Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to submit a sense of the Senate resolution to address the issue of military retirement pay in this budget proposal.

It is the responsibility of Congress to get our fiscal house in order and that all government spending should be examined to achieve that goal. However, this budget proposal disproportionately targets the retirees of the U.S. Armed Forces in the name of fiscal responsibility.

We, as a body, acknowledge military retirees, both those who served full careers and those who have medically retired and their survivors. They have provided great service and sacrificed much for our country. Making decisions regarding future spending cuts would be difficult and painful, but the solution should require contributions from all Americans, not just our servicemembers who have sacrificed so much.

Therefore, I, along with Senator Isakson--and I am pleased to say Senator Murkowski and Senator McCain--have joined in offering a sense of the Senate resolution that military retirees should not unfairly bear the burden of our excessive government spending.

Our military retirees earned the benefits they were promised upon entering the military, and it is our duty to protect them.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that MAJ Bobby J. Cox, my defense fellow, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the week.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the bipartisan budget deal that is currently before the Senate.

Chairman Ryan and Chairman Murray have shown us true leadership on divisive and complex budget issues. The legislation we have before us today is the embodiment of compromise--something that has, unfortunately, been absent in Washington as of late. They have crafted a bill that sets forth the guidelines for spending for the remainder of this fiscal year and the platform for the next fiscal year.

This deal will set overall discretionary spending for the current fiscal year at $1.012 trillion--an amount that is approximately halfway between the Senate budget number and the House budget number. This number is also less than the 2014 spending level set forth in Chairman Ryan's 2011 budget. While the overall spending number is higher than what I would have wanted, the House and Senate Budget Committee chairmen were able to craft a budget deal that produces $23 billion in net deficit reduction. Very honestly, with the deficit we have been running, $23 billion is a mere pittance, and I think all of us who are concerned about the debt and the deficit of this country would like to see that number higher. But more importantly, they have produced a budget that will set in place some fiscally responsible spending policies and give us a way forward. Regardless of how each Member of this Chamber feels about the resulting policy, we should all recognize the importance of this agreement and thank the chairmen for their tireless work to end this chapter of political disagreement.

Although I would still prefer a grand bargain to solve our fiscal crisis, this deal marks the first step in that journey. Congress will now be in a better position to tackle the issues of taxation and entitlement reform in the short term, and I truly hope the committees of jurisdictions will take this as a sign that that does need to be what happens next if we are truly going to address our fiscal issues.

The budget deal before us is not perfect. There is a lot in this proposal to like and there is a lot in this proposal to dislike. But there is one provision related to military retirement pay that will certainly have to be addressed after the passage of this bill, and it is one of the provisions that, frankly, I don't like. I am told by Pentagon officials that this provision basically came out of nowhere. I think it is terribly unfair to our men and women in uniform. They should not have a disproportionate share in our deficit reduction measures.

However, I feel confident this issue will be resolved in the near term. I have had a conversation with the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, as well as a number of other members of the Armed Services Committee who are committed to making sure we address this, and hopefully we will come up with some alternative before this provision takes place, which doesn't happen, interestingly enough, until December of 2015.

Many Georgians have served with honor in our military, and while the changes to their annual cost-of-living increase may appear insignificant on paper in this bill, this is real money promised to those who put their lives in harm's way in defense of this Nation. I want to assure our service men and women that there is ample time to address this issue before it takes effect, and I am committed to addressing it, and I will not turn my back on those who fight and have fought for this country.

That said, this budget deal is a necessary and crucial step toward a functioning Congress. With passage of this budget deal, we can close the book on discretionary spending arguments for the next couple of years. We can turn our full attention to entitlement reform and tax reform as Congress debates raising the debt ceiling once again next year.

Also, with this bill we will no longer need to provide additional flexibility for defense spending. This bill will give the defense community the resources they need, No. 1.

In conversations with top officials at the Pentagon and within the intelligence community over the weekend, they have urged the support of this bill as a way to address their current budget crisis, and I am extremely sympathetic to both those communities and wanted to make sure that whatever product came to the floor of the Senate did that. This bill does address the shortfalls and the flexibility issue in the defense community and in the intelligence community.

I was pleased at the approach the budget chairmen took will not turn off sequester but will extend the mandatory cuts for an additional 2 years beyond what the Budget Control Act prescribed because, as I see this, this has been an $85 billion fix on the sequester that keeps it from going too deep into the defense budget, which had the potential for causing real problems within the Pentagon as well as within the intelligence community.

With this budget deal, we can also put in place a 302(a) budget allocation--the top-line number Congress can spend on discretionary spending. For the first time in several years, this will allow the Appropriations Committee to do the job that it is actually intended to do. Our appropriators have previously been forced to make spending decisions without a top-line number and through continuing resolutions. They had no information and no guidance from Congress. It is no wonder our spending has caught up with us. The country benefits when Congress approaches the appropriations process through regular order and not through last-minute continuing resolutions. This agreement makes that process more likely.

The Budget Committee chairmen have also made a good-faith effort to attack the real problems in our budget by cutting money from mandatory programs rather than searching for more discretionary cuts. In their agreement, they took notice of how often the Federal Government has given special treatment to certain groups and they have taken efforts to curb that. While many outside groups may attack these reforms, they are representative of the types of reforms that will have to be included in any future agreement to achieve entitlement reform, which at the end of the day is where the real problem in our Federal budget lies.

This deal does little to address the $17 trillion debt, but it is a start down that road, and I truly hope this will lead to more serious discussions on the floor of the Senate about our debt and

a solution for how we are going to see that $17 trillion repaid.

In all, this budget deal represents a partial completion of the work the American people expect from us. It is far from perfect and leaves much to be desired. But the prospect of compromise on the single most important issue of our time requires attention and serious looking at by every Member of this body. I will vote for the passage of this bill because it lays the groundwork for the next chapter in our pursuit of fiscal sanity.

For 3\1/2\ years now, Senator Warner and I have been involved in seeking out a much larger debt and deficit reduction deal than what is currently before us. We know the American people are tired of out-of- control spending and don't understand why Congress can't address our $17 trillion debt. It is not rocket science. The Bowles-Simpson Commission gave us a roadmap 3 years ago this month, and I regret that the White House has not followed the leadership of its own Commission. This bill represents a small step toward the type of cooperation that will be necessary to comprehensively address our debt and deficit. It is my hope that this agreement allows that effort to restart in a meaningful way.

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

Would the Senator yield?

I know the Senator from Mississippi was on Active Duty in the Air Force for several years and has stayed in contact with many members of the military not just as a result of his service on the Armed Services Committee but because he is very keenly interested in the welfare of the men and women in our military.

If I am hearing the Senator from Mississippi correctly on this particular issue, what he is saying is that an E-7 who served in Iraq, served in Afghanistan, conceivably served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, maybe even was awarded major meritorious recognition, is now going to have the promise that was made to him about his retirement reduced retroactively. Do I understand that correctly?

Mr. President, again if I may inquire of the Senator, you, as I say, have been very close to any number of military personnel through the years you have served in this body as well as your service in the Mississippi Legislature. Just by virtue of the fact of practicing law in Tupelo, MS, what is the opinion of the Senator from Mississippi as to the morale influence a provision such as this is going to have on our men and women in the military, not just those who are retired but Active-Duty military today?

The Senator also mentioned the reduction in Federal retirement pay--and we have to figure out ways to save money. We all know and understand that. There is a change in the pension for Federal retirees, but it is all prospective going forward.

I am very sympathetic, even though I never served on Active-Duty in the military as you did. But this is very strange. It is very difficult to understand why we would penalize the men and women who have worn or do wear the uniform of the United States versus a very similar provision for the men and women who serve the Government of the United States in a very honorable way, but we are treating them very differently, it seems like almost discriminatorily.

I thank the Senator from Mississippi for giving me an opportunity to speak for a minute. I wish to get to some anecdotes, but first it has been nearly 4 years since the Democrats in the Senate and the House forced the passage of the President's signature law, the Affordable Care Act or what is commonly known as ObamaCare.

It is a title the President has embraced during the promising times and distanced himself from during the very difficult times we are going through now. It has been kind of an interesting dynamic to watch.

Instead of working in a bipartisan fashion to enact a health care law that would bring more competition into the private insurance market through market-based solutions, President Obama and the Democrats structured a deal behind closed doors across this hall that we are looking at on the west side of the Capitol. They structured that deal without any Republican input, giving the Federal Government more control over Americans' health care decisions.

The Senator from Mississippi and I were here on the floor, and we both fought tooth and nail to stop the passage of ObamaCare.

On Christmas Eve, 2009, we came to the floor of the Senate and voted against what I think is the worst piece of legislation that has passed in the Congress in the 19 years the Senator and I have been in Congress. I have been saying for years that ObamaCare caused more problems than it solved, and with the passage of every single day, that is being shown as the painful truth.

Although the White House has stood behind this terrible piece of legislation, some of my colleagues across the aisle have brought into question now the ability of it to stand on its own two feet.

Who can blame them. This has become a major political issue, not only expensive, but it is a political issue. The law continues to be marked by red flags. We have heard a few of the Democrats go as far to say even that it is a train wreck, and they are exactly right.

We have heard from the American people as well. They are rightfully upset that they have been repeatedly lied to and misled about this law by the President of the United States. The

American people don't deserve a law filled with broken promises marked by disaster after disaster. The law is fundamentally broken and Americans deserve better.

I noticed yesterday, in a hearing, the Secretary of HHS reported that nearly 365,000 individuals have selected plans from the State and Federal marketplaces, a number that is far below the administration's goal. I think their goal--and the Senator may correct me--is 7 million by the end of March.

I notice also that the State of Oregon has spent $300 million setting up their exchange. As of this morning there were 40 people, 40 citizens of Oregon had signed up. The fact is that this law is not working. It is becoming more and more expensive every day. As we talked about in 2009, when we were debating this bill, it is going to be the largest mandatory expenditure that the U.S. taxpayer has ever seen.

The Senator is correct. I have a whole book of anecdotes and I wish to mention some.

First, Linda of Douglasville wrote to me about her dropped coverage. She said:

We lost our Gold plan. All of our costs will go up next

year considerably. It is harder and harder for us to really

retire!

My husband, who is 71, still has to work part time to pay

for our rising costs.

Linda, from Hampton, GA, also writes:

In 1997 I retired from Motorola, Inc. after having a career

there for almost 30 years. One of my benefits was a retiree

secondary insurance plan, after Medicare, that provided

coverage for medical and prescriptions; my monthly premium

for that coverage was $127.

Effective January 1, 2013 Motorola withdrew their insurance

coverage for retirees.

Under ObamaCare they simply could not afford it. I could go on and on. I know the Senator from Mississippi has some other anecdotes that he would like to mention, and I will engage on some others on my side shortly.

The American people want affordable health insurance. The title of the law even centers on the word ``affordable.'' I am not sure how anybody could possibly argue that ObamaCare is affordable when the letters I am receiving from constituents over and over every single day, time and again, reference a significant increase in their total health care costs. Virtually 100 percent of the letters we are getting indicate that not only are the monthly premiums going up, but the deductible is going up, their copays are going up, and it is simply going to be more out-of-pocket expense than either actively working individuals or retired individuals ever thought they would have to pay for health care.

Terra from Columbus writes to explain what is happening to her children.

I carry medical insurance for my two adult children because

they cannot afford it on their own.

Let us remember, ObamaCare covers children up to 26 years of age.

Being one that has always had medical insurance and knowing

the value of it if something bad happens, I have also made

sure that they both had some type of coverage when they

became adults. The sad part is I have gotten a letter on both

and now their insurance will be canceled because I as their

parent can no longer afford to pay it for them either. We

received a letter which shows where their old policy covers

everything and I mean everything, but because of ObamaCare's

requirements to carry everything, a new policy will cost us

twice as much each month. With me being unemployed and my

husband the only one working we have no choice but to drop

their coverage.

Wynell, from Roswell, GA, wrote:

My private coverage was superb. But now, my insurance

premiums are going from $319 a month to $769 a month and not

only that, my copay is increasing from $5 to $20 for my

primary care visits and $5 to $50 for specialist visits. I

will be responsible for $500 per day out-of-pocket cost if I

am hospitalized (before my hospital costs were included) and

I will also have to pay for any tests (before all my tests

were included). And apparently, subsidies do not apply to me.

Loretta, from Canton, GA, writes:

I received a letter from my insurance company dated

September 25, 2013. I had until November 15 to choose to

remain with my current coverage until December 2014. My rate

increased by 16 percent. According to the letter, the

Affordable Care Act premium will increase by 139 percent. My

former plan did not include maternity. I'm 60 years old. I

don't need maternity. My new plan will include maternity. My

old plan was great for preventive care. I paid nothing for

immunizations including tetanus and flu shots. I paid a $30

copay for a doctor visit. My prescriptions have been very

reasonable. The new plan requires a network of doctors and

hospitals. The premiums were between 150 percent and 200

percent above what I'm paying now. I did not enroll but have

received numerous e-mails reminding me to enroll. So far, I'm

hoping I can keep my premium at the 16 percent increase for

2014. Otherwise, I will not have health insurance. I can't

afford the new premium.

Kevin, from Roswell, GA, wrote:

We are a family of four. We have and want a catastrophic-

only high deductible health plan with low monthly premiums

and full coverage once we hit our deductible. We like our

plan.

This is very typical of a lot of families who were promised by the President, if you like your plan, you can keep it.

We were paying $500 a month until July of this year. I had

bladder cancer in November of 2012 which was successfully

removed and I require no follow up treatment, just biannual

checkups, so I expected an increase in my premium this year.

In fact, our premium did go up to $560 a month in July. On

November 1, I got the letter telling us our premium was now

going to $902 a month, a 60 percent increase. After three

separate calls, I got the

information that the $902 a month change was ``Option B,''

which is an ObamaCare-compliant plan which covers abortion,

birth control and maternity care. Since we could not have

children, we adopted two kids, so that coverage is 100

percent completely unnecessary for us. ``Option A'' we came

to find out a few weeks later, was the option to keep our

plan with an increase to $617 a month. This plan will be

canceled on December 31, 2014, at which point we will be

forced to get an ObamaCare-compliant plan costing much more

and covering things we will never, ever need.

Now, I am sure the Senator from Mississippi has received dozens and dozens of these letters, just as we have in my office. Knowing the State of Mississippi has a lot of rural areas, as my State does--in fact, I live in a rural area--there is a huge discrepancy created by ObamaCare between insurance premiums in rural America versus insurance premiums in more urban areas. Many of these premiums and deductibles are so high that it defeats the purpose of having health insurance.

This really does hit close to home for me because I truly live in a rural part of our State. In two of the regions in Southwest Georgia designated by ObamaCare, there is only one insurer--one insurance company--that is offering coverage, and the premiums in that corner of our State are much higher than in the rest of our State. It is the poorest part of our State.

In region one, which includes Albany, GA, the least expensive silver plan for a 21-year-old healthy Georgian is $360 a month. That is the highest rate in the State. In region 15, which is also in that part of our State, the same plan is $330 a month.

You have to remember these are people who are paying zero today because they aren't covered. They are either going to have to pay a fine or they are going to have to take that coverage.

In metro Atlanta the cheapest silver plan for a 21-year-old is $179.20 a month, matching the rate in regions in northeast as well as northwest Georgia, which are more populated. That is half the rate of an individual in southwest Georgia where the average median income is the lowest of any part of our state.

So needless to say, households in rural southwest Georgia often do not have the same income as those in the northwest and northeast part of the State, yet they are being stuck with the highest premiums.

I could go on and on about these anecdotes and about the serious economic consequences ObamaCare is going to cause for individuals in my State, but I want to turn it back over to the Senator from Mississippi for some additional comments.

The Senator is exactly right. Obviously, we both spent an awful lot of time on the floor of the Senate debating this. As we talked about, we were here voting on Christmas Eve of 2009 against this bill when it passed with 60 Democratic votes. No Republican in the Senate voted for the bill. No Republican in the House of Representatives voted for the bill. It passed with all Democratic votes.

If the Senator will recall that famous quote by the then-Speaker of the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, she said: What we have to do is pass this bill and then we will figure out what is in it.

Well, guess what. What we are talking about here is just one of the myriad of consequences the American people are now finding out is in that bill, and they have every right in the world to chastise everybody who voted for that bill who didn't read it, because these are the real out-of-pocket consequences to hard-working, taxpaying Americans that were never talked about on the floor of this Senate or the floor of the House.

The Senator from Mississippi mentioned the way this came about and the comments of the majority leader that I can't believe he really believes. It is hard for me to believe he thinks this is working. He is not a fool.

I also listened to the debate, as we talked about earlier, on the floor leading up to the vote on Christmas Eve 2009. I listened to the debate last night and today by some of our colleagues. I thought our colleague from Nebraska, Senator Johanns, made a very profound statement.

We are fortunate to serve, in my opinion, in the greatest legislative body in the world. The Senator and I spent a number of years in the House, and that is a great institution also. They are both unusual from a constitutional legislative standpoint. But in the Senate there are certain rights of the minority that you don't have in the House.

The American people know and understand what has happened here; that is, 2 weeks ago the Democrats in the Senate broke the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate, and they did so in a very arbitrary and almost mean-spirited way that basically ignored the arguments of the minority. The minority in the Senate has always had rights--up until this rule change a couple weeks ago.

The Senator from Nebraska said today that when we were debating on this floor during the late fall leading up to the vote in December 2009, that because the Democrats had 60 votes, they looked to the minority on our side of the aisle and they said: We don't care what you say. His direct quote was, ``Sit down and shut up.'' And the Senator felt a very eerie feeling taking place 2 weeks ago during the debate on this floor, where the Democrats broke the rule to change the rule, and they looked on this side of the aisle and said: We don't care what the Parliamentarian says. We don't care what the rules of the Senate have been for decades and decades. We are going to change those rules, and you all can sit down and shut up.

I thought what Senator Johanns said was pretty significant, and he was right on track.

I will mention one other major concern I have with this bill that I am sure my friend from Mississippi has also heard, and that has to do with the safety of personal information relative to this new health care system. ObamaCare opens the door to fraud and identity theft like we have never seen in a public program. When individuals visit the exchange and apply for health insurance coverage, they have to provide sensitive personal data, such as Social Security numbers and income and tax return information. This information is then stored in a Federal data service hub. The proper security safeguards for that Federal data hub and other components of the Web site have not been put in place. Despite repeated warnings about this, the administration insisted on moving forward.

If the rollout of healthcare.gov is an indication of what is to follow, then I agree with Americans who have serious reservations about the security of their personal information when applying for health insurance coverage through the exchanges.

The Presiding Officer and I sit on the Intelligence Committee together, and we hear during our daily briefings about cyber attacks taking place against the U.S. Federal Government, against private entities in the United States, as well as against individuals inside the United States.

I can only imagine, with all the problems we have seen with getting up and simply having this Web site of healthcare.gov running, that some 15-year-old sitting in his garage somewhere in America--or maybe Beijing or Teheran--looking to have some fun could hack into the computer system and retrieve all the personal information of any individual they wanted to, including their Social Security number.

The Senator is exactly right. And we obviously know what that would lead to. Those hackers attacking America today are getting proprietary information as well as financial remuneration, unfortunately, in too many instances. And to open your personal information book to the Federal Government is something that rightfully, in my mind, has the American people upset, and it is a provision in this health care plan that certainly is not popular. As Nancy Pelosi said, let's pass it, and then we will read it and figure it out. But here we go again. It is another provision in there nobody knew anything about. We had no debate, as the Senator from Mississippi referred to earlier about another issue of the floor of the Senate, regarding having to provide personal information.

I will close my comments with two additional anecdotes that really strike at what Middle America is all about and what suffering and economic pain Middle America is going through right now as a result of ObamaCare.

Michael from Dunwoody, GA, wrote in and said:

I had a really great policy for $277 a month. The premiums

were paid by my Flexplan from my employer and the excess my

employer paid to my flex each month kept my balance

increasing. I now have about $35,000 accrued.

My provider cancelled that plan and my Flex now offers a

lesser plan. The premiums went to $550 a month. I actually

joined AMAC and used their service to find a plan from a

different provider. I must now pay the premiums out of my own

pocket as President Obama won't allow me to use my own money

from my flex plan to pay these premiums.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to MAJ Bobby James Cox for his exemplary dedication to duty and his service to the U.S. Army and to the United States of America. Major Cox has spent the last year serving in my office as a U.S. Army congressional fellow, and it is my distinct pleasure to congratulate him as he concludes an exemplary tour of duty in the Senate.

Major Cox was born in Spartanburg, SC. He commissioned into the infantry in 2002 upon graduation from the Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina, as a distinguished military graduate and the cadet regimental commander of the South Carolina Corps of Cadets.

Major Cox was first assigned as a platoon Leader in A Company, 3-187 Infantry Regiment, Rakkasans, 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, KY, deploying in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. Upon return from Iraq, Major Cox was selected to be a Ranger platoon leader in A Company, 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, at Fort Lewis, WA, deploying twice in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. After the Maneuver Captains' Career Course at Fort Benning, GA, Major Cox was assigned to 4th Ranger Training Battalion, Fort Benning, GA, to be a platoon Ranger instructor, Company Commander, and Battalion S-1.

Major Cox then moved to Fort Bragg, NC, to become the 3rd Brigade Combat Team air officer at the 82nd Airborne Division. He assumed command of A Company, 1-505 Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division while deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Following company command and battalion staff, he was selected to be an Army congressional fellow attending the George Washington University, where he earned a master's degree and subsequently joined my personal office on Capitol Hill.

Over the past year, Major Cox has distinguished himself among his fellowship peers as a leader in the Senate. From his legislative contributions supporting my role on the Senate Armed Services Committee to his dedication to constituent services, Major Cox has deftly applied his military expertise to elevate the performance of my personal office. Across my 19 years in office, Major Cox ranks among the very best of a select group of fellows

The Army says that ``Rangers Lead The Way!'' Major Cox has served as an inspiration and model Airborne Ranger to me and my colleagues in the Senate. I am deeply grateful for his significant contributions and leadership over the past year. He has certainly lived up to the Ranger motto.

It is my great pleasure to congratulate Major Cox, his wife Joscelyn, and their two children, Reagan and Seth, as they leave the Senate and continue to serve our great Nation. I wish them the very best of luck.

Madam President, first of all, let me say to my friend from West Virginia--I happen to serve on that subcommittee and I was in the hearing the other day when he asked a question of General Dempsey, a very appropriate question. We thought a very strong answer was going to be given by Senator Dempsey to the question of the Senator from West Virginia regarding weapons systems and other expenditures that are mandated by Congress that the chiefs and other folks at the Pentagon have said they don't need. As he and I were just discussing, we finally got that letter yesterday, and it was somewhat of a very tepid response rather than the strong response we had hoped for.

In any event, the Senator from West Virginia, along with Senator Coburn and myself, are going to work together to develop a list of expenditures that are either unwanted by the Pentagon that Congress has mandated or expenditures that ought to be spent in some other agency but, unfortunately, are being charged to the Pentagon. So I look forward to working with the chairman on that issue, and I thank him and Senator Wicker for their leadership on the subcommittee.

I rise principally today in support of the Ayotte-Chambliss-Inhofe amendment No. 2255, which would restore many of the legislative limits and requirements Congress has placed in recent years on the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees and prevent medical-related transfers to the United States. I believe these legislative safeguards are vital to our national security and essential to good intelligence collection.

For several years now we have been debating the status of Guantanamo Bay and the detainees who remain there. Time and time again, during the course of these debates, I have asked this administration to come up with a viable, long-term detention and interrogation policy. Frankly, they have failed to do so because of a stubborn commitment to a poorly thought out campaign promise to close Guantanamo.

The call to close Guantanamo may sound like a good campaign sound bite to some people but, frankly, in the real world of national security it undermines good intelligence collection and increases the risks that dangerous detainees will be back on the streets where they can continue, as they have, to kill and harm Americans. These are not abstract theories; they are facts. The recidivism rate is nearly 29 percent and has been climbing steadily since detainees began being released from Guantanamo. This includes nearly 10 percent of detainees who have returned to the fight after being transferred by the current administration following the administration's extensive review of each detainee.

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula counts former Guantanamo detainees not just among its members but among its leaders. A former Guantanamo detainee is believed to have been involved in last year's Benghazi attacks that killed our ambassador and three other Americans.

The administration's stubborn refusal to add even one more terrorist to the Gitmo detainee population has forced the executive branch back into the pre-9/11 mindset of treating terrorists as ordinary criminals--a mindset we know doesn't work. A lot of people will come to this floor on the other side of the aisle and say: Well, we have tried all of these terrorists in article III courts in the United States and it has worked. For the most part, they have been convicted, and they are now serving time. That is a fairly accurate statement. However, what they fail to say is that these article III trials of terrorists who have been arrested inside the United States are nowhere near the caliber of those who planned and carried out the attacks of 9/11 as well as those who were captured on the battlefield seeking to kill and harm Americans and, in a lot of instances, did kill Americans and maim Americans, and they are now housed at Guantanamo. That is a very, very distinct difference, and those prisoners should not be treated the same as an ordinary common burglar is treated in an article III court here in the United States.

In response to criticisms of the approach that the mindset of 9/11 is being returned to, the administration now seems to favor interrogations on board naval vessels. The end result, however, has been no different. At the end of these brief interrogations, those individuals have been transferred to Federal courts here in the United States where they are unlikely to provide any more intelligence information because they have been Mirandized and are now awaiting trial.

From the Christmas Day bomber to the Boston bomber to the East Africa embassies bomber, this preference for criminal prosecution at the expense of intelligence collection has become the administration's standard operating procedure. This is no way to defend our Nation, and it sends a message of weakness to terrorists and our allies alike.

This amendment Senator Ayotte, Senator Inhofe, and I are putting forward sends the right message to the American people. It ensures that our detention practices have clarity for the next year and that on a permanent basis no detainee will be transferred overseas unless there is a clear certification that the transfer is in the best interests of the United States. This also sends a very clear message to the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay: You are not coming to the United States where you will have the advantage of article III courts.

This amendment includes five provisions.

No. 1, it imposes a 1-year ban on transfers to the United States of Guantanamo detainees, except in cases after the date of enactment where the detainee is sent to Guantanamo for purposes of interrogation.

No. 2, it imposes a 1-year ban on transfers of detainees to Yemen-- and I will speak more about that in a minute.

No. 3, it imposes a 1-year ban on building or modifying facilities inside the U.S. to house Guantanamo detainees.

No. 4, it makes permanent the certification requirements needed before any transfer of a detainee overseas.

Lastly, it strikes the provision in the bill that allows transfers of detainees to the United States purely for medical care.

Let me address each provision very briefly. First, I have yet to hear why it is a good idea to bring Guantanamo detainees to the United States. While the President made a promise to close Guantanamo, the American people seem unified against bringing these detainees to the U.S. for any reason, and I believe we should listen to the American people.

It is clear that giving the Secretary of Defense the authority to decide to bring detainees here for detention, trial, and incarceration will have the same impact as Congress lifting the prohibition outright. But the same issues we have been talking about for several years and that GAO identified in its 2012 report on detention options inside of the United States still exists. These include cost considerations, questions about the legal status of the detainees, and concerns about protecting the general public and personnel at these facilities or during trial.

Let's look at who these 164 individuals are that remain at Guantanamo. We started out with about 860-something, as I recall, give or take a few. So we have already released both to other countries and, in some cases where we frankly made a mistake, individuals who should not have been there, or it has been determined by the appropriate reviewing committees that these detainees were OK to be sent back to their country of origin or to some other host country that was willing to take them and supervise them or keep them in detention but to get them out of Guantanamo. Now, the 164 who are remaining are the meanest, nastiest terrorists in the world, frankly. They are the ones nobody is going to want. So if nobody else wants them, why should we allow them to come to the United States?

These are the individuals who either planned and masterminded the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, or they are individuals we picked up on the battlefield who were actively engaged in fighting and killing Americans, as well as engaged in building bombs that were intended to-- and in a lot of instances did--explode and kill or injure Americans.

Some of these folks range from KSM to the USS Cole bomber who are awaiting trial and, frankly, should be tried at Guantanamo. In other words, they are dangerous detainees who should not and cannot be sent, as I said, to any other country.

Many of us have been calling on the administration to send new detainees to Guantanamo simply for interrogation. Detainees such as al- Shabaab leader Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, East Africa Embassies bombing suspect Abu Anas al-Libi, who was arrested in Libya recently, and suspects in the Benghazi attacks all belong at Guantanamo where they can be interrogated for a long time under the rules and articles of war, without Miranda rights or criminal defense lawyers.

But this administration has consistently refused to even consider Guantanamo for interrogation of the meanest folks who still remain at large. It is off the table, as they tell us. Some have used the excuse that it is off the table because of this restriction in previous Defense authorization acts. In other words, the administration could not put any new detainees at Guantanamo for interrogation because they could not send them to Federal court for trial.

If this administration had made any effort at all, even just once, over the past 4 years to interrogate detainees at Guantanamo rather than holding them on a ship, this excuse would have much more merit. But to make sure there are no excuses anymore, our amendment makes clear that detainees who are sent to Guantanamo specifically for the purposes of interrogation after the date of enactment may still be transferred to the United States for trial in article III courts or before military tribunals. That means there is absolutely no need to hold another detainee on board a ship just to interrogate him. And there is absolutely no excuse for not putting new detainees at Guantanamo Bay. This provision makes sense for the security of this country, and it makes sense for good intelligence collection.

The ban on transfers to Yemen is a very critical aspect of this amendment. The amendment bans any detainee transfers to Yemen until December 31, 2014. It has been 4 years since the President imposed a moratorium on transfers to Yemen from Guantanamo following the failed airplane bombing attempt on Christmas Day 2009 by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. At that time, Yemen was viewed as a hotspot for terrorists, especially with the rise of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Now, 4 years later, not much has really changed except for the rising recidivism rate. We know that former detainees have rejoined AQAP both as leaders and as members. We know Yemen continues to struggle with terrorist groups who are trying to make sure it remains an AQAP stronghold. And we know AQAP continues to look for ways, like the 2009 failed Christmas Day bombing, to attack this country.

We have all seen the reports that the administration wants to transfer detainees to Yemen and is working with the Yemeni Government to set up a detention or rehabilitation facility inside Yemen to house these prisoners. We learned from the Saudi rehabilitation program that rehabilitating hardened terrorists simply does not always work. The recidivism rate for the Saudi program is at least 20 percent. Many of these detainees, such as AQAP leader Said al-Shihri, ended up in Yemen fighting as terrorists again. Yemen, as one senior administration official described it, is like the Wild West. It is the last place we should send dangerous detainees. In other words, now is not the time to experiment with our national security.

Our amendment ensures that no detainee can be sent to Yemen over the next year. I recognize that there are Yemeni detainees who have been cleared for transfer, so we do not permanently prohibit those transfers. But just because a detainee is eligible for transfer from Guantanamo does not mean he no longer poses any threat at all. We have to remember that the easiest transfers have already been done, and even among those easy transfers, over a quarter of them have been known to be reengaged in the fight against Americans.

So our amendment imposes a reasonable time period on this prohibition: No transfers can occur until at least December 31, 2014. Over the next year we should have a better sense of how well the Yemeni Government is combating terrorists within its borders. Once we see their track record, we can decide whether it makes sense to send them any new detainees.

In the past, under the previous Government of Yemen, the detainees who were transferred from Guantanamo to Yemen simply were allowed to wander around in Yemen with no supervision whatsoever, and I daresay that we now do not have any idea where most of those detainees are inside of Yemen or, more significantly, whether they are still in Yemen, whether they are reengaged in the fight, whether they are in Syria fighting on one side or the other, or what has gone on with those detainees.

Al Qaeda and its affiliates look up to Guantanamo detainees. They have immediate street credibility among terrorists, which makes it more tempting for them to rejoin the fight. We should not make it easier to transfer detainees anywhere, much less places where there are confirmed recidivists or a real threat from AQAP. The detainees, including many of the Yemenis, who remain at Guantanamo are among the worst offenders.

We should want all future transfers to be done wisely and fully in line with our national security interests. This amendment accomplishes those objectives.

Third, this amendment continues the ban on building or modifying facilities inside the United States to hold those detainees. It does not prohibit any changes to the facilities at Guantanamo Bay, so those facilities will continue to be state-of-the-art.

I understand that this administration wants to close Guantanamo and that the Justice Department has already purchased the correctional facility in Thomson, IL, to house them. But there is still overwhelming consensus here in Congress and among the American people that Guantanamo detainees should never set foot inside the United States. We need to listen to that consensus.

With that in mind, our amendment ensures that not one penny of American taxpayer dollars will be spent on the Thomson facility or to build or modify any other facility inside the United States to house Guantanamo detainees. Our amendment applies not just to Defense Department funding but to all U.S. Government funds. That way, no other Department, including

the Justice Department, can try to circumvent the will of the American people and bring Guantanamo detainees to our homeland.

Many of us have been to Guantanamo. I have been there several times to see for myself how the detainees live and are treated. It is a first-rate prison facility. I have been to many prison facilities in my State as well as other parts of the country. It is one that would probably make most inmates at prisons here inside the United States very envious.

We should not forget that many of the detainees at Guantanamo are some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world. If they cannot be transferred to other countries, they do not belong in the United States.

This amendment also makes permanent the certification requirements that are needed before any detainee can be transferred outside of Guantanamo Bay. As I mentioned, the recidivism rate today is almost 29 percent and growing, so we should not make it easier to transfer detainees anywhere, much less to places where there are recidivists or real terrorist threats. The certification requirements and the ban on transfer if there is a confirmed recidivist in a host country were designed to lessen the likelihood that detainees would reengage.

I understand that some people want Guantanamo closed, but eliminating commonsense measures that are there to protect American citizens is not the way to do it. These measures give Congress and the American people confidence that the Defense Secretary has fully considered all aspects of the transfer, especially the host country's past record and current capabilities.

As the rising recidivism rate tells us, even detainees who have been cleared for transfer--through a very rigorous process, I might add--can still pose a threat. We have to remember that the easiest transfers have already been done, and even among those over a quarter have reengaged. The detainees who remain are among the worst offenders. We should want all future transfers to be done wisely and fully in line with our national security interests.

I do not find persuasive the argument that these certification requirements are so burdensome that detainees cannot be transferred. In fact, this year alone detainees have been transferred to Algeria, and we continue to get notices of other proposed transfers.

Not every detainee needs to stay at Guantanamo Bay. I recognize that, as do the other authors of this amendment. But not one should be released until we are absolutely certain that everything is being done to prevent new terrorist activity on the part of those individuals who are, in fact, released. These certification requirements give us that certainty. Making these requirements permanent is the only sure way to guarantee that each and every transfer is best for the national security of the United States.

Finally, this amendment restores the status quo by striking section 1032 in the bill, which allows the transfer of detainees into the United States for medical care. We need to remember that Guantanamo is a first-class facility, operated by dedicated military personnel who put up with an awful lot from detainees. I remember the first time I went to Guantanamo, they were housed in a facility that is not the facility they are in today. It was much more of an open facility where the guards simply would walk back and forth in very close range to the actual prisoners themselves. Those guards were subjected to being spit upon, having human waste thrown at them as well as food or anything the detainees could get their hands on. Needless to say, it was not a very nice place to be.

But we need to remember also that Guantanamo possesses not only first-class medical facilities but also first-class judicial facilities for the trial of these individuals. There is a state-of-the-art courtroom down there, which is being virtually unused today, that ought to be used to try these individuals before a military tribunal.

Section 1032 seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Guantanamo Bay has the facilities from a medical standpoint and the doctors within the military to treat these prisoners. And I am not aware of any instance in which a detainee has died or suffered further injury because of our inability to treat them at Guantanamo.

Aside from being unnecessary, this provision does not make good policy. Over the past several years detainees at Guantanamo have waged repeated hunger strikes in an effort to gain sympathy so the United States will release them from prison. When inmates in our prisons here engage in such tactics, we do not reward them, but that is exactly what section 1032 would do. If we give detainees the ability to be brought to the United States even for what is supposed to be temporary treatment, that is a powerful incentive for a detainee to injure himself or go on a hunger strike.

I am also concerned about how this provision would even be implemented. It is unclear whether we will have to modify military hospitals so they can handle high-value terrorist detainees. At what cost and at what risk to the safety of others, including the towns in which these facilities are located?

I appreciate that the provision tries to limit the rights of detainees when they are brought here, but we have been down this road before with habeas corpus rights. Once a detainee is physically inside the United States, it becomes much more difficult to argue against any change in immigration or legal status.

In my view, section 1032 is simply in this bill to further reduce the population at Guantanamo. This is not a goal I can support. Our amendment keeps the status quo and keeps these terrorist detainees where they belong--at Guantanamo Bay.

It is time for this administration to provide real leadership on detention and interrogation issues instead of trying to keep ill- conceived campaign promises that run contrary to the established facts and known threats to our national security. Keeping this country safe demands real-time intelligence--the kind we have gotten in the past from interrogating detainees for long periods of time, including those detainees at Guantanamo. It is time for us to end this dangerous practice of treating terrorists first and foremost like criminals who deserve Miranda warnings, attorneys, and court appearances.

It is time for us to stop pretending that the detainees at Guantanamo are no different from common ordinary criminals. Our amendment ensures that the balance remains on the side of our national security and good intelligence collection. It ensures that common sense, not politics, will determine the future of Guantanamo detainees and the effectiveness of our intelligence collection.

I am pleased to turn to the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte, who has been such a champion on this issue. She and I have worked very closely, as well as any number of other national security issues, since she came to the Senate. She has been a tremendous asset. As a former prosecutor, she understands how serious these individuals are from a criminal standpoint.

I commend her for the great work she has done, and I certainly look forward to hearing her comments.

The very best tool we have been able to utilize from an intelligence-gathering standpoint is the information we gather from individuals who were involved in the crime or involved in the planning of the crime. That is the case whether it is an ordinary burglary, bank robbery or in the case that we are talking about today, the planning and the scheming of the carrying out of what happened on September 11, as well as terrorist activity prior to that, such as the USS Cole bombing and others, as well as terrorist activity against the United States subsequent to September 11, as well as the detainees who are at Guantanamo today who were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan.

We have gone through each one of the detainees who were involved in specific incidents or who are battlefield-captured detainees and we have been able to gather intelligence from them that we simply would not have been able to get from anyone else. Many times what we have when we interrogate the detainees, we will know the answer to the question we are going to ask them. Sometimes it is information that was gleaned from detainee X, who was with detainee Y whom we are now interrogating. By virtue of the fact that we know information that we have already gleaned from detainee X, we can ask terrorist Y about it or detainee Y. And you are going to get not only verification of what the first interrogated detainee tells you, but all of a sudden you are going to have an expanded story because this guy says, well, he knows this, and that is the case, so I may as well go ahead and tell him the rest of this.

That is kind of the way the interrogation process goes. What has happened at Guantanamo is that it has been there for a number of years now. September 11 is now 12 years behind us, but we are still gathering information from detainees at Guantanamo who have been there from the very first day it opened. We are gathering information on acts of violence that have occurred, but more significantly on the makeup of Al Qaeda, on who the members are, where they are located, where their headquarters were versus where they think the headquarters might be. There is such a valuable source of information to be gleaned from individuals one on one in the interrogation process that we simply can't get otherwise.

Let me refer a question to the Senator from New Hampshire. She was a prosecutor. She was the attorney general of New Hampshire and she prosecuted any number of criminal cases over the years as attorney general, including some very violent cases. She is familiar with the criminal process, obviously. She is familiar with individuals who have been convicted of crimes, and who, in some instances, were let out of jail when their time was up or whatever and those individuals reengaged in criminal activity, much like what we are seeing at Guantanamo today. The Senator and I have both talked about the recidivism rate being very high.

What is the Senator's opinion, as a long-time prosecutor, relative to these 164 individuals who remain at Guantanamo Bay today with regard to what she thinks is the possibility or the probability of their reengaging in the fight because of their long-term detention at Guantanamo?

Well, it certainly is. I think the Senator and I need to be very clear with our colleagues here as well as the American public. When it comes to the cost of detaining terrorists who carried out the horrific attacks of September 11, I think the American people are well prepared to use their taxpayer dollars to house guys such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who has admitted to planning the September 11 attacks. If we house him in a prison here inside the United States and he gets Mirandized, I am sure the first thing he is going to do is to get a lawyer. The Senator and I are both lawyers, and we would be foolish not to tell our client to hush up, don't talk anymore. And that is exactly what he would do.

So the cost of detaining individuals who ripped this country apart on September 11, 2001, is not a consideration, in my mind, from the standpoint of whether we should house those folks for the rest of their lives.

Absolutely. No question about it. And if you do bring them to the United States, I guarantee that is the last bit of interrogation of any of those individuals that we will ever see.

The Senator mentioned bin Laden. I remember at a hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee where the issue of bin Laden came up during a presentation by the current administration's Secretary of Defense. I asked the question with regard to Guantanamo Bay, and said: If you captured bin Laden tomorrow, what would you do with him? And to his credit, the Secretary of Defense looked me straight in the eye and said: Gee, Senator, I guess we would have to send him to Guantanamo. And he was right. There is nowhere in America where bin Laden would have been welcomed in the county jail or some Federal institution. I don't think there is any question about that. The 164 who are there today, in my mind, fit in that same category. Some of these individuals have never said one word to an interrogator since they have been there. Some

of them--most of them, in fact--have been very open, and we still are gathering intelligence from them. But if we transfer them to the United States, that is the last we will hear from them.

Would the Senator repeat that?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the impact ObamaCare is already having on my constituents, likewise, as my colleague said, in my home State of Georgia.

One of my constituents, Jeanie from Twin City, GA, is a registered nurse in a small hospital. Her husband is a retired Navy officer who served this country honorably for 20 years. They are on TRICARE, so Jeanie didn't need her employer to pay for her health care. However, because of ObamaCare, Jeanie's employer is cutting her hours to less than 30 hours a week, which means a drastic pay cut for her and her family. I fear this health care law will continue to force employers to reduce employee hours in order to avoid the unaffordable health care costs.

Another constituent, Thomas from Columbus, told me about the problem he is facing with his son. His son graduated from college, but as is the case with so many his age, he has been unable to find a job in this tough economy. His son works hard to make ends meet and was lucky to find a bartending position that would allow him to work full-time.

Service industry professionals, normally, as in the case of Thomas's son, do not receive benefits, so Thomas bought his son a catastrophic insurance plan they could afford. Now it looks certain that this plan is not going to be acceptable under ObamaCare. His son will not qualify for Medicaid, but will not be able to afford the premiums he will now have to pay for this catastrophic policy.

Our economy is still recovering and Americans are still struggling. Thomas and Jeanie are exactly the type of hardworking Americans that health care reform should be making life easier for and not harder.

It is time for the President and Democrats to join us in scrapping this law and starting anew.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 10th anniversary of the 165th Airlift Wing of the Georgia Air National Guard. Since 2003, the Georgia Air National Guard has played a vital role in fighting the war on terror, with over 80 percent of the wing's 900 airmen serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation New Dawn.

I could not be prouder that these brave men and women call Georgia their home. They protected our Nation during a critical time, and in doing so set the standard for service in the Georgia Air National Guard. As a unit, they have flown more than 11,363 hours and 7,441 combat sorties. They were the first C-130 unit to deploy and operate out of Iraq under the famous ``Red Tail'' designation of the 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing, and they were also the only squadron in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility tasked at 100 percent. The wing crew supported the rescue mission of SEAL Team 10 and 3rd Battalion of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment when they lost three members of their team, and their heroic actions became the subject of Marcus Luttrell's book, Lone Survivor.

It is only fitting we commend these courageous individuals of the 165th Airlift Wing of the Georgia Air National

Guard for their outstanding service and sacrifice. Their determination to protect our fellow Americans and defend our freedom should be an example to us all.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded and that I be allowed to speak as if in morning business

Madam President, in the words of Yogi Berra, ``It's deja vu all over again.'' It seems as though every several months this administration manages to repeat the same disturbing pattern of treating captured foreign terrorists first and foremost as ordinary criminals.

Over the past 10 days we have watched this pattern play out with the capture and all-too-brief interrogation of Abu Anas al-Libi, one of the alleged

coconspirators behind the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed hundreds of innocent people, including 12 Americans.

Instead of sitting in a cell at Guantanamo Bay where he could be fully interrogated for all the intelligence he likely has from his decades-long association with Al Qaeda terrorists, including a long association with Osama bin Laden, al-Libi is now enjoying the protections of our criminal justice system. Yesterday in the Southern District of New York, he had his initial appearance in Federal court, where he entered a plea of not guilty to the pending indictment. He now has a court-appointed lawyer at his disposal.

From all indications, any interrogation of al-Libi has ended, at least for the time being. If past terrorist cases are any guide, it will take weeks or months of plea negotiations and bargaining with this terrorist before we can even think about once again conducting an intelligence interrogation, and we may never have that opportunity again with this now criminal defendant.

We all remember the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 2009 Christmas Day Underwear Bomber, who tried to detonate a suicide bomb in an airplane over the skies of Detroit. Shortly after being taken into custody, Abdulmutallab was read his Miranda warnings, and it took 5 long weeks of plea negotiations before we would again have the opportunity to interrogate him.

Why does this matter? Why do so many of my colleagues and I continually come to this Senate floor to raise this issue? The answer is simple: We have been down this road before of treating terrorists as if they were criminals, sacrificing intelligence for the sake of criminal charges and Miranda rights.

The results on September 11, 2001, were predictable and disastrous. We lost numerous chances to gather intelligence that could have been used to neutralize future threats. We were in a reactive mode, reacting to but not preventing the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and the 1998 embassy bombings, the same attack involving al-Libi.

It took the reality of the 9/11 attacks to get this trend reversed. Prevention became the norm as criminal and intelligence investigators came together to use all lawful means, including criminal prosecution, to counter the threat of international terrorism.

No one is saying criminal prosecution should not be one tool, but it seems as though now we either just kill terrorists by using drones or give them Miranda warnings. Dead terrorists don't talk and terrorists with lawyers always want something in return if they are going talk. We cannot defeat Al Qaeda, and its growing affiliates, if we don't first have good intelligence on their leadership, intent, networks, and capabilities.

As we have seen in Benghazi, and more recently in Kenya, Al Qaeda and its affiliates continue to carry out terrorist attacks against the United States and its interests. Suspected terrorists were captured in London over the weekend, and we face growing threats in Syria, Libya, and across the globe. Al-Libi, as a long-time member of Al Qaeda and close confident of bin Laden, undoubtedly has valuable intelligence that could be used to foil future plots.

To defeat these terrorists and keep this country and our allies safe demands clear leadership and sound policies from the President. Unfortunately, in this area, we have neither. In the 5 years since this administration summarily dismantled the CIA's detention and interrogation program and ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay, we still cannot get vital intelligence interrogations prioritized over criminal prosecutions.

Since 2009, we have been asking basic questions of senior administration officials, such as, if we captured Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, where would he go? The only firm answer that has been given is that Guantanamo Bay is off the table.

In the capture of al-Libi, it appears as though this administration has finally settled on its own detention policy. In 2011, al-Shabaab leader Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame was captured while returning to Somalia from Yemen where he was acting as an intermediary between al-Shabaab and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Because of this administration's perennial resistance to placing more detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Warsame was instead held on a U.S. Navy vessel for 2 months and interrogated by the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, or the HIG. Predictably, he was then Mirandized and brought to Federal court.

Those who thought the shipboard detention of Warsame was an anomaly, a one-time necessity, have now been proven wrong. Rather than hold detainees at the first-rate facility at Guantanamo Bay that is run by dedicated military personnel who treat the detainees there very humanely, this administration has, with the detention of al-Libi, made it clear that it prefers to use our naval warships as floating prisons. I can't imagine that this is what those who so strongly advocated for the closure of Guantanamo had in mind as a replacement facility.

Over the past week or so some people have raised the point that the restrictions on the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act on the administration's ability to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the United States for trial justified the administration's unwillingness to place any new terrorists there. That argument simply does not withstand scrutiny in the case of al-Libi.

First, those restrictions applied most recently only to fiscal year 2013 and so are no longer in place. Second, as with Warsame, Abdulmutallab, and other terrorists, we cannot even reach the question of where al-Libi may be tried, whether in a Federal court or in a military commission at Guantanamo Bay, because this administration will not even consider designating him as an enemy combatant for interrogation purposes.

If the administration would be willing--in just one case--to allow a full intelligence interrogation at Guantanamo Bay of a high-valued target without Miranda and without rushing to criminal charges, I would welcome the opportunity to work with this administration to ensure that there are no statutory obstacles to the appropriate future prosecution of a terrorist. If this administration also wants to suggest a better-- nonfloating--option to Guantanamo Bay outside the United States, I am happy to listen.

But so far they have been unwilling to do that despite their public claims that all options are on the table when it comes to handling terrorists such as al-Libi. They have been unwilling to make it clear that intelligence collection is the first priority; that long-term detention for intelligence purposes is appropriate and necessary; and that all intelligence value of any suspected terrorist will be exhausted before any discussion of potential charges.

Instead, the short-lived, onship interrogation of Abu Anas al-Libi demonstrates that this administration has once again chosen to gamble with our national security for the sake of safeguarding a criminal prosecution. They are taking the gamble that plea negotiations will be quick and effective and that any intelligence could have been gained in the meantime will not be lost. This is a risk none of us should be willing to take.

It is time that we stop needlessly giving this advantage to terrorists. Our intelligence professionals need real-time, actionable intelligence about Al Qaeda and its activities, and the best place to get that is often from captured terrorists without Miranda warnings, defense attorneys or initial appearances in court.

Getting a conviction and lengthy sentence of an avowed terrorist can be a worthy goal, but ultimately that conviction will mean nothing if Americans are harmed because we threw away the opportunity to get intelligence when we needed it most. It is time to end this dangerous pattern and put all lawful options for handling Al Qaeda terrorists back on the table.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to my constituent MAJ Charles H. Cannon for his exemplary dedication to duty and his service to the U.S. Army and to the United States of America. Major Cannon will depart from Active military duty in 2013 but will continue to serve in the National Guard in our great State of Georgia. He has served for the last 2 years as a congressional budget liaison for the Secretary of the Army.

A native of Moultrie, GA, Major Cannon left his family's 2,000-acre farm to become a cadet at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1997. While there, Chas played for the Army football team and earned a bachelor's degree in systems engineering. He was commissioned as a field artillery officer in June of 2001, just 3 months before the horrific attacks on September 11 that would shape the rest of his active duty career.

Major Cannon's assignments have been diverse. While a lieutenant, he served in C Battery, 1-10 Field Artillery Battalion as a fire direction officer, platoon leader, and executive officer. His first deployment was with them during the ground invasion of Operation Iraqi Freedom. After promotion to captain, he served in 2-69 Armor Battalion as a staff officer during his second deployment to Diyala, Iraq. Eleven months later, as part of the surge, Chas returned to East Baghdad, Iraq for a 15-month deployment as the commander of A Battery, 1-10 Field Artillery Battalion.

After returning from his third deployment, Major Cannon earned a master of professional studies in legislative affairs from The George Washington University. He was then assigned as a congressional fellow in my office with a subsequent assignment as a legislative strategist in the office of the Chief of Legislative liaison and then as a budget liaison officer in the office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller, where he was tasked with managing the Army's wheeled and tracked vehicle portfolio.

Major Cannon's leadership throughout his career has positively impacted his soldiers, peers, and superiors. As a budget liaison officer he worked directly with the Senate and House Appropriations Committees to educate and inform Senators, Representatives, and staff about many diverse and important procurement initiatives of the U.S. Army.

On behalf of a grateful nation, I join my colleagues today in recognizing and commending MAJ Chas Cannon for over a decade of active service to his country. We wish Chas, his wife Beth, and their two little girls, Allie and Catherine, all the best as they continue their journey of service in the Georgia National Guard.

Mr. President, today I wish to express my deep disappointment at our failure to adequately provide for our fallen heroes and their families.

Once again, we learn that we have suffered recent casualties. And since the government shut down last week, the Department of Defense has been unable to guarantee full benefits and honors to those servicemen and women who have been killed in the defense of our Nation.

Among those who have given their lives in service of our Nation in recent days are two Army Rangers assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, headquartered at Fort Benning in my home state of Georgia.

These elite soldiers were serving on the front lines in Afghanistan, fighting for democracy and our American way of life when they made the ultimate sacrifice.

I have since been informed that the Department of Defense believes it lacks the authority to make automatic Death Gratuity Payments, to transport the next of kin to Dover Air Force Base so they can receive their fallen warrior, and to provide funeral allowances for the appropriate military honors.

This is simply unacceptable, and it is incumbent upon us to fix this.

It has been my great privilege to visit Fort Benning and meet with the members of the 75th Ranger Regiment over the years.

They live by the motto that ``Rangers Lead The Way,'' and they serve our country regardless of Federal funding, domestic politics, or government shutdowns.

That is exactly what these brave individuals did in Afghanistan, and unfortunately it is our lack of leadership in Washington that has created undue hardship and stress for their loved ones in their toughest time of need.

I understand that our colleagues in the House of Representatives are expediting legislation to provide explicit authorization to the Department of Defense to correct this oversight.

The Senate must act immediately on receipt of that legislation.

We owe this much to these brave men and women, their families, and the thousands of military members who continue to serve in harm's way.

I regret that the President has not taken this issue seriously enough to take action on his own to resolve this problem.

I remain confident that the Senate will take proper actions, and I look forward to passing this legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the House- passed continuing resolution now pending before the Senate.

Once again the Senate is considering a last-minute continuing resolution rather than regular-order appropriations bills. Handling the annual appropriations process in this way is a bad

deal for the American people, and it is a deal we have gone through for the last 4 years now without passing appropriations bills and having to deal with a continuing resolution or an omnibus, which is simply a terrible way to run this government.

Congress should be passing appropriations bills in regular order instead of waiting until the eleventh hour. I know the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member are very much in favor of doing that and are ready to come to the floor to do that. But yet once again we are seeing the majority leader not let them come to the floor with those bills. This only creates uncertainty in the financial market and hampers America's economic recovery.

Unless we come to an agreement, the government is going to shut down Monday night because Congress failed to pass a bill that would fund the government for only a few months. And to what end? We will find ourselves back in this position in either November or December, when we will have to pass yet another continuing resolution. This is a foolish way to run the U.S. Government.

I was here in 1995 during the last government shutdown. It cast a pall on the American people, seeded distrust of government, and unnecessarily harmed our economy. It was not a pretty sight from either a political standpoint on either side of the aisle or from the standpoint of the American people or the government employees. No one wins when the government is shut down, least of all the American people.

We are all aware of the issues that have thus far slowed down the progress of this bill. While there may be differences of opinion on our side of the aisle about tactics, let me tell you--let there be no doubt--we are all unified in believing that ObamaCare should be stopped and should be defunded.

I was here on this floor a few years back when we fought tooth and nail to stop passage of ObamaCare. I believed it to be the worst piece of legislation I had seen in my now going on 19 years of serving in the U.S. Congress. And it still is the worst piece of legislation and the most damaging piece of legislation to the American people that I have seen in those 19 years.

As the October 1 enrollment date nears, President Obama's signature law continues to face several significant problems. Employers are cutting jobs and slashing employees' hours; businesses and labor unions are unhappy and want to be exempted from the law; families are confused, and insurance premiums for people who cannot afford them in the first place are now skyrocketing. In my home State of Georgia alone, our insurance commissioner has warned us that we could see premium increases as high as 198 percent on middle-income families. Other States have reported similar increases. So it is no surprise that a majority of Americans believe ObamaCare should be repealed and should be replaced.

I remain as committed as ever to dismantle and defund this law before it has a chance to further damage our economy and to replace it with a meaningful reform of our health care system.

The continuing resolution delivered by the House of Representatives to the Senate funds the government while defunding ObamaCare. It is what the American people want, and it is a bill I support. I will oppose any attempt by Majority Leader Reid to strip defunding language from this bill.

However, while I believe ObamaCare is a serious threat to the future of our Nation's economy, allowing a prolonged government shutdown would be counterproductive. My priority has always been the well-being of Georgians, as well as the American people, and I cannot support a strategy that could cause Americans to suffer unnecessarily. Further harm to our already fragile economy is not a course we should pursue, nor should it be a price our friends on the other side of the aisle are willing to pay just to uphold the President's signature law.

This fight is long from over. It is something Republicans have been fighting since 2009, since we first tried to stop ObamaCare from becoming law. I am grateful that this debate has brought the problems with this law back into the spotlight and look forward to repealing and replacing this law at the end of the day.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak about my good friend and a great friend of this great institution who will be leaving us this week, Dave Schiappa.

I remember after I was elected in 2002 there was a transition in the leadership on the Republican side from Trent Lott to Senator Bill Frist. Trent told me one day that the first thing he told Bill Frist was make sure that Dave Schiappa is going to be your floor leader, and that is exactly what Bill did.

I was new to the Senate, did not know my way around at all, much less know the rules. I simply don't know how I would have functioned over the last 10 years without Dave Schiappa being here. He has been that valuable to all of us as Members of the Senate. He is available, frankly, to both sides of the aisle. I have heard a number of my Democratic friends over the last 24 hours, since we have been aware of Dave's departure, who have said: Gee, I don't know what I am going to do without Dave Schiappa being here.

Our floor leaders are all so vitally important. We do reach out to those Members on the other side who inform us from time to time of what is going on. They are always straight with us. This institution couldn't operate without them.

Dave has certainly been our leader. He is very smart, very knowledgeable, and he is very hard-working. All of these folks work such long hours. They are here long after we are here, and they are here well before we get here the next morning. We owe a deep debt of gratitude to all of them, and particularly when someone such as Dave Schiappa, who has been here for 28 years, makes a move on to another life. It is imperative that we say: Dave, thanks for your great work. Thanks for your inspiration to all of us.

Dave probably knows this institution better than any Member on the Republican side, certainly. The one thing I will always remember about is Dave, No. 1, keeps his word. If you tell him you have an issue with the bill, an issue with a nominee, or you have an amendment you wish to call up, Dave takes care of you.

He has been so valuable to all Members of the Senate during his tenure. We are truly going to miss him. I know his next life will hold great things for him. He will be very successful there, and we certainly wish him the best.

I rise to promote and suggest to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that we support the nomination of Samantha Power to be the next Ambassador to the United Nations.

This is a very complex world we live in today. Certainly the forum of the United Nations, in spite of some issues that all of us had with that body over the years, remains the one forum where the United States, No. 1, gets to exhibit strong leadership with our friends, our allies, our adversaries, and a strong voice in the United Nations is imperative.

Samantha Power is an individual who possesses the type of character, the type of strong background, and the person who possesses the intellect and the right kind of ability to communicate to represent us today in this complex world at the United Nations.

Samantha was born in Ireland but moved to the United States shortly thereafter. She was educated in the public schools in Atlanta, Yale, and Harvard. Obviously, she has the intellect, from a background standpoint, to represent our country at the U.N.

Between her stints at Harvard and Yale, she did reporting as a journalist on the ground, reporting on the Yugoslav wars. She was hands-on dodging bullets and being involved from the standpoint of making reports to various journals and other publications about what was happening in those Yugoslav wars.

Samantha is an individual who developed a passion for human rights. She is not bashful about sharing that passion. It is a commendable passion that she has for human rights.

From 2005 forward, Samantha has been involved almost exclusively in the arena of foreign policy, first as a staffer for then-Senator Obama, later involved in his campaign, and most recently as a member of the National Security staff.

Samantha is not only knowledgeable, she is knowledgeable in the right way when it comes to foreign policy. She is not only smart, but she is worldly. She has the charisma, in her own way, No. 1, to express herself in a way that right now the United States needs to be expressing itself.

This is why I am so excited about the opportunity to see her on the ground at the United Nations representing our great country. She can be tough when she needs to be tough. She can be charismatic, and she can also be sharp-tongued.

With the adversaries she is going to have to be dealing with at the United Nations, all of those assets are going to come into play. Samantha is going to do a great job as our next U.N. Ambassador. I applaud her for her willingness to engage in public service. I would encourage all of my colleagues to support her nomination to be the next Ambassador to the United Nations.

I yield the floor.