understand and fully accept the Court's holding in this case about the overly broad measures of the Stolen Valor Act of 2006. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to remedy this issue and to bring criminal penalties to those who falsely claim military service or the receipt of unearned awards, medals, and ribbons if these statements were made in pursuit of a tangible benefit or a personal gain.

This legislation is drafted under the guidance of the holding of the Supreme Court in this case. I am a strong believer in the first amendment. I believe it is sacrosanct in our society. I believe the freedom to speak one's mind and to dissent when one opposes a proposal or an issue or a government policy is the very foundation of a truly free society.

At the same time, the very special reverence with the first amendment should be measured against the equally special place our society holds for military service. There are strongly emotional reasons that this is so and there are clearly other tangible benefits that derive from military service.

I would point out something that for many of us seems obvious, but I think it needs to be restated as we consider the Supreme Court decision on the Stolen Valor Act and what the implications are for the legislation I am introducing. The experience of military service, particularly hard combat, is a unique phenomenon in our society. There was a saying when I was in the Marine Corps many years ago that ``For those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor that the protected shall never know.'' Once someone has been in hard combat, they will never see life around them in the same way again. That doesn't mean they will be worse or particularly better or damaged or in some way empowered, but for the rest of their lives they will truly see a lot of things differently. They will have seen horrible events that strain their emotions, yet increase their ability to understand tragedy and to value human courage in many different stripes and forms. They will have learned to appreciate the inherent contradictions between the pristine intellectual debates about war and the reality of a blood-soaked battlefield where decisions must be made in an instant while human lives hang precariously in the balance.

These lives comprise the burden and the value of military service. Neither the scars nor the lessons disappear when one leaves the battlefield or when one leaves the military. The men and women who step forward to serve carry this burden and share these values for the rest of their lives. Our veterans have given a portion of themselves to our country, and our country has always been good at reciprocating. Our veterans love America and America loves our veterans.

It is important to understand the impact that military service can have on one's life in order to comprehend what a disservice it is for others to pretend to have served. There is an old country song that says ``You've got to suffer if you want to sing the blues.'' Those who have not served, have not paid the price that comes with earning that respect. In many cases they are indeed attempting to gain tangible benefits that have been designed to reward and honor military service when they pretend to have served.

Here are a few of those benefits that are in the legislation I am outlining: benefits relating to the military service provided by the Federal Government or a State or local government; the ability to gain employment or professional advancement; financial remuneration, for instance, receiving money for books or writings related to the notion of having served; seeking an effect

on the outcome of criminal or civil court proceedings; and seeking to impact one's personal credibility in a political campaign. There are others, but those are clearly tangible benefits that come from stating that one served in the military when one did not.

The journey of this Stolen Valor legislation begins with one individual whom I have known for a very long time. His name is Jug Burkett. He was a Vietnam veteran, like myself. He grew up in the military. His father had a career in the military. He identified this problem many years ago and looked at the impact of those who had claimed to have served or who had claimed to have served in areas where they did not on all the areas I just mentioned.

He wrote a book many years called ``Stolen Valor.'' He had quite a journey with this book and has pursued the issue of honesty and integrity in our legal process and in other ways. It was largely because of Jug Burkett's effort that the Stolen Valor Act was passed in 2006.

I do not believe the Supreme Court decision in any way invalidates the concerns Jug Burkett and others have had. In fact, I think what we are doing with this legislation is to make sure proper concerns are laid out without being overly broad so that any words said in a bar room or someone sitting around personally is not going to have legal authorities measuring every single word anyone says.

We have designed this very specifically with respect to the concerns the Supreme Court laid out. I may be offering this bill as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. My hope is this amended language could gain the support of all of our colleagues and that we could move this bill quickly, perhaps as an independent bill.

This bill respects the first amendment. It respects military service, and it assures a special place in our society that has always been reserved for those who have stepped forward and gone into harm's way on our behalf.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, I rise today to address perhaps the most important constitutional challenge facing the balance of power between the Presidency and the Congress in modern times, and also to offer a legislative solution that might finally address this paralysis. It is an issue that has for far too long remained unresolved. And for the past 10 years, the failure of this body to address it has diminished the respect, the stature, and the seriousness with which the American people have viewed the Congress--to the detriment of our country and to our national security.

The question is simple: When should the President have the unilateral authority to decide to use military force, and what is the place of the Congress in that process? What has happened to reduce the role of the Congress from the body which once clearly decided whether the Nation would go to war, to the point that we are viewed as little more than a rather mindless conduit that collects taxpayer dollars and dispenses them to the President for whatever military functions he decides to undertake?

We know what the Constitution says. Most of us also know the difficulties that have attended this situation in the years that followed World War II.

We are aware of the debates that resulted in the war powers resolution of nearly 40 years ago in the wake of the Vietnam war, where the Congress attempted to define a proper balance between the President and this legislative body. I have strong memories of the policy conflicts of that era, first as a marine infantry officer who fought on the unforgiving battlefields of Vietnam, on which more than 100,000 U.S. marines were killed or wounded, and later as an ardent student of constitutional law during my time at the Georgetown University Law Center.

But it was in the decades following Vietnam that our constitutional process seems to have broken apart. Year by year, skirmish by skirmish, the role of the Congress in determining where the U.S. military would operate and when the awesome power of our weapons systems would be unleashed has diminished. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, especially with the advent of special operations forces and remote bombing capabilities, the Congress seems to have faded into operational irrelevance.

Congressional consent is rarely discussed. The strongest debates surround

the rather irrelevant issue of whether the Congress has even been consulted. We have now reached the point that the unprecedented--and, quite frankly, contorted--constitutional logic used by this administration to intervene in Libya on the basis of what can most kindly be called a U.N. standard of humanitarian intervention was not even subject to a full debate or a vote on the Senate floor. Such an omission, and the precedent it has set, now requires us to accept one of two uncomfortable alternatives. Either we as a legislative body must reject this passivity and live up to the standards and expectations regarding Presidential power that were laid down so carefully by our Founding Fathers or we must accept a redefinition of the very precepts upon which this government was founded.

This is not a political issue. We would be facing the exact same constitutional challenges no matter the party of the President. In fact, unless we resolve this matter, there is no doubt we someday will.

The conflict in the balance of power between the President and the Congress has always been an intrinsic part of our constitutional makeup. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution provides that the Congress alone has the power to declare war. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution provides that the President shall serve as Commander in Chief. In the early days of our Republic, these distinctions were clear, particularly since we retained no large standing army during peacetime, and since article I, section 8 also provides that the Congress has the power to ``raise and support armies,'' a phrase that expressed the clear intent of the Framers that large ground forces were not to be kept during peacetime but, instead, were to be raised at the direction of Congress during the time of war.

Our history confirms this, as our armies demobilized again and again once wars were completed. Only after World War II did this change, when our rather reluctant position as the world's greatest guarantor of international stability required that we maintain a large standing military force, much of it stationed in Europe and Asia, ready to respond to crises whose immediacy could not otherwise allow us to go through the lengthy process of mobilization in order to raise an army and because of that reality made the time-honored process of asking the Congress for a formal declaration of war in most cases obsolescent.

But any logical proposition can be carried to a ridiculous extreme. The fact that some military situations have required our Presidents to act immediately before then reporting to the Congress does not, in and of itself, give the President a blanket authority to use military force whenever and wherever he decides to do so, even where Americans are not personally at risk and even where the vital interests of our country have not been debated and clearly defined. This is the ridiculous extreme we have now reached. The world is filled with tyrants. Democratic systems are far and few between. I don't know exactly what objective standard should be used before the U.S. Government would decide to conduct a so-called humanitarian intervention by using our military power to address domestic tensions inside another country, and I don't believe anyone else knows either. But I will say this: No President should have the unilateral authority to make that decision either.

I make this point from the perspective of somebody who grew up in the military and whose family has participated as citizen soldiers in most of our country's wars, beginning with the American Revolution. I was proud to serve as a marine in Vietnam, and I am equally proud of my son's service as a marine infantryman in Iraq. I am also deeply grateful for having had the opportunity to serve 5 years in the Pentagon, first as a marine, then later as Assistant Secretary of Defense and as a Secretary of the Navy. I have also benefited over the years from having served in many places around the world as a journalist, including in Beirut during our military engagement there in 1983 and in Afghanistan as an embedded journalist in 2004. As most people in this body know, I am one of the strongest proponents of the refocusing of our national involvement in East Asia. I was the original sponsor of a Senate resolution condemning China's use of force with respect to sovereignty issues in the South China Sea.

The point is I am not advocating a retreat from anywhere. But this administration's argument that it has the authority to decide when and where to use military force without the consent of the Congress, using the fragile logic of humanitarian intervention to ostensibly redress domestic tensions inside countries where American interests are not being directly threatened is gravely dangerous. It is a bridge too far. It does not fit our history. To give one individual such discretion ridicules our Constitution. It belittles the role of the Congress. For anyone in this body to accept this rationale is also for them to accept that the Congress no longer has any direct role in the development, and particularly in the execution, of foreign policy.

There are clear and important boundaries that have always existed when considering a President's authority to order our military into action without the immediate consent of the Congress. To exceed these boundaries--as the President has already done with the precedent set in Libya--is to deliberately destroy the balance of powers that were built so carefully into the Constitution itself.

These historically acceptable conditions under which a President can unilaterally order the military into action are clear: If our country or our military forces are attacked; if an attack, including one by international terrorists, is imminent and must be preempted; if treaty commitments specifically compel us to respond to attacks on our allies; if American citizens are detained or threatened; if our sea lanes are interrupted, then, and only then, should the President order the use of military force without first gaining the approval of the Congress.

At least until recent months, the Congress has never accepted that the President owns the unilateral discretion to initiate combat activities without direct provocation, without Americans at risk, without the obligations of treaty commitments, and without the consent of the Congress. The recent actions by this administration, beginning with the months-long intervention in Libya, should give us all grounds for concern and alarm about the potential harm to our constitutional system itself. We are in no sense compelled--or justified--in taking action based on a vote of the United Nations or as a result of a decision made by a collective security arrangement, such as NATO, when none of its members have been attacked. It is not the prerogative of the President to decide to commit our military and our prestige into situations that cannot clearly be determined to flow from vital national interests.

Who should decide that? I can't personally and conclusively define the boundaries of what is being called a humanitarian intervention and, most importantly, neither can anybody else. Where should it apply? Where should it not? Rwanda? Libya? Syria? Venezuela? Bangladesh? In the absence of a clear determination by our time-honored constitutional process, who should decide where our young men and women or our national treasure should be risked? Some of these endeavors may be justified, some may not. But the most important point to be made is that in our system no one person should have the power to inject the U.S. military and the prestige of our Nation into such circumstances.

Our Constitution was founded upon this hesitation. We inherited our system from Great Britain, but we adapted and changed it for a reason. One of our strongest adjustments from the British system was to ensure that no one person would have the power to commit the Nation to military schemes that could not be justified by the interests and the security of the average citizen. President after President, beginning with George Washington, has emphasized the importance of this fundamental principle to the stability of our political system and to the integrity of our country in the international community. The fact that the leadership of our Congress has failed to raise this historic standard in the past few years, and most specifically in Libya, is a warning sign to this body that it must reaffirm one of its most solemn responsibilities.

I have been working for several months to construct a legislative solution to this paralysis. This legislation

would recognize that modern circumstances require an adroit approach to the manner in which our foreign policy is being implemented. But it would also put necessary and proper boundaries around a President's discretion when it comes to so-called humanitarian intervention, where we and our people are not being directly threatened. My legislation requires that in any situation where American interests are not directly threatened, the President must obtain formal approval by the Congress before introducing American military force. This legislation will also provide that debate on such a request must begin within days of the request and that a vote must proceed in a timely manner.

I remind the leadership on both sides of this body that despite repeated calls from myself and other Senators, when this administration conducted month after month of combat operations in Libya, with no American interests directly threatened and no clear treaty provisions in play, the Congress of the United States, both Democratic and Republican, could not even bring itself to have a formal debate on whether the use of military force was appropriate, and this use of military force that went on for months was never approved. The administration, which spent well over $1 billion of taxpayer funds, dropped thousands of bombs on the country and operated our military offshore for months, claimed that combat was not occurring and rejected the notion that the War Powers Act applied to the situation. I am not here to debate the War Powers Act; I am suggesting that other statutory language that covers these kinds of situations must be enacted. The legislation I will be introducing will address this loophole in the interpretation of our Constitution. It will serve as a necessary safety net to protect the integrity and the intent of the Constitution itself. It will ensure that the Congress lives up not only to its prerogatives, which were so carefully laid out by our Founding Fathers, but also to its responsibilities.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senate is in the midst of recognizing a very important milestone in our history. I would like to join my Senate colleagues in congratulating Senator Barbara Mikulski as the longest serving female Member of Congress.

As we all know, Senator Mikulski has dedicated her life to public service. Before running for public office, Senator Mikulski worked as a social worker helping at-risk children and educating seniors on Medicare. In 1971, she successfully ran for her first public office and was elected to serve in the Baltimore City Council, where she served for 5 years.

Senator Mikulski first ran for Congress in 1976, seeking to represent Maryland's Third District. She won that race and went on to hold the seat for a decade. In 1986 she decided to run for the U.S. Senate, and she has been serving here ever since. The Senate was a very different place when she first arrived as one of two women Senators. She not only had to learn how the Senate functioned but had a quick lesson in bipartisanship--as the other woman, Nancy Kassebaum-Baker, was a Republican from Kansas. Today, we have 17 women in the Senate and 76 women serving in the House of Representatives.

Senator Mikulski has been an outspoken advocate for working people everywhere. Due in large part to her leadership and strong advocacy on behalf of women, our daughters and granddaughters will have opportunities that were not available to many women in the past. She is a wonderful role model through her dedication to public service, as she fights passionately every day for the people of Maryland that she is here to represent.

And so I want to add my voice to those praising Senator Mikulski as she reaches this important milestone. She is a true pioneer, a strong example of a smart legislator, and an outspoken voice for working people. I have great respect for the journey she has taken, and I am proud to serve alongside her.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing The Military and Veterans Educational Reform Act of 2012. This bi-partisan bill will ensure that all educational institutions receiving

funding from the Post-9/11 GI Bill and Tuition Assistance educational programs are governed by the appropriate quality standards.

I am pleased to be joined in this initiative by Senators Harkin, Carper, McCaskill and Senator Scott Brown.

I have been working on this legislation for several months. It includes many recommendations made by Veterans service organizations, military organizations and various GAO reports on the need to improve the accountability and oversight of educational institutions.

This past year marked the second-year anniversary of the implementation of the landmarks Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, which I introduced on my first day in office. I take pride in saying that we have been able to provide the proper investment in the future of those who, since 9/11, have given so much to this country.

History demonstrates clearly that well educated veterans not only have an easier transition and readjustment experience, but also boast higher income levels and enjoy a better quality of life.

Since 2009, more than 1.1 million servicemembers and veterans have applied to receive their new benefits and nearly 700,000 have received benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill.

For these reasons, I believe that we in the Congress need to do all we can to ensure that we are preserving the integrity of the greatest GI Bill our veterans and military members have ever had.

Concern with waste in the for-profit sector is not a new issue. If we look back in history, 5 years following the creation of the World War II GI Bill in 1944, we saw that more than 5,000 for-profit schools were created. Many of these schools had questionable outcomes and catered exclusively to veterans.

The World War II GI Bill was almost derailed because of the thousands of for-profit colleges created overnight targeting veterans. Due to the concern with the reported waste and abuse in the system, the Vietnam GI Bill tuition provision became a flat monthly stipend.

Recent data shows that 8 of the 10 largest recipients of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits are for-profit institutions. Many of these schools have more than doubled the amount of Post-9/11 GI Bill dollars they received from 2009 2011.

The growth in this sector has been tremendous in the past couple of years. Between 1998 and 2008, for-profit schools grew 225 percent.

Last month, the Department of Defense released new data showing that for-profit colleges received half of all military tuition assistance dollars--$280 million out of $563 million spent last year on this program.

In 2009, the 15 publicly traded for-profit education companies spent $3.7 billion on marketing. A disproportionate share of this money is going to marketing and recruitment of veterans into poorly performing for-profit schools, and the results of the Veteran's Administration data on the GI Bill reflect this.

The problem is not necessarily the growth of the for-profit sector. There are some for-profit institutions that are providing our students a great education. But with huge Federal dollars being spent in this sector, we owe it to the taxpayers and to our veterans to carefully monitor and provide adequate oversight. Even more important, we owe it to the men and women who served that the GI benefits they have earned will not be lost or squandered on an education that fails to equip them with the skills and knowledge they need to be successful.

In light of these issues, I have introduced the Military and Veterans Educational Reform Act of 2012. My legislation requires schools participating in educational assistance programs through the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense to meet the same educational standards currently required for other federal funding, such as the Pell Grant. This bill strengthens the responsibilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense to assist individuals in making an informed decision to further their continued academic success.

This legislation will increase transparency of information about educational institutions, provide critical services to assist students in the decision-making process and throughout their career, and promote interagency information sharing by requiring all programs receiving funding from Tuition Assistance and Post-9/11 GI Bill be Title IV eligible. Title IV eligibility strengthens the requirements programs must meet in order to receive Federal funding.

By also increasing the transparency of educational institutions by requiring them to provide information to potential students on graduation rates, default rates, and other critical information to ensure that individuals have the information necessary in choosing the best academic program.

By expanding the training and outreach responsibilities of the State Approving Agencies by requiring them to conduct outreach activities to veterans and members of the Armed Forces, requiring State Approving Agencies to conduct audits of schools and to report those findings to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

By requiring that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Defense develop a centralized complaints process for individuals to report instances of misrepresentation, fraud, waste and abuse and other complaints against educational institutions.

By requiring that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Defense provide counseling to individuals before they use their benefits.

By increasing greater coordination between the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense and the Department of Education by requiring information sharing among these agencies.

This is a bill that I hope both sides of the aisle will support. It not only aims at preserving the greatest educational benefits for our veterans and military students but it also ensures that our Federal dollars are being spent on quality education.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing The Military and Veterans Educational Reform Act of 2012. This bi-partisan bill will ensure that all educational institutions receiving

funding from the Post-9/11 GI Bill and Tuition Assistance educational programs are governed by the appropriate quality standards.

I am pleased to be joined in this initiative by Senators Harkin, Carper, McCaskill and Senator Scott Brown.

I have been working on this legislation for several months. It includes many recommendations made by Veterans service organizations, military organizations and various GAO reports on the need to improve the accountability and oversight of educational institutions.

This past year marked the second-year anniversary of the implementation of the landmarks Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, which I introduced on my first day in office. I take pride in saying that we have been able to provide the proper investment in the future of those who, since 9/11, have given so much to this country.

History demonstrates clearly that well educated veterans not only have an easier transition and readjustment experience, but also boast higher income levels and enjoy a better quality of life.

Since 2009, more than 1.1 million servicemembers and veterans have applied to receive their new benefits and nearly 700,000 have received benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill.

For these reasons, I believe that we in the Congress need to do all we can to ensure that we are preserving the integrity of the greatest GI Bill our veterans and military members have ever had.

Concern with waste in the for-profit sector is not a new issue. If we look back in history, 5 years following the creation of the World War II GI Bill in 1944, we saw that more than 5,000 for-profit schools were created. Many of these schools had questionable outcomes and catered exclusively to veterans.

The World War II GI Bill was almost derailed because of the thousands of for-profit colleges created overnight targeting veterans. Due to the concern with the reported waste and abuse in the system, the Vietnam GI Bill tuition provision became a flat monthly stipend.

Recent data shows that 8 of the 10 largest recipients of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits are for-profit institutions. Many of these schools have more than doubled the amount of Post-9/11 GI Bill dollars they received from 2009 2011.

The growth in this sector has been tremendous in the past couple of years. Between 1998 and 2008, for-profit schools grew 225 percent.

Last month, the Department of Defense released new data showing that for-profit colleges received half of all military tuition assistance dollars--$280 million out of $563 million spent last year on this program.

In 2009, the 15 publicly traded for-profit education companies spent $3.7 billion on marketing. A disproportionate share of this money is going to marketing and recruitment of veterans into poorly performing for-profit schools, and the results of the Veteran's Administration data on the GI Bill reflect this.

The problem is not necessarily the growth of the for-profit sector. There are some for-profit institutions that are providing our students a great education. But with huge Federal dollars being spent in this sector, we owe it to the taxpayers and to our veterans to carefully monitor and provide adequate oversight. Even more important, we owe it to the men and women who served that the GI benefits they have earned will not be lost or squandered on an education that fails to equip them with the skills and knowledge they need to be successful.

In light of these issues, I have introduced the Military and Veterans Educational Reform Act of 2012. My legislation requires schools participating in educational assistance programs through the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense to meet the same educational standards currently required for other federal funding, such as the Pell Grant. This bill strengthens the responsibilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense to assist individuals in making an informed decision to further their continued academic success.

This legislation will increase transparency of information about educational institutions, provide critical services to assist students in the decision-making process and throughout their career, and promote interagency information sharing by requiring all programs receiving funding from Tuition Assistance and Post-9/11 GI Bill be Title IV eligible. Title IV eligibility strengthens the requirements programs must meet in order to receive Federal funding.

By also increasing the transparency of educational institutions by requiring them to provide information to potential students on graduation rates, default rates, and other critical information to ensure that individuals have the information necessary in choosing the best academic program.

By expanding the training and outreach responsibilities of the State Approving Agencies by requiring them to conduct outreach activities to veterans and members of the Armed Forces, requiring State Approving Agencies to conduct audits of schools and to report those findings to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

By requiring that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Defense develop a centralized complaints process for individuals to report instances of misrepresentation, fraud, waste and abuse and other complaints against educational institutions.

By requiring that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Defense provide counseling to individuals before they use their benefits.

By increasing greater coordination between the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense and the Department of Education by requiring information sharing among these agencies.

This is a bill that I hope both sides of the aisle will support. It not only aims at preserving the greatest educational benefits for our veterans and military students but it also ensures that our Federal dollars are being spent on quality education.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time from 2 to 4 p.m. be equally divided, with Senator Blunt or his designee in control of the first hour and the majority side controlling the second hour.

Mr. President, I wish to say a few words today about the amendment that is being called the Blunt amendment, the purpose of which I will read from the amendment, to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, to provide rights of conscience with regard to requirements for coverage of specific items and services.

I oppose this amendment, and I wish to be very clear today as to why I oppose this amendment. This is not a bill that attempts to address the necessary divide between church and state.

Let me say that a little more specifically. This is not an amendment that addresses the necessary divide between the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof as outlined in the first amendment of our Constitution, which is a concept I care deeply about.

This amendment, by definition, attempts to widen the restrictions on our laws from the necessary divide between church and state into the unknown and often indefinable provinces of an individual's personal definition of conscience. The amendment is clear on this point. It is a preamble in which it lists its findings, talks repeatedly about the rights of conscience, not the separation of church and state. It invokes Thomas Jefferson's view of the rights of conscience against the enterprise of civil authority. It addresses the purported flaws of the current health care law in terms of governmental infringement on the rights of conscience of insurers, purchasers of insurance, planned sponsors, beneficiaries, and other stakeholders. It then mandates that the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health care coverage must be consistent with the religious beliefs or the moral convictions of these stakeholders.

Again, let me be clear: This language goes well beyond the constitutional requirement of separation of church and state into the area of legislative discretion. Quite frankly, it would be the same thing as Congress saying that not only should religious establishments be exempted from taxation under the doctrine of separation of church and state, but also that anyone who has a moral objection that they can define to paying taxes should not be required to pay them either. There is a place for this type of conduct in our legal framework. It has a long history. It is called civil disobedience. The act of civil disobedience is protected by our Constitution, but the ramifications are not. Unless there are clear constitutional protections, legal accountability remains.

The effect of this amendment on its face would be that any stakeholder could decide to deny health care benefits to any individual on the very loose definition that to provide such care somehow would violate a personal definition of one's moral convictions. In other words, any provider could potentially deny a wide range of benefits to anybody.

This is a vaguely drafted and potentially harmful amendment. It is not about protecting religious institutions or protecting the clear objective and understandable parameters of religious belief. It should not be approved.

I yield the floor.