Floor Statements

Mr. President, I will gladly yield and let Senator Corker go ahead of me--I understand the Senator has an amendment to offer-- with the understanding I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes after he is done.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the compromise that was outlined by Senator Cantwell.

Basically, 6 years ago the Congress of the United States by voice vote reauthorized the Export-Import Bank. If you are in business, like Boeing and GE, and thousands of other companies out there that are making products in the United States and selling them overseas, the idea that the Congress would, by voice vote, reauthorize the bank had to make you believe that this model of doing business would be made available to you. Here we are, later down the road, a lot of concern about the bank, and some people actually want to do away with it.

I understand free markets pretty well, and I would love to live in a world where no country interfered in the marketplace at all and the best products would win based on a level playing field. But why do we have the Export-Import Bank? It is about 70 years old. There is a long record here. Products made in America and sold overseas--sometimes because of the volatile nature of the region in question traditional banks won't lend money. What happened is about 70 years ago we created a bank to help us export products, and that bank, the Export-Import Bank, as Senator Cantwell said, makes money, doesn't lose money, and it has been a sound way to get American-made products into the international marketplace.

Here is the reality: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain, Brazil, China, and India all have export banks of their own. The G 7 countries we competed against between 2006 and 2010 doubled the amount of ex-im financing available in their countries. This is what American businesses are competing against.

Our good friend up North, Canada, is one-tenth our size. The Canadian Ex-Im Bank did $100 billion worth of financing for Canadian-made products last year, compared to $32 billion in support of American manufacturers.

The only area of our economy that has been strong lately is exports. So imagine this: America does away with the Export-Import Bank. All of the countries I just described have their banks available to their manufacturers. Boeing makes planes in Washington and in South Carolina. Eight out of ten planes being manufactured in Charleston, SC, by Boeing, the 787s, are sold based on export-import financing, 8 out of 10. That is why they needed a second line of production. They are competing against Airbus. France has three Export-Import Banks. China's Export-Import Bank is larger than those of the United States, Germany, Canada, and Britain combined.

It is one thing to do reform; it is another to unilaterally surrender. It is one thing to lead the world; it is another to put the people who make products in America at risk unnecessarily. The legislation in the House did compel the President, the Department of Commerce, and Treasury to try to get these Export-Import Banks wound down over time. If we could do that, great, because I think the American workers and the American companies can compete anywhere in the world on a level playing field. At the end of the day, this is about whether we are going to unilaterally surrender. We are weeks away.

Senator Corker has a good amendment, a decent amendment, but it doesn't quite get us to where we need to be at this late hour. One part of this amendment is that you can't make a loan under the Export-Import Bank until the company proves that the other countries in question are not offering loans in that area. That is pretty hard to do when countries such as China are not very transparent.

This amendment is billed as good government, and I know his motivations are sound. He is not ideologically against the bank. But at this late hour, it will bring the legislation down. And, quite frankly, the second prong of what he is proposing I think is a real burden to put on American businesses at a time when it is hard enough already to create jobs in America.

To those who want to end the bank without other countries doing so, I think you would be doing a great disservice to people in this country who are selling products overseas. In my State alone, you would be destroying the ability of Boeing Company to grow in South Carolina. GE makes gas turbines in Greenville, SC. One-third of those turbines made in Greenville are sold through ex-im financing. If you can get the other parts of the world to do this, count me in. Until we do it together, I am going to allow this bank to stay in business because it makes money, it doesn't lose money. There is a difference between leading the world and putting your companies at risk in a world based on reality, and the reality is that export-import financing by our competitive nations is growing, it is not being reduced.

This bill that passed the House was 330 votes. We live in a time in Congress where you can hardly declare Sunday as a holiday, but 330 Members of the House voted to extend this bank for 3 years with reforms. Count me in the reform camp.

Some people say this bank has kind of gotten out of its lane and is making loans that are not traditionally export-import loans. I agree with that. Some say the bank is not transparent enough. I agree with that. The bottom line is it has been reformed; not as much as some would wish, but it definitely has been reformed.

Sixty-two percent of the Republican Conference in the House voted to reauthorize this, so I want to acknowledge Representative Cantor, Representative Hoyer, Tim Scott, and my delegation, who have tried to bring about reform. At the end of the day, the Senate now is receiving a product that went through the House, a lot of giving and taking. They produced a compromise, as Senator Cantwell said, that would be different than I would have written, but it truly is reform. It allows a 3-year extension of the bank at $140 billion with reforms that are, quite frankly, I think common sense, and 62 percent of the House Republicans supported this. The tea party was split.

At the end of the day we have a decision to make as a Senate: Are we going to allow this bank to fail, or are we going to allow the bank to stay in business under a new way of doing business? I think it would be a travesty and a detrimental event to the economy of this country if this bank were to go out of business and the banks of everybody we compete with are doubling in size. If you want to grow the footprint in America of selling products made in America overseas, this bank has a niche. Where you cannot find traditional financing, this bank allows American products to be sold, and I think it is a very sound business practice. The bank is making money.

The bank has been around for 70 years and there are no subprime mortgages here. This is about selling American products to a willing buyer overseas where you can't find traditional financing. Our friends in China--sometimes they are not our friends; they manipulate their currency, they steal intellectual property--their bank is going like gangbusters. The last thing I am going to do with my vote is take American companies that are struggling to make it, creating jobs in America through selling products overseas, and put them at a disadvantage against the Chinese or any other country that is doing business. We will wind

down these things together or we will stay in business to allow those in America to make products and sell them overseas.

From a South Carolina perspective, this is a very big deal. It was a big deal to get Boeing to come to South Carolina. This is a request by Boeing, and many other small businesses such as Mount Vernon Mills, to keep the program around.

I will end where I started. Six years ago, those people in the manufacturing community had the bank reauthorized by voice vote. They set up a business model assuming the bank was going to be around, because nobody even objected to it enough to get a rollcall. Six years later, we can't make wild, radical changes. We have made reforms. But the worst thing we can do is to have told the community 6 years ago by voice vote this bank will be in place and 6 years later do away with it when no one else is doing away with their banks. That makes no sense to me. That is not good government. That, to me, is unilateral surrender. I didn't want to unilaterally disarm when we were competing against the Soviets in the Cold War, and I sure as heck don't want to unilaterally disarm in a world economy very much interconnected.

These amendments, most of them, are designed to wind down the bank. They are ideologically driven. Senator Corker is trying to make it better, but there is a component of his amendment that I think would make it very difficult for our companies to get a loan. At the end of the day, we need to vote these amendments down and pass the House product.

To the Members of the House, Republicans and Democrats, you worked this out among yourselves in a way that I think the Senate should embrace and endorse.

And to Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, we are allowing votes on an important piece of legislation. The Senate is operating in the best traditions of the Senate; people have their say, people get to vote.

Here is my say: Bring your amendments to the floor. I respect your ideological position. I respect the idea of the free markets and where we want to go. But I am asking my colleagues not to put American businesses at risk at a time when our economy is on its knees. Do not destroy this bank at a time when competitor nations are doubling the size of theirs.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding but, more importantly, for his leadership on the subject that brings us all to the floor.

The National Labor Relations Board has gotten a lot of attention lately and

for reasons I don't think are too helpful to the cause. Obviously, being from South Carolina, their decision to entertain a complaint against the Boeing Company for moving to South Carolina, a complaint filed by the machinists union that sat on their desk for 1 year and then finally was brought forward by the NLRB to potentially close down the South Carolina site and move the facility back to Washington, thank God, is behind us now.

But at the end of the day, this organization, the National Labor Relations Board, seems to be hell bent on changing processes across the board more for political reason than a substantive reason.

What brings us here today is the rulemaking proposal to change the time for union elections for employees to vote on whether they want to be part of a union. It does away with the preelection consultation, the idea of the employer and the people wanting to represent the employees sitting down and seeing if they can work out a proposal or a compromise; it shortens the election time to as little as 10 days. So if you are in the company in question, you have a 10-day period before the election. The current mean average is 38 days.

I would argue this is being done not to make things more efficient but to change outcomes. Quite frankly, the outcome being desired is to make the union position stronger, not to make the system more efficient. That is what happens.

I expect a Republican President to nominate people to a board such as the NLRB with a business background. I expect a Democratic President to nominate people to the NLRB and like boards with maybe a more union background. But I expect the Board not to take the agency and turn it into a political organization and try to create by rulemaking what we can't create by legislating. That is what brings us here today.

The whole complaint filed by the machinists union in Washington, taking that complaint up that the move to South Carolina was somehow in retaliation against the union in Washington when no one lost their job in the State of Washington and no one's pay was reduced I think was taking the NLRB into an area it has never gone before.

This is just a continuation of that pattern and this is not good because the unelected aspect of our government, the NLRB and similar agencies, has a lot of sway over our economy. At a time when we are trying to make sure we create jobs in America and make it easier for people to locate their companies here, proposals such as this are undercutting what we need to be doing.

This is an unprecedented move. This kind of breathtaking change in the rules has only happened, I think, two or three times, and this was proposed as Mr. Becker was on the way out. Congress, under the Administrative Review Act, has an opportunity to stop this before it is too late. What this is being called on our side is sort of an ambush election.

The point we are trying to make is that by changing this rule to a 10-day period and doing away with preelection negotiations basically creates an environment where people are having to cast votes and not understanding who is going to be representing them or the nature of their decision. Why do we want to shorten an election? Why do we want to do away with the ability to negotiate between the employer and people who want to represent the employees?

I don't see this is addressing a problem that exists. I think this is more motivated by getting at an outcome rather than reforming a process. I hope some of our Democratic colleagues will say this is excessive and unnecessary.

If the Congress doesn't stand in the way between the American people and unelected bureaucrats, who will? This is your chance as a Member of Congress to do something about the unelected side of government that is growing more powerful by the day. We have a chance here to say no to a rule that makes no sense, that is going to skew the playing field and, quite frankly, I think represents the worst of special interest politics.

I hope Senators will take an opportunity to exercise their authority as a Member of Congress and say: Whoa. Time out. We don't need to go down this road. Let's let people understand who will be representing them, let the people who are going to vote in an election regarding unionization of the workplace to have a meaningful understanding of what they are about to vote on. There is no reason to shorten the process to 10 days. I doubt most of us would like our elections to be shortened to 10 days.

This is not about reforming an election process that is broken. It is about trying to change the outcome and skew it to the benefit of one side versus the other. Again, the rulemaking is not necessary. This is a chance for a Member of Congress to stand and say no to the unelected side of government at a time when somebody needs to say no to them.

I just hope and pray we can get some bipartisan support for this because Senator Enzi has done a very good job of trying to explain to the Senate and to our conference as a whole about what awaits the American workforce if this rule is changed, why it is unnecessary. It is not about reforming a broken process; it is trying to get an outcome where one side benefits versus the other.

I just hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will look at this as an opportunity for Congress to speak against the excessive rulemaking and what I think is an abuse of a process.

With that, I yield, and I appreciate very much the leadership of Senator Enzi.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing COL Richard ``Rich'' C. Gross on the occasion of his promotion to brigadier general in the U.S. Army. This is a tremendous honor, for which he should be especially proud.

A devoted patriot, Rich has dedicated the past 27 years to serving our Armed Forces and protecting our Nation. After graduating from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, he was commissioned in the U.S. Army as a second lieutenant in the Infantry. Rich's first assignment took him to the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, NC, where he served in numerous leadership positions. While there, he was accepted into the Army's Funded Legal Education Program. In 1993, he graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law and entered the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's, JAG,

Corps. He later earned a master's degree in strategic studies from the U.S. Army War College at Carlisle Barracks, PA.

As a JAG, Rich served in numerous positions across the world. He began serving in the 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, KY. After assignments at the U.S. Army Litigation Division in Arlington, VA, and the 1st Special Operational Detachment--Delta, Fort Bragg, he was assigned to the V Corps, Heidelberg, Germany, as the deputy staff judge advocate, SJA. Most recently, he served as the SJA for U.S. Central Command, USCENTCOM, at MacDill AFB, Tampa, FL.

I had the opportunity to serve with Rich in Kabul, Afghanistan, and was able to see firsthand his strong work ethic, good character, and integrity. As the chief legal advisor for the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, and SJA for U.S. Forces--Afghanistan, USFOR A, Rich is an invaluable asset to our Armed Forces and, as a leader, has set an example for other service men to follow.

Rich has received numerous awards, including the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Meritorious Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, and the Non-Article 5 NATO Medal. He is a recipient of the U.S. Army Ranger Tab, Master Parachutist Badge, Air Assault Badge, and Expert Infantryman Badge.

I ask the Senate join me in congratulating Richard C. Gross on his promotion to Army, brigadier general. We thank him for his lifelong dedication to our Armed Forces and Nation. I wish Rich the very best in his future endeavors.

I will be glad to discuss that. I have enjoyed the opportunity to create legislation that would allow States to opt out of Medicaid's expansion under this bill. About 30 percent of the people in South Carolina will be eligible for Medicaid by 2014 when this law is fully implemented. It is the second largest expense in South Carolina. With the matching requirement, we get three Federal dollars for every State dollar you put on the table dealing with Medicaid. That sounds like a good deal until Medicaid explodes in costs and becomes the No. 1 driver of the budget in South Carolina, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Arizona. Under this bill, the problem we have today with Medicaid becomes Medicaid on steroids.

I am confident that there are plenty of Democrats who have Governors who are Democrats who will say: Wait a minute, before you expand Medicaid and put additional burden on my State's budget, see if we can find more creative ways of dealing with it and give people the ability to opt out of that. That would be good policy.

I want to comment about this. One rule of thumb is that any bill passed on Christmas Eve on a party-line vote is probably no good to the country. And that is what happened.

As Senator McCain would say, this was a party-line vote, 60 to 40, on something dealing with one-sixth of the economy.

This was supposed to happen on C SPAN. President Obama said: I am coming and we are going to change the way Washington works.

If I had to offer exhibit A of what is wrong with Washington, it would be the ObamaCare process. Everything that people hate about Washington resulted in this bill being passed. There was absolutely no bipartisanship; there were behind-closed-door negotiations, beating people over the head to get their support; there was buying votes based on special interest deals for their States. That is not exactly what the American people had in mind. Is it any surprise that something that came out of that process is going over like a lead balloon?

One of the problems with health care is getting doctors to take Medicare and Medicaid patients. What did we do with Medicare? We took $500 billion out of a system that is $33 trillion underfunded to help the uninsured. We have an uninsured problem, but we have a Medicare problem that will be an absolute nightmare.

What I wanted to do on malpractice is to tell a doctor: If you will take a Medicare or Medicaid patient, doing the country a service, and you get sued, we will go to arbitration--require arbitration--and let the panel render their judgment. And if you want to go to court, you can.

That is fair. I want people to have their chance to litigate differences on alleged malpractice. I also want doctors to feel there is an incentive to serve Medicare and Medicaid patients.

What was promised in this bill--the remedies to our health care system--none of them have come true. What you see 2 years later are our worst fears being realized at a faster pace.

The President promised: If you like your health care, you will be able to keep it. What is going on in this country is that employers are dropping health care for their employees because it is cheaper to pay the fine. What is happening in this country is that the idea of being able to expand Medicaid without bankrupting the budgets of this country at the State level, when you look at the consequences, is a nightmare in the making.

We were promised this bill would reduce the deficit. Well, to me, health care includes doctors, and in the bill itself we never dealt with the problem that doctors face of having their budgets, their reimbursements cut. That was not even addressed in ObamaCare. That is a couple hundred billion dollar liability. So the idea this thing has been paid for, as promised, no longer exists. It is adding to the deficit. It was projected to be $900 billion in cost; now it is about $1.7 trillion. So the basic promises around what this bill would do for our budget, what it would do for our choices in health care, have not come true.

I am here to say to our Democratic friends, fix this before it is too late. You will find people on our side willing to meet you in the middle when it comes to reforming health care because it needs to be reformed. But the model you have created--centralized health care--that is going to damage State budgets beyond belief, that will drive private sector insurance out of the market, and it is going to have a budget consequence on top of what we already have is not the right model.

I say to my colleagues here today, I will work with you to do two things: Educate the public about what awaits us if we don't change this bill quickly, and work with our Democratic friends to find a better alternative. I think that is what America wants. When 67 percent of the people, 2 years later, feel this is not the way to go, responsible leadership would say let's alter course.

The Supreme Court may strike down the mandate. They may say Medicaid expansion is a violation of the tenth amendment. I hope they do. But I can say one thing with certainty: Because nine judges, five of whom say it is legal to do something, doesn't make it smart to do something. What is smart is to fix health care in a sustainable way. And what is smart is for Republicans and Democrats to work together in a transparent, open fashion. We haven't done anything smart about health care yet, and I hope that changes.

Would the President let me know when 10 minutes has passed?

I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 10 minutes.

They told me to come at 11:10 is all I know.

Mr. President, this is a defining moment for the Senate in a couple of ways. The Democratic Senators have an alternative to the House-passed JOBS bill that will get a vote on their alternative. That is good. I believe the House-passed JOBS bill had overwhelming bipartisan support. It is a good document. I will support that version over my Senate Democratic colleagues. But let me tell you what our Senate Democratic colleagues have done that I think is very constructive.

Ex-Im Bank is trying to be made part of the JOBS bill in the Senate. This Export-Import Bank, what does this mean? This is a financing ability by American companies that are selling overseas in volatile or emerging markets. It is a financing system that has

been available since 1934. If you are going to try to sell a product made in America to a place in the world where traditional banking is hard to obtain, you can go to the Ex-Im Bank and they will give a letter of credit, they will sometimes give a direct loan to people who want to buy American products. The bank itself made $3.5 billion for the taxpayer I think since 2005 and 2006.

Here is the reality: Every country we compete with has their version of Ex-Im Bank. We financed $32 billion worth of American-made products sold overseas through our Ex-Im system last year. Canada, one-tenth our size, financed $100 billion. France has three Ex-Im Banks. China has more Ex-Im activity than the United States, France, and Germany combined. Every country American manufacturing competes with that produces products has their version of Ex-Im Bank.

At the end of May, our Ex-Im Bank's authorization runs out. Our loan limits run out a few weeks earlier. This would be devastating. Small companies throughout this country depend on the Ex-Im Bank in order to sell American-made products overseas.

Let me give you one good example that has been the topic of conversation. Boeing Aircraft makes airplanes in America, the 787 Dreamliner. It was voted the best new airplane in a long time here recently, something that Boeing is proud of. They make it in Washington and now in South Carolina. The first airplane to be made in South Carolina will roll out in about a month from now. The facility is under budget and ahead of schedule, and we are proud of that airplane.

Eight out of the 10 airplanes being made in South Carolina in the first year were Ex-Im financed. There was a deal between Boeing and Air India where a letter of credit was issued by Ex-Im Bank to allow traditional financing to occur, and Boeing was able to sell a big order of American-made jets to Air India. That is just one example.

GE makes gas turbines to generate power for emerging areas such as Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East, Africa. All these distressed areas are going to grow and they are going to need power. One-third of the sales coming out of Greenville, SC, for the gas turbines made in America and creating American jobs goes through Ex-Im financing.

Here is the issue. If America allows our Ex-Im financing system to go away in May, if that is the will of the Congress, then you have destroyed the ability of many companies in this country to grow their business. As the economy has been weak and stagnant here at home, here is the good news: In terms of exports, we have increased our export sales 20 percent.

Imagine an America that could not continue to increase export sales. Imagine a Boeing manufacturer that could never sell an American-made airplane in a volatile or emerging market because China is now making airplanes and Airbus has access to three or four Ex-Im Banks. It would be an ill-conceived idea. This program has been around a long time. It has helped create thousands of jobs in the United States. Everybody we compete with has a more aggressive form of Ex-Im financing than we do.

To my colleagues who want to eliminate this, I don't understand how American business could ever successfully compete in these emerging markets if we unilaterally disarm.

To my Democratic colleagues, thank you for bringing up Ex-Im Bank. To our majority leader, Senator Reid, this is a good idea. What is a bad idea is to not let anybody on the Republican side offer one amendment to this bill. Some of the ideas to reform Ex-Im Bank I would agree to. I think any organization, any entity, can be made better. I want to be able to get back to being in a body called the United States Senate, where people with different ideas on important topics can actually vote.

To my colleagues on this side, I may vigorously oppose some of you who decide the Export-Import Bank should go away because I think that would be the worst thing you could do for the American economy, particularly export jobs being created in this country, and it would be unilaterally surrendering in the world marketplace. Whether you like it or not, other countries are Export-Import Bank on steroids. If we just get out of this business, companies like Boeing will be unable to sell their airplanes, and you will shut down facilities such as those in South Carolina--not a very good idea.

At the end of the day, you do have a right to have your say, and we will have the debate and I am looking forward to the debate about what we should or should not do. But under the process we have now, not one amendment can be offered on our side. We have to do better. We had a transportation bill pass with 74 votes. We have had a good exchange here lately with judges. I am very proud of what our minority and majority leader worked out on judges.

I want to get the Senate back to being the Senate. I think Ex-Im reauthorization should be an integral part of any jobs bill. I want to put it in the Senate bill. I will gladly vote for it. There are a bunch of Republicans over here who will support extension of Ex-Im financing with reforms, but none of us want to be put in a situation where our colleagues cannot have a say where they disagree with us or that we cannot reform the bill. That is not the way to go.

I hope that between now and 4 o'clock, the minority leader and the majority leader can find a way to bring up the JOBS bill, allowing it to be amended in an appropriate way and taking votes some of us don't like, but it is part of democracy--have a robust debate on a jobs package that could not come at a better time, and include in that debate Ex-Im reauthorization at a time when America needs more jobs here at home.

The economy here at home is weak. The one good thing about what is happening here at home is that our export sales have gone up. The way to create export jobs in America is to allow American businesses to compete on a level playing field throughout the world. I wish the world were different. I wish we had completely free markets. Every American business could do fine in that world, but that is not the way it is.

The Ex-Im Bank doesn't cost the taxpayers one dime. It makes money for the Treasury, and it allows American companies to make money. It allows American businesses to be competitive.

I am urging the two leaders of the Senate to allow a jobs bill to come forward, let us have our say, have our differences, let's vote, let's amend, and let's create jobs in America.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to add my gratitude and recognition of Ambassador Patterson and her whole team--the State Department team on the ground. They did a very good job making the case to the Egyptian Government. But we have to all realize Egypt is in transition. They have just had their elections for the lower house, the Parliament. The upper house has not been seated yet, and they have not elected a President. They have gone from a dictatorship to an emerging democracy, and this case comes along, the NGO prosecutions.

I think both of us--our entire delegation--think this is offensive. The IRI, the NDI are Republican-Democratic organizations funded by the government and the private sector that try to help emerging democracies all over the world. They have been in every country hotspot you can name--after the collapse of the Soviet Union--doing great work. So the accusations were the people involved in these organizations--and Senator McCain is the head of IRI--were involved in spying and espionage, and I wanted to take the floor to say I found the accusations offensive and without merit.

The Egyptian coworkers, Egyptian citizens who were working with the IRI and NDI, are still in custody in Egypt, facing criminal prosecutions for helping these fine organizations, and we will not take our eye off of that and we will keep pushing to make sure we get the right answer.

But how did this end? We know how it started. I think it was a political effort to try to justify Mubarak-era law that was used to oppress and keep out of the country people who were helping to bring about change. One of the bright spots of this engagement was that the army--and General Tantawi was as helpful as he could be, given the constraints of the army in this new government formation.

But when we engaged the Muslim Brotherhood, the Freedom and Justice Party, the largest bloc in Parliament, Senator McCain, in his first engagement, the first thing he said to the representative was this NGO situation and how damaging it was to Egypt-American relationships, how unfair it was, how out of bounds it was in terms of the law. The response was from this group that we find the NGO law unacceptable, unjust, and we are wanting to change it. Once that statement was made publicly, it allowed this momentum to withdraw or lift the administrative travel ban. The cases may still go forward, but our people are coming home.

I think the reason this happened is because of the collaboration between the State Department, the delegation, every aspect of the American Government, and the people on the ground in Egypt I think understood the value of the United States-Egyptian relationship, and the judicial system finally made a wise decision. To those left behind, we are certainly standing with you, and you will not be forgotten.

But this could have ended the United States-Egyptian relationship.

Senator McCain and Senator Hoeven, let me ask a question to you both. If this had not ended well, if they had insisted on prosecuting and having the American citizens questioned appear in cages before an Egyptian court based on an outlandish acquisition, what kind of reaction would we have had in the United States and what damage would it have done to United States-Egyptian relationships, in your opinion?

Will the Senator yield?

And I will turn it back over to Senator McCain.

I can tell you that very few people in Egypt, almost no one in Egypt realized somebody from North Dakota was being held. You were on message. You were very effective. I hope Staci and her family appreciate it, and I know they do. But for everybody--Sam, the NDI workers, the whole gang--we are proud of what they do.

Senator Blumenthal is here, and I want people to know this is a bipartisan delegation. We had kind of a dinner meeting, when things were not going so well, about the idea of bringing our American citizens down to Egyptian court to be put at risk securitywise and maybe to be put behind cages--which would have destroyed the relationship. I think Senator Blumenthal made it crystal clear that was not a good idea. And thank God it didn't happen.

With that, I yield back to Senator McCain.

I think this is a very good topic to be talking about-- the future--because this is an episode that could have destroyed the relationship before it had a chance to mature. What am I concerned about? I am still concerned about the development in Egypt. The Constitution will be written here in the coming months, by the summer. I want to make sure America's voice is heard about who we are. We hope that the Egyptian people embrace tolerance; that the Coptic Christians are going to be welcomed as they have been for centuries in Egypt; that religious minorities will be protected; that women will not be taken back into the darkness; that the Constitution will reflect an Islamic nation that understands the concepts of tolerance and free enterprise.

The Muslim Brotherhood will be the leading organization politically. It is up to them to create an environment where the world feels welcome. It is up to them to create an economy, working with their coalition partners. We will be watching. It is not what you say in politics, it is what you do. Apply that to all of us here. I think we are failing our people back in the United States by talking way too much and doing too little.

Between now and the summer can really be outcome-determinative for decades in Egypt. I am urging the Egyptian political leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood included, to write a constitution and create an environment where people believe they can come and visit Egypt and do business. Senator McCain is dead-on. There is a lot of money to be made interacting with the Egyptian people, and they are

a proud people and smart people, and I want to get our businesses on the ground. I want to help the Egyptian economy develop through the private sector, not just the public.

I am the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, working with Senator Leahy, the chairman. We will be continuing to provide economic assistance, but the end game is to create a functioning society we can do business with where we can create jobs in America.

The main thing to do in the short term is maintain the military relationship. The reason Egypt did not become Syria when people were rising against the autocratic regime is because the Army stood by the people. The relationship we have had with the Egyptian military over 30 years really paid dividends. Egyptian officers coming to American military academies and schools has been invaluable.

As we go forward, maintain that relationship between us and the Egyptian Army, honor the treaty with Israel, make sure you write a constitution worthy of a bright future in Egypt, and to all the political leaders in Egypt: The world is watching, the Arab world is watching, and if you have a narrow agenda, if you have an exclusive agenda, you will be doing your country a disservice. We will be a willing partner but not under any and all circumstances. Maybe we have learned our lesson--that you cannot have partnerships without basic principles.

We look forward to working with the Egyptian Parliament and people. They have a chance to change the course of history in the Arab world and the Mideast. Don't lose the opportunity.

Will the Senator yield for just 1 second?

Not only did we meet with people who came back to Libya from the University of Alabama--if there had been anybody from North Dakota, I would have known about it, I assure you.

We met a person who was detained at Gitmo--you talk about a small world and how the world changes--someone detained at Guantanamo Bay because they had been involved with some very unsavory characters but who did not adopt the al-Qaida agenda but will be a key player between the United States and Libya.

I want to mention--I think my colleagues will verify this--you have been nice to Senator McCain and myself, but let me tell you, having the three Senators there, as Senator Blumenthal said, echoing public opinion in America--we were not negotiators, we were trying to tell people the way it was here at home--we could not have done it without the three of you saying, here is the way it is.

But let me say, when Senator McCain turned to the former Guantanamo Bay detainee and said: You know, I have been in prison, too, and about forgiveness and about starting over and starting a relationship in Vietnam--Senator McCain and Senator Kerry did that--and about understanding that the future is what we want it to be, I thought it was a very moving moment. I think the interaction between the two individuals gave me a sense that there is hope out there.

I want to acknowledge that was an unusual moment, when you meet someone who had been in Guantanamo Bay, who is now one of the future leaders of Libya, and have a Senator from the U.S. Senate who served his country and was a prisoner of war--that was an incredible exchange. I hope something good comes from it.

Madam President, my first thought is that the American people are not very impressed with what we are doing up here. We have a congressional approval rating of about 10 to 15 percent. I think it would help all of us if we could go back home and say: This coming week we are going to be talking about the Department of Education budget; we are going to be talking about Veterans Affairs; we are going to be talking about Energy and Water.

We want to be able to tell our mayors and people--county council, city council, our constituents--we are going to be debating how much money we will allocate for different parts of the government, even knowing we are broke. I think that would resonate, I say to the Senator from Tennessee.

This whole idea of a volunteer fire department, when we think about it--particularly in the South, and I am sure it is true everywhere-- volunteer fire departments have citizens who have a lot of things to do but feel as though if they work together to protect each others' homes from devastation by fire, that would be a good thing. They are all volunteers. They don't get any money. They lower everybody's insurance premiums by having a volunteer fire department. I think a lot of Members of the Senate feel very frustrated, as does the average person on the street. We want to do better. So we are volunteering our services here to the body so that if we will do things that make sense to the American people, count us in to kind of push the ball up the hill.

The good news, I say to my colleague, is our leaderships have committed to this. Without ``followship,'' it doesn't matter what they say. This is going to take discipline in this body. I expect those on the other side of the aisle to take votes they won't like, and I expect those on this side of the aisle to take votes we won't like. But we have to have some discipline about it. We want the bills to get done in an orderly fashion, and we want the Senate to be a Senate.

This comes about because Senator Warner spent a lot of time getting us all together. This volunteer fire department idea we have, the Senator from Tennessee and Senator Warner have made this happen. We had several dinners among the people here tonight to try to find a way to get the Senate back to doing business. I am convinced that if we could bring one appropriations bill to the floor, have an honest debate about how much we should spend on that part of the government, have amendments relevant and not relevant but in an orderly fashion, that would be momentum to get the Senate back to being the Senate. That would help us all and it would help the country.

I want to tell Senator Reid and Senator McConnell: Don't let this moment pass. We have your back and we want to conduct the Senate in a way that is more traditional than is going on today.

I came here to do things. I think everybody who has spoken here tonight is telling the public and telling each other: Enough is enough. This is a lousy way--to appropriate a couple three trillion dollars at the end of the year in a big bill nobody reads. If you think that is a broken system, we agree. We don't like the idea of passing a bill in the last week of the fiscal year--3,000, 4,000 pages, whatever it is-- and nobody knows what is in it, but that is the only way we can run the government if we didn't go back to the normal course of business. So for those who want better government, this will give us better government. If you want to do something constructive, this gives us an opportunity. For those who want to set priorities, this allows you to do it.

To the leaders of the Senate: If you will follow through with this, it will pay enormous dividends for the body. And to Senators Alexander, Pryor, and others who have been in the volunteer fire department, I think this is a good moment for the Senate and I am proud to be associated with it, and if it happens, it will be because of what they have done.

I think the Senator from Tennessee picked the best example I can think of simply because the Charleston harbor deepening is probably the No. 1 issue for the State of South Carolina.

The Panama Canal is going to be widened and the cargo ships that are going to be on the oceans of the world in the next few years are three times the size of the cargo ships that exist today. Shipping as we know it is going to change. What does that mean? It means harbors such as Savannah and Charleston--just name a harbor on the east coast--are going to have to be deeper to accept these ships.

What does it mean for shipping? Ships that would normally deposit their goods in California can now access the east coast. So east coast ports, based on common sense and merit, have to be deepened. If we brought the Energy and Water appropriations bill through the committee and to the floor, it would make us all think about that. Because when I hear the President say we want to double exports in the next 5 years, count me in. It would be thousands of jobs--millions of jobs--created in America. How do we get those products to the customers overseas if our ports are not modernized to adjust to the change in shipping? Then it is a statement that will not bear fruit. Go to Shanghai, go to Hong Kong and other ports, go to Mideast ports, and we are 20 years behind.

This is a good example of how, if we took the Energy and Water appropriations bill, among ourselves we could create a national vision to deepen ports to adjust to shipping changes. If we keep continuing to appropriate in the last week of the session in a bill that nobody reads, not only will our fellow citizens think poorly of us, we won't have a vision. So this is a good example of why if we took every appropriations bill, put it through committee and brought it to the floor, we could come up with ways to make smart decisions.

I guess what we are talking about is that spending $2 trillion or $3 trillion in a week where only four of five people know what is in the bill is not smart. We all did come here to have our say, and I have a thousand ideas about ports.

So, my friend in Arkansas, if the port of Charleston is deepened and other east coast ports are deepened and the cargo containers are three times the volume we have today, what does that mean for the Mississippi River? It means it has to be widened and deepened. Because the cargo we unload on

the east coast has to get to the interior of the country. I want to have a vision for interior ports, because one thing could affect the other. And the only way the Senate can make smart decisions is to break the government into 12 parts, as we have been doing for a long time, and get back to doing business in a more traditional fashion.

This is a classic example: If we brought the Energy and Water appropriations bill to the floor, people other than me would have a say about what to do, given the change in shipping. And if we don't do it in the normal course of business--if we keep doing this in the last week of the session--we are going to be left behind as a Nation.

This is a great example of why we should do appropriations bills in the normal course of business. If we can pull this off in 2012, it will not be a lost year; it will be where we can do some good for the public.

So I thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Madam President, if the Senator will yield, here is the good news: It wouldn't take much to exceed expectations. But I want to say to the west coast Senators that their ports need to be modernized too. They need transportation hubs around their ports. The whole infrastructure regarding export opportunities in this country has deteriorated because of a lack of vision.

Wal-Mart is a pretty good model of how business works. They get thousands of millions of products a day out to stores all over the country. They do it in a business fashion: FedEx--Federal Express--UPS. The Federal Government is stuck in the 1950s and we need to change that. I think the appropriations process is the right vehicle to do it.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing John E. Frampton on the occasion of his retirement as director of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, SCDNR.

John has dedicated the past 35 years to advancing and improving the State of South Carolina's natural resources and quality of life. He has been a tireless advocate of wildlife preservation in South Carolina and across the United States. As director of SCDNR, he served as the chief administrator for natural resources in the State and was responsible for management and supervision of the agency's five divisions.

Leading with passion, determination, and humility, John has worked to protect and promote South Carolina's natural resources at every level around the State. John joined SCDNR in 1974 as an assistant district biologist. Prior to his appointment as director, he served as a regional wildlife biologist, chief of wildlife, and assistant director for development and national affairs. On April 2, 2003, Mr. Frampton was selected as the agency's director by the SCDNR Board.

John is an active member of multiple regional, national, and international wildlife organizations and served as a past president of both the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Because of his dedicated leadership and commitment to conservation, John was appointed to the National Marine Protected Area Federal Advisory Committee by the Secretary of Commerce and appointed to the prestigious Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council by the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture in 2010.

John's well-deserved acknowledgments and recognitions highlight the impact he has had on the conservation community at the State and national level. John has received numerous honors and awards over his career, including the International Canvasback Award from the North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee, the Clarence W. Watson Award from the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trades', SHOT, Business Person of the Year Award, the Henry S. Mosby Award from the National Wild Turkey Federation, the Captain David Hart Award by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the Seth Gordon Award by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Additionally, John is recognized for initiating South Carolina's

Ashepoo, Combahee, and South Edisto, ACE, Basin Project in 1988 and continues to serve on the ACE Basin Task Force. He is an invaluable asset to the conservation community and as a leader has set an example for future SCDNR directors to follow.

Born in Summerville, SC, John holds a bachelor of science degree in marine biology from the College of Charleston. He later received a master of arts in teaching degree in biology from the Citadel and a master of science degree in wildlife biology from Clemson University. He is a certified wildlife biologist through the Wildlife Society.

I ask that the Senate join me in celebrating John Frampton's lifelong dedication to the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, the State of South Carolina, and our Nation. I wish John the very best in his future endeavors.

Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this colloquy.

As cochairman of the Guard Caucus, which obviously has the Air National Guard Component, Senator Leahy has been a real pleasure to work with.

The bottom line is, this effort to downsize the Air Force falls incredibly heavy on the Air National Guard. There will be 3,000 Active- Duty members lost regarding the plan he just mentioned, 5,000 coming from the Air National Guard. The airframes to be eliminated in the plans Senator Leahy just mentioned fall disproportionately on the Air National Guard. In just a moment, we are going to talk about the bang for your buck in terms of the Reserve component called the Air National Guard, and we are going to challenge the Congress and the Department

of Defense to reconsider this because, quite frankly, it makes no military or fiscal sense.

The Senator is absolutely right. When we look at the utilization of the Guard and Reserve since 9/11, it has been at World War II levels. When we go into the combat theater, we can't tell the difference between Guard, Reserve or Active-Duty member, which is a testament to all three.

But when we look at what the Air Force is doing--and I think it is proper to consider the other services--the Marine Corps is making no reduction to their Reserves. The Army is making very small cuts in the Guard and Reserves and substantial cuts to the Active Forces. The Army and Marine Corps plans support the new strategic concept of reversibility; that is, the part of the Department of Defense strategic guidance. We cannot be sure what contingencies might arise, and we cannot afford to make cuts that will leave us incapable of responding when necessary.

Secretary Flournoy, during her last speech to the Defense for Policy, stated that ``the Guard and the Reserves will play an extremely important role'' in the reversibility concept because they give the military built-in adaptability and resourcefulness. This reversibility concept is what we are doing to reduce the defense infrastructure. If it were ever reversed or had to be reversed because of some contingency, we want to make sure that is possible. The Guard and Reserve is the most capable force to maintain and, in terms of the concept of reversibility, is our best bang for the buck.

So the Air Force is taking a different approach than the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps to their Reserve component, particularly their Air National Guard. I think Senator Leahy and I are going to make sure that decision is examined in-depth.

Senator Leahy is right. When we look at our Constitution itself, it talks about a militia. When we look at the history of the country, it is the citizen soldier who got this whole concept called America started.

We do need a standing Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. But when we are looking at the budget problems we face and the fiscal concerns we have as a nation and we want to restructure the military, I will be talking in just a minute about why we should be looking for a greater role from the Guard and Reserve just from economics. But when it comes to military capability, I think we have the best of both worlds now: a very efficient, quite frankly, cheaper force to maintain with very similar, if not like, capabilities. We don't want to let that concept be eroded by a plan that I think doesn't appreciate the role of the militia and doesn't appreciate the cost-benefit analysis from a robust Reserve component.

What I am about to provide to the body, I think we need to absorb and be aware of.

This study that Senator Leahy is talking about, an analysis of the effectiveness and cost, is an ongoing endeavor. I would like to know more about what the study yields before we make what I think are pretty Draconian cuts in the Air National Guard.

But this is what we know before the study. This information is already in: According to an Air Guard briefing, the Air National Guard, operating under today's deployment constraints, is still 53 percent of the cost of an equivalent Active-Duty major command. The Air National Guard costs $2.25 billion less annually than a similarly sized Active Air Force command. That is $6.2 million a day in savings.

After 20 years of service, our average enlisted airman costs nearly $80,000 a year in total compensation. On the other hand, an identical Air National Guard enlisted airman costs about $10,000 a year, about an 85-percent savings.

Over a 20-year career, an Air National Guard airman will save the country about $1 million compared to an active-duty airman. At 22 years, an active-duty pilot will cost about $150,000 in compensation. On the other hand, an Air National Guard pilot at 22

years costs the taxpayers about $30,000 in total compensation. Over a 26-year career, an Air National Guard pilot will save the country nearly $2 million compared to an active-duty pilot.

Active-duty pilots retire on average with 22 years of service. Air National Guard pilots retire with an average of 26 years of experience, giving the country a greater level of experience and ability for those final 4 years, at a much lower cost. These cost figures do not even account for other life cycle and infrastructure savings that a Reserve component-first model would yield.

These are stunning numbers without the study to fully be accomplished. We are going to do our best, I say to Senator Leahy, to tell the story of capability and cost.

I look forward to working with Senator Leahy and others to bring about what he indicated to make it a reality. The bottom line of this whole discussion is that the Cold War is over. We are very proud of our standing military, our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard--they do a terrific job, the standing military. The militia component has been the heart and soul of this country since its founding and in a post-Cold War war on terrorism environment where you have to call on resources that the Guard and Reserve have that are unique--like civil affairs. When you are going into Afghanistan and Iraq, it is one thing to clear the village; you have to hold the village. You have to hold it. Agricultural specialists come from the Guard and Reserve, people from Vermont and South Carolina who have skills in their day job, who can do more in the war effort than dropping a bomb.

As we look at the threats we face, I think we need to understand the Reserve component is more valuable than ever. We are not defending the Fulda Gap against a massive Soviet Union tank invasion. We have to be nimble, we have to deploy quickly. The Reserve component, particularly the Air National Guard, has a great return on investment and, like any other part of the military, can be reformed. But this proposal doesn't reform it; it in many ways neuters the Air National Guard and at a time when that makes no sense. We will continue this endeavor, and I look forward to working with Senator Leahy and others to create a rational approach to the Reserve and Guard.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Please let me know when 5 minutes elapses. I will try to keep my comments short.

Mr. President, the topic I wish to address is the CLASS Act repeal being taken up by the House. I understand the HHS Secretary has indicated that from her point of view the CLASS Act will not work, and this is music to my ears.

During the Obama health care debate, one of the revenue raisers was the CLASS Act wherein the Federal Government would be in the long-term health care insurance business and, supposedly, would collect premiums over a decade that would allow something like $80 billion in revenue that

would help pay for Obama health care. However, eventually we would have to honor the payments due to the people on the program.

Senator Conrad from North Dakota called the CLASS Act a Ponzi scheme of the first order because what we would be doing under the program is collecting premiums for an insurance product and using the money to help pay for Obama health care. So when people are ready to get the services they have paid for, there would be no money in the program to pay them because it was used to offset Obama health care costs. It is just not a practical idea. The costs would explode over time. There would be adverse selection. So it was an ill-conceived idea.

The House is going to repeal it. The HHS Secretary said they would not implement the program. I hope the Senate will allow repeal so we can take it off the table and it is a reason for the Congress to revisit the Affordable Health Care Act, Obama health care, because one of the components of the legislation relied upon the revenue to be collected by the CLASS Act to offset the cost of Obama health care, trying to make it deficit neutral. That is no longer a viable option. The money to be collected by the CLASS Act is never going to happen. So that money cannot be used to make the legislation deficit neutral.

This is a chance for the Senate, working with the House, to repeal the program. I think it would be wise for us all to sit down and try to reevaluate what does this mean in terms of the viability of the Affordable Health Care Act because the assumptions made by the CLASS Act are never going to come true.

I have been working with Senator Thune for a very long time to keep this program from coming about. I would like to say this is a bipartisan moment, where we have stopped a program that would have a devastating effect long term on the country's finances and would do very little to improve health care.

I wish to, one, congratulate the HHS Secretary for understanding this program is unsound. I would like to make sure it is repealed, and I think Congress should be the body to do that. But this is good news for the taxpayer. It is good news for the country as a whole that we are not going to allow a program to be created that is unsustainable, that is going to add to the debt and do very little to take care of our health care needs. It was a Ponzi scheme. It is a Ponzi scheme that needs to be buried politically, as soon as possible.

I look forward to taking up the House-passed legislation. I hope we can get bipartisan support in the Senate to make sure what HHS Secretary Sebelius said never happens, that the CLASS Act never becomes reality because it is an unsound, unwise, poorly constructed program, and this is a chance for the Senate to come together and do something about it with our House colleagues.

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

I thank the Senator from New Hampshire who has been a great leader on this issue.

Let me just tell my colleagues what drives my thinking. I think we are at war--I don't think it, I believe it. I hope my colleagues believe it too, and I know America is part of the battlefield because the enemy would like to destroy our country.

If we capture an al-Qaida operative overseas, does anybody in this body suggest that we should give them a lawyer or read them their rights? In World War II, if we had captured a Nazi soldier overseas and started saying they had the right to remain silent and we would give them a lawyer, even though Miranda didn't exist at the time, people would have run us out of town.

So if we believe we can kill an American citizen who has joined al- Qaida--the Awlaki case, where the President of the United States made an executive decision under the rule of the law, not through a court decision, to target an American citizen who had aligned themselves with the enemy--then if we can kill them, which is pretty indefinite, why can't we capture and hold them?

Now, that would be the dumbest thing in the history of the world for a nation to say: We all acknowledge the executive branch's power to target an American citizen who has aligned themselves with the enemy. We can kill them overseas, we can capture them overseas, we can interrogate them about what they know about future attacks, but when they get here we have to treat them as a common criminal.

I think what we share, I say to the Senator from New Hampshire, is that we think al-Qaida operatives, citizens or not, are not common criminals. We think they are crazy people, warriors, bent on our destruction, who would blow themselves up just as quickly as they would blow you up, and they don't care if they blow themselves up. The only reason the Christmas Day Bomber didn't kill a bunch of people is because his shoe didn't go off. The only reason the Times Square Bomber didn't kill a bunch of people is because the bomb didn't go off.

If you are an American citizen and you want to help al-Qaida kill Americans and destroy your own country, here is what is coming your way. If you happen to be listening to this debate, please understand the law as it is today and as it is going to be after this bill is passed: We are at war. The authorization to use military force passed by the Congress right after the attacks against this Nation designates al-Qaida as a military threat, not a common criminal threat, so we apply the law of war. There are two legal systems at play: domestic criminal law that well serves us as a nation to deal with crime--even the worst person, the worst child abuser gets a lawyer and is presumed innocent. Believe it or not, war criminals get lawyers and are presumed innocent.

I am proud of both systems, but the law enforcement model doesn't allow us to hold someone for a period of time to gather intelligence. Under the law enforcement model, once we capture someone, we have to start reading them their rights and providing them with a lawyer. Under the law of war model, we can hold someone who is part of the enemy force and gather intelligence.

This is not the first war where American citizens have sided with the enemy. In the In re Quirin case, a World War II case where American citizens aided Nazi saboteurs, here is what the Court said: There is no bar to the Nation holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. That has been the law for decades.

So if it made sense to hold an American citizen who was helping the Nazis under military authority because they were helping a military enemy of the Nation to gather intelligence, why in the world wouldn't it make sense to hold somebody who has joined with al-Qaida to gather intelligence about the next attack?

Let me give an example of what we may face. Homegrown terrorism is on the rise. The Internet is out there. It is a good thing and a bad thing. But the idea of people getting radicalized and turning against their own country is a growing threat.

So the likelihood in the future of someone getting radicalized--an American citizen here at home going to Pakistan, getting educated in one of these extremist madrassas, coming back home, getting off the plane at Dulles Airport, coming down to the Mall and starting to shoot American citizens and tourists alike--is very real.

What this legislation does is it says from the Congress's point of view we recognize the person who is aligned with al-Qaida is not a common criminal, that we expressly authorize the indefinite detention of someone who has joined al-Qaida operations.

Why is that important? Don't you think most Americans, I say to the Senator, would be offended if after the person who went on a rampage in the Capital to kill American citizens, to kill people in America, was captured, we could not question them about: Is there somebody else coming? We would have to say: You have the right to remain silent. Here is your lawyer.

What we should do with that person who went to Pakistan and got radicalized and wants to come back and kill us all is hold them in military custody, as we have done in every other war, and find out all we can about future attacks and what they know. Because we are not fighting a crime; we are fighting a war. That has been the law, according to the Supreme Court, for decades, and all we are doing in Congress is saying, statutorily: We recognize the authority of this President and every other President to hold an enemy combatant for intelligence-gathering purposes indefinitely, whether they are captured at home or abroad, because that only makes logical sense. The idea of criminalizing the war and not being able to gather intelligence will put our country at risk.

Let me say this about the system: No one can be held as an enemy combatant under the law we have constructed without having their day in Federal court. So do not worry about going to a tea party or a moveon.org rally or an Occupy Wall Street rally and somebody holding you as a political prisoner under this law. The only people who can be held under military custody for an indefinite period are ones who have been found to have associated with al-Qaida in an overt way, and the government has to prove that to a Federal judge. If the Federal judge does not believe the government has made their case, the person is released. If the Federal judge says to the U.S. Government: You have convinced me that the person in front of me is cooperating and has joined al-Qaida and is overtly engaged in hostilities against the United States. I hereby authorize to you to hold that person to gather intelligence, how long can you hold them? As long as it takes to make us safe.

Here is what the law does. Every year, the person being held as an enemy combatant has an annual review process where the experts in our government look at the threat this person possesses, whether we have more intelligence to be attained, and there is a legal process to review ongoing detention.

Here is what some of my colleagues would say: Wait a minute. You cannot

do that. We are going to say, as a Member of Congress, that at an artificial date you have to let that person go or try them? A lot of these cases will be based on intelligence that may not go to an article III court. We may have to compromise our national security. We can prove to a judge they are a member of al-Qaida, but we are not going to take them to the criminal court because that is not in our national security interest.

The key fact is, no one is held as an enemy combatant without judicial review. Once you are determined to be an enemy combatant, then we are going to apply the law of war, as we have for 200 years. The law of war says: No nation has to let an enemy prisoner go or prosecute them--because we are not fighting a crime; we are fighting a war.

If you are an al-Qaida operative, you could get killed, even if you are an American citizen, by assisting the enemy at home or abroad. So do not join al-Qaida because you could lose your life. If you do get captured, you can be held indefinitely under the law of war because you have committed an act of war.

I am pleased to.

The Senator is correct.

But here is what we are doing. Here is what Lindsey Graham is doing, and Carl Levin, and an overwhelming number of the Members of this body are about to do. We are about to pass a defense authorization bill that increases military pay, that has a lot of great things. But we are about to say as a Congress: We believe we are at war, and we reject the idea--the Libertarian idea; who are great Americans--that if you get to America somehow, it is no longer a war.

I think the Libertarians agree that if you catch an al-Qaida operative, including an American citizen, overseas, we do not have to read them their rights, and we do not have to give them a lawyer. But somehow, the perverse logic is, if they make it to America to attack us, whether they are a citizen or not, somehow they get a special deal.

All of us who are voting for this bill say that is crazy; we are at war. For no other war has that been the case. If you would have suggested in 1942 that the American citizen helping the Nazis commit sabotage against the United States had a special status and could not be treated in the fashion of a military threat to the country, they would have run you out of town.

So we are 10 years out from the attacks of 9/11, and here is what we are rejecting: We are rejecting the criminalization of the war, but we are doing it in a smart way. We are not telling the executive branch they have to go into a law-of-war detention system. We are just saying that is available to them. We are not telling the executive branch they have to try people in military commissions. We are just saying to them that is available for noncitizens. What we are telling the executive branch is that we believe we are at war, and that narrow group of people--thank God it is a narrow group--who join al-Qaida do not have special privileges when it comes to destroying our homeland; that if they make it to America, the closer they get to us, the more tools we should have available to protect ourselves.

So we are on record--at least I am and I think the body as a whole. Senator Levin has been terrific. The administration has been great to work with. Finally, after 10 years, the Congress of the United States, through this legislation, is going to make the simple statement, simple proposition that under the law of war, you can be held as an enemy combatant indefinitely to protect this Nation. Because when you join al-Qaida--the enemy of us all--we are not worried about whether we are going to prosecute you right away. We are worried about what you know about the next attack coming.

Let me tell you why we need this flexibility. The Christmas Day Bomber--the bomb did not go off, thank God; it was just luck--was read his Miranda rights within 45 minutes. Five weeks later, his parents convinced him to cooperate. What we are suggesting is there is another way that has been used in other wars, that the U.S. intelligence community, law enforcement community, and military have an option available to them.

We could grab this person who has just tried to blow up an airplane over Detroit--American citizen or not--and we can hold them without telling them they have a right to a lawyer and reading them their Miranda rights. Because we are trying to find out is another airplane coming and what do they know about the enemy and what were they up to and where did they train.

If we take that option off the table, we will have diminished our national security. We will have overturned what every other time of war has been about. We would be the first Congress in the history of the country to reject the idea that we can hold someone who is collaborating with the enemy under the law of war. Let's reverse this. This is the first time in history people have said on the floor of the Senate: We reject the Supreme Court holdings that allow the American Government to hold someone as an enemy combatant when they have joined the enemy forces at home or abroad.

So those of us who are voting for this, we are saying we accept the proposition that if you join al-Qaida, you can be killed, you can be captured, you can be interrogated. I am willing to accept the heat for making that decision. Because if we cannot kill them and we cannot capture them and we cannot interrogate them, we have made a huge mistake because these people hate us. They hate who we are. They hate what we stand for. They would kill us all if they could. They are out there, and some of them are among us who have the title of ``American citizen.''

But let me tell you about that title. Not only does it have rights, it has responsibilities. Our courts have said there is nothing in our law or our Constitution that prevents us from holding one of our own when they join the enemy. Because when they join the enemy, they have not committed a crime; they have turned on the rest of us, and they should accept the consequences of being at war with America. Being at war with America is something they should fear, and if they do not fear being at war with America, we have made a huge mistake.

I believe in due process. No one is going to prison without a Federal judge's oversight. No one stays in prison indefinitely without an annual review. But, my God, we are not going to arbitrarily say: You have to go. You have to be let go because of the passage of time and we are not going to criminalize this war--because it is a war.

As sure as I am standing here talking today, we are going to be wrong once. We have to be right every time, I say to the Senator. We have been lucky, and our men and women in uniform and our intelligence community and our FBI agents are doing a wonderful job. They are working night and day to protect us. The threats are growing. They are not lessening. There will come a day, I am sad to say, when we are going to get hit again. But when that day comes, we are going to make sure we have the tools to deal with it in terms of what it is: an act of war. We are going to have the tools available to this country to rein in the consequences because we are going to have the tools available to find out where is the next attack coming from.

We are not going to criminalize the war. We are going to fight it within our values. We are going to provide robust due process. But we are going to acknowledge as a body in Congress that our Chief Executive and those men and women in uniform, law enforcement agents, CIA agents--that they have our blessing to do their job, and we are going to acknowledge that they have the tools available in this war that were available to other like people in other wars.

Ladies and gentlemen, if there was ever a war where it was important to know what the enemy was up to and hit them before they hit us, it is this war. They could care less about losing their lives. The only way we will be safe is to gather intelligence, and we cannot gather intelligence, in my view, by locking down America to ``Dragnet'' standards. This is not a TV show. This is a real-world event that changes as I speak.

To Senator Levin, to Senator Ayotte, and to all those who have tried to create a compromise to enjoy bipartisan support--to the administration--thank you all. To the critics, some of your criticism has been unfounded. But you have the right to be a critic. You live in the State called ``Live Free or Die.''

Let me remind everybody, being a critic and being able to speak your mind sometimes means people have to die.

What I am----

Madam President, could I ask for 30 seconds?

I will do this in 15 seconds.

Absolutely.

This idea of civil liberties and the American way of life--if we do not fight for it, we are going to lose it. We are under siege and we are under attack. So let's fight back within our values. This bill allows us to fight back, and I am very proud of the product.

I thank Senator Levin for being such a good leader for the Nation at a time when we need good leaders.

I yield the floor.

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

I believe we are still in morning business.

I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy, and if the Chair could let me know when 10 minutes has expired.

While we decide how we are going to move on the Defense bill, I appreciate Senator Kyl coming to the floor. Senator Kyl and I, along with Senators Levin and McCain, have been working on detainee policy for years now. There is an issue that is before the Senate soon. It involves what to do with an American citizen who is suspected of collaborating with al-Qaida or an affiliated group.

Does the Senator agree with me that in other wars American citizens, unfortunately, have aided the enemies of their time?

Is the Senator familiar with the efforts by German saboteurs who landed--I believe, in the Long Island area, but I don't know exactly where they landed--during World War II, and they were aided by American citizens to execute a sabotage plot against the United States?

Does the Senator agree with me that our Supreme Court ruled then that when an American citizen decides to collaborate and assist an enemy force, that is viewed as an act of war and the law of war applies to the conduct of the American citizen?

So the law, at least since 1942, by the Supreme Court has been that if someone decides as an American citizen to join forces with enemies of the United States, they have committed an act of war against their fellow citizens. It is not a criminal event we are investigating or dealing with; it is an act of war, and the American citizens who helped the Nazis were held as enemy combatants and tried as enemy combatants?

In the Military Commission Act of 2009, we prohibited American citizens from being tried by military commissions. I am OK with that. But what we have not done--and I would be very upset if we chose to do that--is take off the table the ability to interrogate an American citizen who has chosen to help al-Qaida regarding what they know about the enemy and what intelligence they may provide us to prevent a future attack.

Since homegrown terrorism is a growing threat, under the current law, if an American citizen became radical, went to Pakistan and trained with al-Qaida or an affiliated group, flew back to Dulles Airport, got off the plane, got a rifle, went down to the Mall right behind us and started shooting people, does the Senator agree with me that under the law as it exists today, that person could be held as an enemy combatant, that person could be interrogated by our military and intelligence community and we could hold them as long as necessary to find out what they know about any future attacks or any past attacks and we don't have to read them their Miranda rights?

Yes.

Yes. The In re Quirin case dealt with an American citizen helping the Nazis in America. The Hamdi case dealt with an American citizen helping the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The Hamdi case cited In re Quirin for the proposition that an American citizen who provides aid, comfort or collaboration with the enemy can be held as an enemy combatant. The In re Quirin case dealt with an American citizen helping the Nazis in New York. The Padilla case involves an American citizen, collaborating with al-Qaida, captured in the United States.

Exactly. I would add, and get Senator Kyl's comment. Wouldn't it be an absurd result if you can kill an American citizen abroad--Awlaki--whatever his name was--the President targeted him for assassination because he was an American citizen who went to Yemen to engage in an act of terrorism against the United States. The President went through an Executive legal process, targeted him for assassination and a drone attack killed him and we are all better off. Because when an American citizen helps the enemy, they are no longer just a common criminal; they are a military threat and should be dealt with appropriately.

But my point is, wouldn't it be an odd result to have a law set up so that if they actually got to America and they tried to kill our people on our own soil, all of a sudden they have criminal status?

I would argue that the homeland is part of the battlefield, and we should protect the homeland above anything else. So it would be crazy to have a law that says if you went to Pakistan and attacked an American soldier, you could be blown up or held indefinitely, but if you made it back to Dulles Airport, you went downtown and started killing Americans randomly, we couldn't hold you and gather intelligence. The Supreme Court, in 1982, said that made no sense.

If a Senator, in 1942, took the floor of the Senate and said: You know those American citizens who collaborated with the Nazis, we ought not treat them as an enemy, they would be run out of town.

I am just saying, to any American citizen: If you want to help al- Qaida, you do so at your own peril. You can

get killed in the process. You can get detained indefinitely. When you are being questioned by the CIA, the FBI or the Department of Defense about where you trained and what you did and what you know and you say to the interrogator: I want my lawyer, the interrogator will say: You don't have a right to a lawyer because you are a military threat.

This is not ``Dragnet.'' We are fighting a war. The Supreme Court of the United States has clearly said an American citizen who joins with the enemy has committed an act of war.

Senator Feinstein, who is the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, is a very good Senator. But her concerns about holding an American citizen under the law of war, her amendment, unfortunately, would change the law.

Does Senator Kyl agree with that?

Simply stated, when the American citizens in question decided to give aid and comfort to the Nazis, I am very glad they were allowed to be held by the military and interrogated about the plot and what they knew, because intelligence gathering is the best way to keep us safe.

I would be absolutely devastated if the Senate, for the first time in 2011, denied the ability of our military and intelligence community to interrogate somebody who came back from Pakistan and started killing people on the Mall--that we could no longer hold them as an enemy combatant and find out what they did and why they did it; that we would have to treat them as a common criminal and read them their Miranda rights. That is not the law.

If that becomes the law, then we are less safe because I tell you, as we speak, the threat to our homeland is growing. Homegrown terrorists are becoming the threat of the 21st century, and now is not the time to change the law that has been in place for decades. I do hope people understand what this means.

It means we would change the law so that if we caught somebody in America who went overseas to train and came back home, an American citizen who turned on the rest of us, no longer could we hold them as an enemy combatant and gather intelligence. That, to me, would be a very dangerous thing to do.

I ask the Senator, who determines what the Constitution actually means; is it the Congress or the Supreme Court?

So the issue is pretty simple. Our courts at the highest level--the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the executive branch has the legal authority to hold an American citizen who is collaborating with an enemy as an enemy belligerent to gather intelligence to protect the rest of us; they recognize that power of the executive. Does the Senator agree with me that the amendment of Senator Feinstein would be a situation where the Congress does not recognize that authority and would actually try to change it?

And to conclude this colloquy--I enjoyed the discussion-- I am not saying our law enforcement or military intelligence community cannot read someone their Miranda rights. I will leave that up to them. I am saying Congress should not take off the table the ability to hold someone under the law of war to gather intelligence, and that is what we are about to do if this passes.

To those who believe that homegrown terrorists are a threat now and in the future, if you want to make sure we can never effectively gather intelligence, we only have one option, then that is what we are about to impose on the country.

Absolutely.