Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help American workers and companies.

The bill that I am introducing, the Buy American Improvement Act, focuses on the Federal Government's responsibility to support domestic manufacturers and workers and on the role of Federal procurement policy in achieving this goal. The reintroduction of this bill, which I first introduced in 2003, is part of my ongoing efforts to support American workers and manufacturing.

The Buy American Act of 1933 is the primary statute that governs Federal procurement. The name of this law accurately describes its purpose: to ensure that the Federal Government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying American-made goods. Regrettably, this law contains a number of loopholes that make it too easy for government agencies to buy foreign-made goods.

My bill, the Buy American Improvement Act, would strengthen the existing law by tightening its waiver provisions. Currently, the heads of Federal departments and agencies are given broad discretion to waive the act and buy foreign goods with little or no accountability. We should ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to give Federal contracts to companies that will perform the work domestically. We should also ensure that certain types of industries do not leave the U.S. completely, thus making the Federal Government dependent on foreign sources for goods, such as plane or ship parts, that our military may need to acquire on short notice.

With unemployed workers in the U.S. facing a double-digit unemployment rate, the highest rate since 1983, it is critical Congress back efforts to support American workers. Many unemployed American workers are currently facing persistently long periods of unemployment; data from the Department of Labor showed that in October of this year, over 35 percent of unemployed workers had been without jobs for at least 27 weeks. Since December of 2007, the number of unemployed workers in the U.S. has grown by over 8 million, with manufacturing and construction workers being particularly hard-hit. We need to do all we can to promote fiscally responsible Federal policies that support the creation of American jobs to help get the unemployed and Funderemployed back to work. A strong Buy American Act should be part of the Federal effort to create and retain American jobs.

During another period of economic upheaval in the 1930s, Congress passed a series of laws designed to promote job growth in the U.S., including the Buy American Act of 1933, 41 U.S.C. Sec. 10a-10d. The Buy American Act requires the Federal Government to support domestic manufacturers and workers by purchasing American-made goods. Over the years, other domestic sourcing legislation has been passed to help support American industry, including the Buy America Act, 23 U.S.C. Sec. 313, which applies to Federal transportation funding. In addition, Congress included domestic sourcing requirements in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, P.L. 111-5, earlier this year because it recognized the importance of supporting American workers and American industry. My legislation would help American industry by making it more difficult to waive the Buy American Act and help ensure the Federal Government does all it can to support American workers.

I have a long record of supporting efforts to help taxpayers get the most bang for their buck and opposing wasteful Federal spending. I don't think anyone can argue that supporting American jobs is ``wasteful.'' We owe it to American manufacturers and their employees to make sure they get a fair shake. I would not support awarding a contract to an American company that is price-gouging, but we should make every effort to ensure that domestic sources for goods needed by the Federal Government do not dry up because American companies have been slightly underbid by foreign competitors.

The gaping loopholes in the Buy American Act and the trade agreements and defense procurement agreements that contain additional waivers of domestic source restrictions have combined to weaken our domestic

manufacturing base by allowing--and sometimes actually encouraging--the Federal Government to buy foreign-made goods. Congress can and should do more to support American companies and American workers. We must strengthen the Buy American Act and we must stop entering into bad trade agreements that send our jobs overseas and undermine our own domestic preference laws.

By strengthening Federal procurement policy, we can help to bolster our domestic manufacturers during these difficult times. As I have repeatedly noted, Congress cannot simply stand on the sidelines while tens of thousands of American manufacturing jobs have been and continue to be shipped overseas. While there may be no single solution to this problem one way in which Congress should act is by strengthening the Buy American Act.

Mr. President, the massive, unamendable spending bill before the Senate includes three bills that the Senate never had a chance to consider, and is chock-full of earmarks. At a time of record budget deficits, we should be showing our constituents that we are serious about fiscal responsibility. Instead of controlling spending, this bill represents business as usual in Congress.

Mr. President, last month, the United Nations Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of Congo presented its latest report to the U.N. Security Council. Over the years, the Group of Experts has conducted critical investigations into violations of the sanctions and the U.N. arms embargo toward Congo as well as human rights abuses and the linkages between natural resource exploitation and the financing of illegal armed groups. Yet, too often, the Group of Experts' reports and recommendations have not resulted in action by the Security Council and/or U.N. member states. I hope it will be different with this report, especially since it identifies a number of concrete steps through which U.N. member states can address the financial and support networks that fuel the violence in eastern Congo.

This new Group of Experts report particularly focuses on the FDLR, the armed group comprising many former Rwandan genocidaires that is at the heart of the instability in eastern Congo. It documents how this group continues to benefit from ``residual but significant support'' from top commanders of the Congolese military. It also documents how this group is supported by a far-reaching international Diaspora network. Based on records of satellite phones, the Group of Experts found that the FDLR commanders frequently communicate with people in twenty-five different countries in Europe, North America and Africa. The report also mentions credible reports and testimony that the FDLR is using Burundi ``as a rear base'' for regrouping and recruitment purposes.

To address these continued support networks, the Group of Experts recommends that U.N. member states direct their respective law enforcement and security agencies to conduct investigations and share relevant information on FDLR Diaspora members providing material support to the group. The Group also calls on member states to prosecute violations of the sanctions regime by their nationals or leaders of armed groups that are currently residing within their countries. The report cites three such leaders who have resided in France and Germany. With regard to the Congolese military, the Group recommends that the Security Council require member states to notify and get approval from the Sanctions Committee for all deliveries of military equipment and provision of training to Congo. This would help ensure that international assistance is not contributing to abusive behavior or going to units of the military believed to be colluding with armed groups.

Building on its previous reports, the Group of Experts report also shows how the FDLR and other armed groups continue to benefit from the exploitation of natural resources. According to this Group's investigations, the FDLR continues to get millions of dollars in direct financing from gold and cassiterite reserves in eastern Congo. The report illustrates how gold from eastern Congo is smuggled out to Uganda and Burundi, and then travels on to the United Arab Emirates and ultimately international markets. Similarly, the report documents how former rebels of the CNDP--who have ostensibly become part of the Congolese military--continue to control and exploit mineral-rich areas. In fact, two of the most lucrative mining sites are reportedly controlled by units of the Congolese military that are composed almost exclusively of former CNDP units. This is especially worrying in the context of the CNDP's integration into the Congolese military, which is still extremely fragile.

I have long called for action to address the armed exploitation of Congo's minerals, which fuels this conflict. I was pleased to join with Senators Brownback and Durbin earlier this year to introduce the Congo Conflict Minerals Act, S. 891, which would commit the United States to address this issue comprehensively. And I was glad that Secretary Clinton spoke about this issue during her visit to Congo in August. As the Group of Experts report makes clear, armed groups will continue to exploit the region's rich mineral base as long as it is profitable. The Group of Experts recommends that member states take necessary measures to clarify the due diligence obligations of companies under their respective jurisdictions that operate with these minerals. The Group also calls for the Congolese government to establish an independent monitoring team, with international support, to conduct spot checks of mines and mineral trading routes.

I am glad that there is increasing outrage about what is happening in eastern Congo. It is the single deadliest conflict since the Second World War and millions have been displaced from their homes, forced to live in squalid conditions. Countless women and girls and some men and boys in the Congo have endured rape and sexual violence. But our outrage means little unless it translates into concrete actions to fundamentally change the situation in Congo. We need to finally get serious about addressing the underlying issues that make this war profitable and allow it to persist. The Group of Experts has provided a clear picture of some of those issues as well as specific ways that U.N. member states can address them, including within our own national jurisdictions. I applaud the Group for its courageous work. I strongly hope that the Security Council will pursue the report's recommendations, and I urge the Obama administration to lead the way in this respect.

Mr. President, our government agencies collect and report a range of economic information but much of what we see or hear is most suited to describing the general state of the country's economy. This information does not reflect what is happening in and what matters most to our families and the quality of our lives. For example, our national unemployment figures don't tell us that those who are employed may not have benefits, or that they are working two or three jobs to earn the income that they report, or that their mortgage debt and college loans are jeopardizing their ability to repay their credit card debt or their medical bills. By knowing and reporting this kind of information we can not only more accurately reflect what our families are experiencing economically, we can better inform policymakers about what matters most to people and the steps that need to be taken to address household economic needs and concerns.

To address this need I am re-introducing the Commission on Measures of Household Economic Security Act of 2009. The bill would establish a bipartisan congressional commission of 8 economic experts to look at existing government economic data and identify the possible need for new information, more accurate methodologies and better ways to report these economic measures to give a more accurate and reliable picture of the economic well being of American households. As part of their effort, the Commission will be asked to meet with representative groups of the public so that their views are taken into account in the Commission's recommendations.

In doing this, the Commission will look at such things as the current debt situation of American individuals and households, including categories of debt such as credit card debt, education related loans and mortgage payments; the movement of Americans between salaried jobs with benefits to single or multiple wage jobs with limited or no benefits with a comparison of income to include the value of benefits programs such as health insurance and retirement plans; the percentage of Americans who are covered by both employer-provided and individual health care plans and the extent of coverage per dollar paid by both employers and employees; the savings rate, including both standard savings plans and pension plans; the disparity in income distribution over time and between different demographic and geographic groups; and the breakdown of household expenditures between such categories as food, shelter, medical expenses, debt servicing, and energy.

In addition, the Commission will consider the relevance of certain non-market activities, like household production, education, and volunteer services that affect the economic well-being of households but are not measured or valued in currently reported economic statistics. As Robert F. Kennedy famously said, some of our economic indicators measure ``everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.'' We need to make an effort to value more than just our gross domestic product and sales receipts. We need to better measure and understand what matters to American households.

This effort to improve how we measure what matters in our economy is very much in the Wisconsin tradition of accountable good government. It was Senator Robert LaFollette, Jr. who, in 1932, introduced a resolution requiring the U.S. Government to establish a more scientific, specific and accurate set of measures of the health of the U.S. economy. From his request, Simon Kuznets, a University of Pennsylvania economics professor, developed the first set of national accounts which form the basis for today's measure of GDP and other economic indicators. Kuznets won the 1971 Nobel Prize in Economics ``for his empirically founded interpretation of economic growth which has led to new and deepened insight into the economic and social structure and process of development''. His work was the basis for much of the New Deal reform policies. Yet Kuznets specifically acknowledged that his measures were incomplete and did not go far enough to measure what may really matter. In his 1934 report to the Senate on his compilation of statistics associated with Gross National Product he concluded: ``The welfare of a nation can . . . scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as [so] defined. . . .'' This bill is intended to advance these earlier efforts to make our economic statistical measures more reflective of the welfare of our families and our nation.

The cost of this commission will be fully covered by amounts already authorized and appropriated to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by Senator Dorgan. Frankly, this amendment should be a no-brainer--it saves taxpayers and consumers money by bringing down prices for prescription drugs. I don't think American consumers should have to pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, particularly when those prices keep going up.

The Congressional Budget Office has stated that brand-name drugs cost, on average, 35 to 55 percent less in other industrialized nations than they do in the United States. And the AARP released a study recently that found that the price of drugs most commonly used by seniors has risen faster than the general inflation rate every year since 2004. In 2007, the price spiked by 8.7 percent--three times the general inflation rate of 2.9 percent.

It is no wonder that Americans turn to Canada to buy more affordable, and entirely safe, prescription drugs. Americans are now importing more than $1 billion in prescription drugs from Canada alone. Consumers would not go to such lengths to buy their medicines this way if they were not saving money.

Now, the drug industry has said that drug importation can't be done safely. I give PhRMA credit. They have gone to great lengths to scare the public. The reality is drug importation has occurred within European Union countries--called parallel trade--for the last 25 years. The pharmaceutical industry should know drug importation is safe. The industry has imported drugs and sold them in the U.S. for decades. One- quarter of the drugs consumed by Americans today are made in foreign manufacturing plants.

The Dorgan amendment includes a number of protections to ensure that imported drugs are safe--and certainly safer than the completely unregulated system we have today.

I don't need to remind my colleagues about the deficit hole we are in. Federal spending is one of the top concerns I hear about from my constituents--they want to know what we are doing to get our deficit under control. That is why I introduced legislation, the Control Spending Now Act, to propose concrete ways to bring down runaway government spending. And one of the proposals I included was Senator Dorgan's drug importation legislation, because it is such a commonsense and effective way to save the government tens of billions of dollars. I am pleased that the health care reform bill we are debating already includes three other proposals in my control spending bill, championed by Senator Bingaman and others, that would slash Federal spending on prescription drugs by billions of dollars.

With passage of the Dorgan amendment we can make it four.

We do a lot of things in Congress that leave our constituents scratching their heads. Now we have a chance to show them we are listening to them, that we understand their concerns, and that we want to bring down Federal spending while ensuring the prescription drugs they need are more affordable. Again, that sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, or CLASS Act, which was introduced by the late Senator Ted Kennedy. The CLASS Act would create an optional insurance program to help pay for home care and other assistance for adults who become disabled. Those choosing to participate would pay monthly premiums into an insurance trust, and after 5 years, could access a cash benefit if they become disabled and need assistance.

Over 10 million Americans are currently in need of long-term care, and that number is expected to rise to 15 million in the next 10 years. These individuals struggle to remain independent with limited assistance, and many turn to Medicaid as an insurer of last resort. In order to qualify, however, people need to go through a substantial ``spend down'' of their assets and commit to unemployment to remain eligible. Mr. President, this is totally inefficient. Instead of ensuring that an individual can remain an independent and functional member of society, the current policy requires that to receive assistance, a person basically becomes a ward of the State. Medicaid pays for half of long-term care costs and increased expenditures are expected to add $44 billion each year to Medicaid over the next decade. Not only is this unsustainable it is nonsensical.

This is as much about protecting people's dignity as it is about fiscal responsibility. Too many Americans fall on hard times, becoming disabled from an accident or illness, with no safety net to help them stay independent. Ensuring that these people have an alternative to Medicaid, so that they can remain active and independent, will reduce the Federal deficit by $73.4 billion over 10 years and save Medicaid $1.6 billion in the first 4 years benefits are available. Medicaid savings will continue to grow over time as more beneficiaries utilize CLASS Act benefits instead of Medicaid.

And thanks to amendments accepted in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, the bill language is stronger than ever. Senator Gregg, my colleague on the Budget Committee, amended the bill to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to set premiums that are actuarially sound for a 75-year window, and maintain sustainable enrollment and benefit structure. While some have suggested that the CLASS Act is fiscally not sound, the Gregg amendment should put those concerns to rest.

Long-term care reform has been a cornerstone of my work in public office since my days in the Wisconsin State Senate. I have seen how important it is to give people options so that they can match the level of care and assistance to their personal needs. Pushing anyone and everyone into Medicaid, or into a nursing home, is a waste of potential, a waste of opportunity, and a waste of money. Medicaid and our Nation's nursing homes have a critical role to play for some Americans. But for many Americans, it is simply not the right fit. The CLASS Act will ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent enrolling only those who truly need Medicaid into the program, and help others save for a time when they might need some assistance to remain independent. The CLASS Act is a critical part of this health reform bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose any effort to weaken or strike this program from the bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, just over 6 months ago, this Congress was abuzz with concern about piracy off Somalia's coast. Following the attack on a U.S.-flagged ship, the MV Maersk Alabama, and capture of CPT Richard Phillips, no less than five congressional committees held hearings on this topic. There was intense discussion about the steps that should be taken by our ships and our Navy to help prevent these attacks. And the State Department subsequently announced several steps it would take to combat piracy, including working with the International Contact Group on Piracy to expand the multinational naval operation to patrol the waters off Somalia's coast. The United States, China, India, Russia, the European Union and many other countries have deployed naval forces to the region that are working together to combat piracy--a remarkable show of international cooperation.

Those naval efforts have had some success. But while piracy attacks declined considerably over the summer months with the monsoon season, attacks appear to be on the rise again. The International Maritime Bureau reports that 38 ships have been attacked and 10 hijacked in the past 2 months. This includes the Maersk Alabama, which was attacked again on November 18. It also includes a supertanker carrying $20 million in crude oil that was seized this week en route from Saudi Arabia to New Orleans. The UN Secretary General warned in July that ``as a result of the military presence in the region, pirates have employed more daring operational tactics, operating further seawards, toward the Seychelles, and using more sophisticated weaponry.'' The recent attacks bear out the Secretary General's concern. Even more disconcerting, Jeffrey Gettleman of the New York Times reported this week that more Somalis and new Somali subclans are being drawn into the piracy business, attracted by the vast ransom payments.

I said back in the spring that while naval action was needed to confront these pirates, we would likely see more episodes of piracy if we did not also address the conditions on land that contribute to this problem. The recent events have proven this to be true. Both Director of National Intelligence Blair and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Army LTG Michael Maples, in their testimony before Congress earlier this year, cited lawlessness and economic problems on land in Somalia as the cause of rising piracy at sea. In the absence of local law enforcement capacity and amidst a dire economic situation, piracy is an attractive choice for many young people in northwest Somalia. The renewed piracy attacks show that this remains the case, regardless of the increased pressure from naval forces and maritime vessels adopting new defensive precautions.

Now, let me be clear: when I say we should address the conditions on land, I do not mean that we should carry out some kind of military action against those villages where the pirates are known to live, as some have suggested. In fact, such operations would do little to change those conditions and they would likely make matters worse by inciting local resentment. Nor am I in any way excusing the behavior of the criminals behind these attacks--nothing can justify their actions. What I am saying is that what is needed is a serious international commitment to help establish stability, functional governance, capable law enforcement, and economic opportunity in Somalia. As leading Somalia expert Dr. Ken Menkhaus has said, it will be impossible to end the piracy when ``the risks are so low, rewards so high and alternatives so bleak in desolate Somalia.'' Changing that equation requires real change on land.

In particular, we know that most of the pirates come from communities in northern Somalia. Yet, despite this, we have done little to directly engage the regions of Puntland and Somaliland, and their regional governments. I am not arguing that we should recognize their independence, but I believe it is in our national interest to engage these regions--diplomatically and economically--and to promote governance and stability there. It is in our interest from the standpoint of not just counterpiracy, but also counterterrorism. The terrorist threat in northern Somalia is, or should be, more apparent now than ever. Last October, terrorists attacked in Somaliland and Puntland. And last month, a well-known judge and legislator in Puntland were assassinated. We need to help both of these regions to maintain and shore up their relative stability. And in the case of Somaliland, there is a unique tradition of democratic rule that we ought to encourage, although I am disappointed that Somaliland's elections have been repeatedly postponed.

At the same time, more engagement with northern Somalia does not mean we should neglect the rest of the country. The raging conflict and resulting humanitarian crisis in central and southern Somalia is worse than ever. Just yesterday, a suicide bomber attacked a graduation ceremony in Mogadishu, killing at least 10 people, including 3 Ministers of the Transitional Federal Government. This demonstrates the fragility of the TFG, which continues to face a strengthened al Shebaab and allied militias. Over the weekend, al Shebaab, a group with links to al-Qaida, seized another major town in southern Somalia. In addition to these security challenges, the TFG has struggled to broaden its grassroots appeal or demonstrate its ability to make a difference in people's lives. The result is that the TFG is reportedly

being seen by some Somalis as a proxy of the West and little different than its predecessors. This is extremely worrisome, especially if we believe that this government offers the best chance for establishing stability and inclusive governance in Somalia.

Even more than the threat of piracy, the terrorist threat shows why we need to be paying more attention to Somalia. Al-Qaida and its affiliates continue to exploit Somalia's instability, which has real ramifications for our national security. Last month, the Justice Department announced that terrorism charges were being brought in the District of Minnesota against eight defendants for recruiting and raising funds for Somali-Americans to fight on behalf of al Shebaab. Fourteen people have now been charged in this investigation, reportedly the largest group of American citizens suspected of joining an extremist movement with links to al-Qaida. We should not equate these individuals with al-Qaida suspects, but we should be mindful of what Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Michael Leiter testified to in September--that ``the potential for al-Qaida operatives in Somalia to commission Americans to return to the United States and launch attacks against the Homeland remains of significant concern.'' Our close partners in the region--Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda--are also justifiably concerned about al Shebaab's threat to attack them.

Recent history has shown that there are no easy answers to Somalia's troubles. Moreover, it has shown that we can complicate and even aggravate dynamics in Somalia, and many Somalis continue to view the United States with a high level of suspicion and resentment. We need to be conscious of this. But that does not mean we should just disengage and let matters in Somalia play out, as some commentators suggest. Rather, what I believe the recent history of the United States involvement in Somalia should teach us is that we cannot afford a half- hearted or fragmented policy toward Somalia where we are not clearly communicating to Somalis our intentions and our commitment. We need a comprehensive strategy toward Somalia that includes serious, high-level diplomatic support for a sustainable and inclusive peace. I have been calling for such a strategy for nearly a decade now and I still do not believe we have one. With piracy resurging and the terrorist threat more real than ever, I hope that will finally change.

Madam President, disappointed that the Senate health care debate has gotten off on the wrong foot. The first amendment voted on would add almost a billion dollars to our budget deficits over the next 10 years. We should make sure health plans cover women's preventive care and screenings, but we should also find a way to pay for it, rather than adding that cost to the already mountainous public debt. At a time of record deficits, Americans expect fiscal responsibility from their representatives in Congress.

Mr. President, I opposed Senator McCain's attempt to send the bill back to committee because it would have effectively ended the current debate on health care reform. Moreover, while I have concerns about some of the offsets in the bill--such as cuts to hospice and home health care--it would be fiscally irresponsible to throw out provisions that cut down on wasteful spending and reward quality, as the McCain motion would have done. Those provisions are key to helping to put Medicare on the path to long-term fiscal sustainability.

Mr. President, this week I join my colleagues and the Nation in observing the 88th annual American Education Week.

The United States of America has a rich history of providing a free public education to its children, and the education that millions of students receive every year opens countless doors of opportunity to these students. Teachers, administrators, and support staff in our Nation's communities plant the seeds of knowledge in our students, who are the future of the American economy, American innovation, and American society. And sometimes I do not feel like enough is said of these individuals who have dedicated their lives to the cause of public education and who have touched the lives of millions of children. So this week, let us reflect on the positive impact teachers and schools have on this country.

While enormous strides have been made in expanding access to public education since our Nation's founding, the United States still has a long way to go before we can say that every child in our Nation has access to a high-quality public education. There is

still a persistent achievement gap in many of our Nation's schools with respect to low-income and minority students. The nationwide high school graduation rate hovers around 70 percent and is even lower for students of color and low-income students. This is unacceptable and is a matter of fairness and equality that must be addressed. We can do better. We must do better. The future of our country rests on our efforts. Federal, State and local governments must work together to continue to support our educators and help ensure that every child has access to good teachers and high-quality schools.

That is why I am looking forward to working with educators as Congress undertakes the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also known as No Child Left Behind. We now have the opportunity to rethink the proper role for the Federal Government in education reform and how we can best support States and school districts as they continue to work to educate all our Nation's children and close the persistent achievement gap that still exists in too many of our Nation's schools. We need to work together to solve problems, strengthen our public school system, and make certain that all our students receive the education they deserve.

As Chief Justice Warren wrote when he delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision:

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of

state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance

laws and the great expenditures for education both

demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to

our democratic society. It is required in the performance of

our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the

armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship.

Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to

cultural values, in preparing him for later professional

training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his

environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may

reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the

opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the

state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be

made available to all on equal terms.

More than 50 years later, these words still ring true, and as we celebrate American Education Week, let us honor the outstanding work that our Nation's educators do every day and recommit ourselves to working with these educators to address the continued inequities in American education so that all children, regardless of their background, can receive a high-quality public education.

I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified with the modifications I send to the desk.

Mr. President, I understand the amendment will now be accepted.

Mr. President, I voted against the amendment offered by Senator Inhofe, No. 2774. It is time for Congress to allow the administration to work toward the goal that so many of us support: closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay once and for all. The administration has provided its plan to Congress, and has provided individualized reports on each detainee before any transfer occurs. While closing Guantanamo may not be easy, it is vital to our national security that we close this prison, which is a recruiting tool for our enemies. In particular, I oppose this amendment because it would prohibit the executive branch from spending money to upgrade security at U.S. detention facilities where Guantanamo detainees might be held, thereby making the American people less safe.

Amendment No. 2743

Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I wish to remember victims of the horrific shootings at Fort Hood. This was a senseless attack on innocent people who were serving their country. To know that these people, 12 servicemembers and 1 civilian, were taken from their families in this way is very difficult to accept. I join with people across the country in mourning these tragic deaths. My thoughts are with each and every one of their families.

As a Senator from Wisconsin, I do feel a special duty to remember the two Wisconsinites who were killed. Both were extraordinary members of our Armed Forces, and their deaths are a terrible blow to all who knew them, and to our State. Wisconsin takes so much pride in its long traditon of military service, and in the Wisconsinites who serve so bravely in the Armed Forces today. Wisconsin has already lost so many servicemembers in recent years--90 in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 12 in Operation Enduring Freedom. We recently honored our veterans by celebrating Veterans Day, and we are thinking of these men and women and the sacrifice they made, so to suffer these additional losses at this time is simply tragic.

SSG Amy Krueger from Kiel, WI, and CPT Russell Seager from Mount Pleasant, WI, were both outstanding servicemembers, and their families and communities are heartbroken by their deaths.

Staff Sergeant Krueger, who was just 29, joined the Army after the 2001 terrorist attacks. She had deployed previously to Afghanistan in 2003 and helped soldiers dealing with combat stress. Staff Sergeant Krueger arrived at Fort Hood on November 3 and was scheduled to be redeployed to Afghanistan in December. She graduated from Kiel High School in 1998 and was very proud to serve her country. About 500 family and friends gathered recently at the Veterans Memorial Park in Kiel to remember and pay tribute to Sergeant Krueger.

CPT Russell Seager, 47, was a registered nurse and advanced practice nurse prescriber who was with the primary care mental health integration program at Zablocki VA Medical Center in Milwaukee. He also taught classes at Bryant and Stratton College in Milwaukee. As part of the combat stress control unit, Seager was tasked with watching for warning signs among soldiers on the front lines that could signal long- term mental health problems. He is survived by his wife and adult son.

It is so tragic to think that these two people, who were trained to help fellow servicemembers cope with the stress of combat, were struck down when their help is needed the most. These servicemembers are really unsung heros of our military today--the men and women who help other servicemembers deal with post traumatic stress disorder, which has skyrocketed since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both Staff Sergeant Krueger and Captain Seager were truly selfless people who helped their fellow servicemembers through some very tough times. Both were part of the 467th Medical Detachment, which is based in Madison, WI. It is an outstanding unit doing much-needed work, and it is terrible that the unit suffered these losses.

I also want to say a few words about the four Wisconsinites who were injured at Fort Hood. At the recent memorial at Fort Hood, which was such a moving tribute to those who were killed, I had the privilege of meeting Specialist John Pagel, 28, of North Freedom, WI, who was also with the 467th Medical Detachment. Specialist Pagel is married and has two children.

I also had the privilege of meeting SPC Grant Moxon, 23, of Lodi, WI, another member of the 467th, who is a mental health specialist. Specialist Moxon graduated from UW-La Crosse. He joined the military just last year and had arrived in Texas one day before the shooting incident.

Both Sergeant Pagel and Specialist Moxon were shot but are now both doing well.

CPT Dorothy ``Dorrie'' Carskadon, 47, of Madison, WI, is also a member of the 467th. Carskadon fought with the Army in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm and then enlisted in the Army Reserve 2 years ago. She is a clinical social worker with the U.S. Army Reserve. She was set to deploy to Iraq to counsel troops suffering from PTSD. She was shot twice in the hip and underwent an all-night surgery. Fortunately, she is expected to make a full recovery.

Army PFC Amber Bahr, 19, of Random Lake, WI, with the 187th medical battalion, has been at Fort Hood for a year working as an Army nutritionist. She was scheduled to deploy for the first time in January. In the midst of the shootings, Bahr was putting a tourniquet onto another soldier and helping him out of harm's way before she discovered that she was shot herself. She was released Friday night from the hospital.

I think the conduct of Private First Class Bahr, and everyone at the base who responded to the attack with such heroism, says volumes about the men and women who serve today. I am so proud of them, and so profoundly saddened by this attack. As the nation grieves, we offer heartfelt thanks to all

the brave servicemembers who so selflessly serve our country.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so I can call up amendment No. 2746.

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

Mr. President, my amendment would enhance the security of our strategic nuclear weapons arsenal and help ensure that the Defense Department makes the best use of taxpayer dollars. I am pleased it has the support of the chairmen of both the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee and the Armed Services Committee.

The amendment would require the department to submit an analysis of alternative designs for any major military construction projects to secure our nuclear weapons that it plans to initiate. GAO recently found that the Navy initiated two significant new projects without fully analyzing all of the alternatives. Therefore, we cannot be sure that we have found the safest and most cost effective means of protecting our nuclear weapons.

Ensuring the security of our nuclear materials and weapons is more important today that it has ever been. The Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States recently concluded that the threat posed by the danger of terrorists accessing nuclear materials is greater than the threat that a foreign government would choose to use such weapons against us. Unfortunately, in the face of this new threat, our stewardship of our own arsenal has grown lax in recent years. All of my colleagues are aware of the serious breakdown in leadership which resulted in the unintentional shipment of nuclear-related intercontinental ballistic missile parts to Taiwan. They are likely also aware that a B-52 bomber flew across the continental United States mistakenly loaded with five nuclear warheads. These incidents led to the resignation of the Air Force Chief of Staff and Air Force Secretary. Just recently, a wing commander was relieved of command for substandard performance during several nuclear surety inspections at Minot Air Force Base. Clearly, this is an area that warrants sustained congressional oversight.

I recently wrote to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, Dr. Michael Nacht, asking him to include in the Nuclear Posture Review an analysis of the ideal means to secure our domestic nuclear complex from a terrorist attack. Securing nuclear materials is not just about command and control--it is also about ensuring the physical security needed to ward off an attack. In 2008, the Department of Energy's Office of Independent Oversight conducted an evaluation, including a mock terrorist attack, of a U.S. lab that stores weapons-grade nuclear materials. The oversight office found that the lab's security program had significant weaknesses. In light of these numerous security incidents, Congress must step up its efforts to conduct oversight of our nuclear weapons complex.

This amendment is a small step in that direction. As the Defense Department completes the Nuclear Posture Review and stands up a new command in the Air Force to handle nuclear weapons, it is important that we send a message that we want a careful analysis of the best means to secure our nuclear weapons.

The Defense Department spends roughly a billion dollars annually on nuclear weapons security, including about $50 million annually on military construction. GAO recently found that ``the Navy plans to spend about $1.1 billion on security improvements to protect ballistic missile submarines while in transit, but selected one alternative without considering the full life cycle costs of the available alternatives.'' In particular, the ``Navy did not consider the military construction costs of building new facilities to support the new security measures. . . .'' In another case, the Navy interpreted DOD guidance as ``precluding the considerations of costs and benefits.'' This amendment will ensure that this does not happen again.

GAO also found that DOD occasionally cited costs ``as a criterion for deviations from security requirements.'' This amendment will ensure that the Department conducts a full cost benefit analysis and provides it to Congress. That way we can ensure that DOD is not deviating from security requirements unnecessarily for cost.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Amendment No. 2748 to Amendment No. 2730

Mr. President, if I could, I would like to move on, set that amendment aside in favor of bringing up amendment No. 2748.

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

Mr. President, this amendment would establish a pilot program to give grants to community-based organizations to conduct outreach for veterans. Many veterans are not aware of care and benefits available to them through the VA or need help navigating the VA bureaucracy to access those benefits.

The VA has recognized the need to conduct additional outreach to veterans but does not have the presence in certain underserved communities, including rural areas, to do so directly. This amendment would ensure the VA makes grants to organizations, including State and local governmental entities, that have a presence in the community and experience working with veterans.

This amendment is based on my Veterans Outreach Improvement Act, which I first introduced over 5 years ago. That bill has been endorsed by the American Legion; Veterans of Foreign Wars; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Vietnam Veterans of America; National Guard Association of the United States; Wounded Warrior Project; and the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs. The companion bill has already passed the House.

The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee has endorsed the idea of a pilot grant program and has authorized the program in the pending Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2009.

The amendment would set aside $5 million in funding for the grants. CBO has certified that the amendment has no score and is deficit- neutral.

The grants would be awarded on a competitive basis. A wide variety of groups could apply for the grants. State departments of veterans affairs could apply for the grants. In Wisconsin, the Department of Veterans Affairs runs a ``supermarket'' of benefits where veterans can come and learn about programs available to them through the VA. In the first several years of the program, over 10,000 Wisconsin veterans learned about VA programs for which they were eligible. If that many veterans in Wisconsin alone were unaware of these programs, you can imagine the need for greater outreach nationwide.

Other groups that may apply for grants include the county veteran service officers who are present in counties throughout most States. These individuals have a presence in many rural communities where the VA's presence is minimal. Rather than hiring contractors that know nothing about veterans issues to conduct outreach by phone to veterans, as the VA has done, this amendment would allow the VA to leverage existing expertise in the community. Both State and local governmental entities are currently conducting outreach notwithstanding the fact that this is a Federal responsibility. Given the current strain on State and local budgets, we cannot assume that they will continue to be able to offer these services.

Community-based nonprofits with experience working with veterans will also be eligible for the grants. These organizations may have special skills for working with underserved veterans, such as expertise in assisting those with mental disabilities.

Given the high number of service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, it is essential that we conduct outreach to these veterans now to ensure that they get the services they need from the VA. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on November 16, 1989, six Jesuit Fathers, their housekeeper, and her daughter were brutally murdered by members of the Salvadoran Army. The Senate has passed a resolution remembering and honoring the lives and work of these individuals, and today, as we solemnly mark the 20th anniversary of this tragedy, I am struck by the enduring legacy of those who lived and taught their commitment to justice, human rights, and peace in the face of violence and oppression.

A New York Times article published on November 17, 1989, a day after their murders, remembered Father Ignacio Ellacuria Bescoetxea as a strong advocate for human rights and a key participant in successful negotiations for the release of the President's daughter in 1985. Father Ignacio Martin-Baro was ``a gentle academic type, with an office overflowing with books, papers, everything,'' and the editor of a widely distributed scholarly journal. Father Segundo Montes worked to collect data on atrocities committed in El Salvador's war so that, some day, justice could be done and victims would not be forgotten. Father Amando Lopez was a committed professor of theology and served the seminary as its rector. Father Juan Ramon Moreno was the assistant director of the university's chapel which also served as an auditorium for lectures making relevant church teachings to the situation in El Salvador. Father Joaquin Lopez y Lopez was the director in El Salvador of Fe y Alegria which organized primary schools for children in the poorest neighborhoods.

These men put their faith and academic expertise in philosophy, political science, sociology, economics, and theology to good use. They maintained a distinct hope for an El Salvador at peace, and a country that respected and protected the rights and well-being of all its people--including the very poorest. These teachers were invaluable educators not only for their students and fellow Salvadorans, but also for the global community, bringing international attention and awareness to the plight of those most deeply affected by the conflict in their country. Though tragic, their deaths, and those of their housekeeper, Julia Elba Ramos, and her daughter, Celina Mariset Ramos, helped bring about the negotiations that ultimately led to peace in 1992, and their work on human rights and social justice is continued today by many in El Salvador and around the world, including the 28 Jesuit colleges and universities in the U.S.

The civil war is long over, and we witnessed a landmark for democracy this spring as El Salvador hosted its first transfer of power between political parties in a relatively peaceful and transparent election. The new government faces many challenges, including widespread poverty, crime, and gang violence, and the work of the six priests remains just as important today--to address these great challenges, El Salvador must commit itself to the causes of education, justice, and human rights that they championed two decades ago.

Madam President, I voted to confirm David Gompert to be Deputy DNI during the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's, SSCI, consideration of his nomination. He is highly qualified, and the responses he provided to questions from members of this committee have generally demonstrated a strong grasp of many of the issues he will face. However, one issue--the statutory obligations to notify the full committee of intelligence activities--requires further comment. I voted against the confirmation of Robert Litt to be the ODNI's general counsel and that of Stephen Preston to be CIA's general counsel because of their misinterpretation of the National Security Act. Specifically, they misread the ``Gang of Eight'' provision, which is included only in section 503 of the act covering covert action, to apply to section 502, which covers all other intelligence activities. When I asked Mr. Gompert about this, he acknowledged that the provision is not in section 502 but nonetheless cited the views of the general counsel.

I have no reason to believe that, as a matter of policy, Mr. Gompert won't elect to notify the full SSCI, regardless of the statutory interpretations of the general counsel. Nonetheless, this confirmation process should serve to remind Mr. Gompert and other leaders of the intelligence community that those clear statutory obligations apply to them, regardless of the general counsels' misinterpretation of the law and regardless of the practices of the previous administration. These obligations are consistent with basic notions of statutory interpretation. They are also consistent with recent testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by two experts on congressional notifications, both of whom worked on the Church Committee. Frederick ``Fritz'' Schwarz testified that the ``Gang of Eight'' provision ``should be read as limited to covert action'' and noted CIA Director Panetta's testimony at his confirmation hearing supporting this view. Britt Snider's testimony traced the entire history of the provision, describing amendments passed in 1991 and noting that he was general counsel of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at the time of the amendments and was ``heavily involved in their development.''

Another important change brought about by the 1991

amendments limited the ``gang of 8'' option to covert

actions, rather than making it available to notify the

committees of any intelligence activity that was particularly

sensitive. This was done for several reasons. First, the gang

of 8 option had, to that point, only been used for covert

action. Sensitive collection programs had been briefed to the

committees as a whole. The view on the two intelligence

committees was that if an agency was instituting a new,

ongoing program to collect intelligence, they all needed to

know about it, regardless of its sensitivity. This was what

the committees were set up to do. They had to authorize the

funding for these programs. How could they not know of them?

Again, the [George H.W.] Bush Administration did not resist

the change . . . There have been no major changes to the

congressional notification requirements since the 1991

Amendments. But I think it is fair to say that practice under

the law has changed over time. It changed, for example, in

the late 1990s when the CIA began to disclose more

information to the committees about its collection

operations, especially those that were experiencing problems.

(Emphasis added.)

Both the plain language of the statute and its history are thus clear. Moreover, the practice of violating the statute in this manner is not longstanding; it was limited to the George W. Bush administration. It is therefore particularly dangerous for the current administration and any current leaders of the intelligence community to associate themselves with this misinterpretation of the law.