Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to join the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Senator Joe Lieberman, in submitting for the Congressional Record our investigative report on the terrorist attack against the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, that claimed the lives of four Americans who were serving our country. This report is indeed the last initiative the chairman and I will produce together. It is the final work product of 10 years of cooperation and collaboration and was authored in the same bipartisan spirit as our investigations into the attack at Fort Hood and into the Government's response to Hurricane Katrina, among many others.

I will so miss working with Chairman Lieberman. He is an extraordinary Senator who has contributed so much during his years in the Senate and as a leader of our committee. Sadly, our last official act together was prompted by the terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11 of this year that took the lives of our Ambassador and three other brave Americans. Our findings and recommendations are based on the extensive investigative work the committee has conducted since shortly after the attack of September 11, 2012, including meetings with senior and midlevel government officials; reviews of literally thousands of pages of documents, both classified and unclassified, provided by the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the intelligence community; a review of written responses to questions posed by our committee to numerous agencies; our consultations with security experts and former officials; and our review of publicly available documents.

Our investigation found that the terrorists essentially walked right into the Benghazi compound, unimpeded, and set it ablaze due to extremely poor security in a threat environment that was indeed ``flashing red,'' in the words of a high-ranking State Department official.

As we all recognize, the ultimate responsibility for this atrocity lies with the terrorists who attacked our diplomats. Nevertheless, there are several lessons we must learn from this tragedy if we are to make our diplomats

safer in the future. It is in that spirit that we are putting our unclassified report into the Record so that we can share it with our colleagues and with the American people. We will have more to say about our specific findings and recommendations when we release the report tomorrow.

In the months leading up to the attack, it was well known in Washington that Benghazi was increasingly dangerous and at risk for a significant attack.

Our mission facility in Benghazi was itself the target of two prior attacks involving improvised explosive devices, including an April attack in which one current and one former contract guard at the facility were suspects, and a June attack that blew a hole in the perimeter wall.

There were also multiple attacks on other western targets, including a June attack in which a rocket propelled grenade was fired at the convoy of the British ambassador to Libya, injuring two British bodyguards. Yet, the State Department failed to take adequate steps to reduce the facility's vulnerability to a terrorist attack of this kind.

While the Department and the Intelligence Community lacked specific intelligence about this attack, the State Department should not have waited for--or expected--specific warnings before increasing its security in Benghazi, a city awash with weapons and violent extremists.

Our report also underscores the need for the Intelligence Community to enhance its focus on violent Islamist extremist groups in the region to improve the likelihood of obtaining such intelligence.

The lesson about over-dependence on such intelligence, however, is not new. The independent Accountability Review Board reports following the 1998 attacks on our embassies in Africa found that ``both the intelligence and policy communities relied excessively on tactical intelligence to determine the level of potential terrorist threats to posts worldwide,'' yet prior security reviews and ``previous experience indicate[d] that terrorist attacks are often not preceded by warning intelligence.'' The State Department must finally take this lesson to heart.

The State Department failed to implement adequate security measures to account for the fact that there was no reasonable expectation that the host government--Libya--would protect our diplomats. There was an overreliance on the rule of international law when Benghazi was operating under the rule of militias outside the effective control of the central Libyan government.

The unreliability and conflicting loyalties of the Libyan militia and the unarmed Blue Mountain guards hired to protect the facility are deeply troubling, especially since this problem was recognized long before the attack. Despite evidence that they were not dependable, American personnel were forced to rely upon them far too much. For example, in August, State Department personnel in Benghazi stated that ``[m]ission opinion is that Libyan security forces are indifferent to the safety needs of the U.S. mission.'' This proved all too true.

When a host nation cannot adequately protect our diplomats, the State Department must provide additional security measures of its own, urgently press the host government to upgrade its security forces, or remove U.S. personnel until appropriate steps can be taken to provide adequate security. It is telling that the British government removed its personnel from Benghazi after the attack on its ambassador.

Too often, the State Department failed to sufficiently respond to--or even ignored--repeated requests from those on the ground in Benghazi for security resources, especially for more personnel.

Ironically, the challenges facing the security personnel in Benghazi were well summarized in a March 2012 write-up from the top U.S. security officer in Benghazi as he sought to recognize his security agents with a meritorious honor award. The official justified the award based upon the fact that, ``Agent ingenuity took over where funding and Department restrictions left off.''

The temporary and junior security personnel in Benghazi pleaded for more help from Washington and Tripoli, but they were forced to make do on their own.

The Department must also reassess its local guard programs, particularly the use at high-risk posts of local guard contractors who do not meet standards necessary for the protection of our personnel or facilities.

I have previously noted the parallels and repeated mistakes identified in the report on the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and we include several of these in our report. One of the recurring lessons is that the President and Congress must work together to ensure that we appropriately fund security for the State Department.

We have seen finger pointing about the lack of resources for embassy security, but the budget is a shared responsibility. The inadequate security in Benghazi was a product of both budgets approved by Congress and of the desire of the administration for a light footprint.

Overall, appropriations for the Department of State's security have increased by 27 percent since 2007 and Congress has generally been responsive in providing supplemental and Overseas Contingency Operations--OCO--funds to the Department of State. But, there was no supplemental or OCO request made by the President for additional embassy security enhancements in the last three years.

The administration must reevaluate its budget priorities, and since the Benghazi attack, Secretary Clinton is undertaking such a review. She has asked to reprogram $1.4 billion of the FY13 budget request to jump start this effort.

The lack of resources is just one of a number of factors we identified in our report that contributed to a perfect storm on the night of September 11.

Our report also calls for the State Department to work more closely with the Department of Defense and the intelligence community to improve the security of our diplomats in high-threat areas when our national interests require their presence. When a host nation cannot protect our personnel, the Department of State must work more effectively with the Department of Defense to assign and deploy military assets, such as Marine Security Guards, and plan for contingencies in the event of an attack.

One of our findings is that, while the Defense Department attempted to mobilize its resources quickly, it had neither the personnel nor other assets close enough to reach Benghazi in a timely fashion. Indeed, as we learned, the Combatant Commander of U.S. Africa Command did not have complete visibility regarding the number of U.S. government personnel in Benghazi who would require evacuation in the event of an attack.

Our diplomats are increasingly being called on to serve in dangerous posts, in countries where emerging democracies lack the ability to protect U.S. personnel and where terrorists and extremist factions harbor antipathy toward the West. The U.S. cannot afford to retreat entirely from dangerous places where our country's interests are at stake, nor is it possible or smart to transform every diplomatic post into a fortress.

The absence of reasonable time-tested security measures is, however, unacceptable in such high-risk countries. When a host nation cannot adequately protect our diplomats or if the State Department and other U.S. agencies cannot work together to provide appropriate security, we cannot ignore the option of temporarily removing U.S. personnel until appropriate steps can be taken to provide adequate security.

Finally, our report concludes that the attack in Benghazi was recognized as a terrorist attack by the intelligence community from the beginning.

Nonetheless, administration officials were inconsistent in stating publicly that the deaths in Benghazi were the result of a terrorist attack. If the fact that Benghazi was indeed a terrorist attack had been made clear from the outset by the administration, there would have been much less confusion about what happened in Benghazi that terrible night. The attack clearly was not a peaceful protest in response to a hateful anti-Muslim video that evolved into a violent incident. It was a terrorist attack by an opportunistic enemy.

This, too, is not a new lesson. One of the key lessons of this Committee's 6-

year focus on the threat of violent Islamist extremism is that, in order to understand and counter the threat we face, we must clearly identify that threat. We have repeatedly expressed our disappointment in the administration's reluctance to identify violent Islamist extremism as our enemy--while making the sharp distinction between the peaceful religion of Islam and a twisted corruption of that religion used to justify violence. The administration's inconsistent statements about whether this was a terrorist attack are symptomatic of this recurring problem. We hope this lesson will finally be heeded.

Ultimately, it is with the goal of enabling continued U.S. engagement around the world to support our own national interests that we offer our findings and recommendations regarding the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. The men and women who serve our country in dangerous posts deserve no less.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his extraordinary work on this very important project.

Mr. President, fishing is more than just a profession in New England. Fishing is a culture and a way of life. In recent years, Maine's fishermen and fishing communities have been struggling to survive among Federal regulations that have limited fishing opportunities.

On September 13, 2012, the acting Secretary of Commerce declared a Federal fisheries disaster for Maine, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Connecticut because of the significant projected reductions in the total allowable catch for critical groundfish stocks.

The expected and considerable catch limit reductions have been triggered by recently updated stock assessments that show that several key groundfish populations are significantly below the levels necessary to meet the rebuilding deadlines that are mandated by Federal law.

The projected reductions, which may be as high as 73 percent, will come despite strict adherence to new and rigorous management practices by fishermen.

There are approximately 45 Maine-based vessels actively fishing with Federal groundfish permits. Last year, more than 5 million pounds of groundfish, with a dockside value approaching $5.8 million, were landed in Maine.

Given the magnitude of the projected cuts, the effect on these Maine vessels and vessels of all sizes and gear types throughout the region will be profound. It will add to the already considerable economic burdens that fishing communities are facing. Federal assistance is necessary to support these fishermen and the fishing related businesses in our coastal communities.

The requested funding will be used to provide both immediate economic relief to the region's struggling groundfish industry, and to make targeted investments that will allow the fleet to survive and become more sustainable in the years ahead.

These funds could also be productively used to fully cover the costs of at-sea monitoring and to address long term overcapacity in the fishing industry. This is critical to rebuilding fish stocks and preserving a thriving fishing industry well into the future.

Slow recovery and declining fish stocks will continue to have a negative impact on commercial fishing, harming local communities and economies. Federal disaster assistance is vital to the long term success and short term survival of fishing communities throughout the region.

It is important to note that the funding provided in the bill is to respond to fishery disasters declared by the acting Commerce Secretary in 2012 under the authority provided by the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act. This is authorized funding in response to declared disasters.

Amendment No. 3371

Mr. President. With his family at his side, the last word spoken by Senator Daniel Inouye in this life was ``aloha.'' To the people of Hawaii, it is a word with a meaning far beyond simply ``hello'' or ``goodbye.'' It is a word of profound significance, one that describes a spirit of service to others, of compassion, and reverence.

It is the best possible epitaph for my cherished friend and colleague.

Dan Inouye lived that spirit every day of a long and remarkable life. When Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941, he was there, serving as a medical volunteer in the most horrific and dangerous circumstances. When the ban on Japanese Americans serving in the U.S. military was lifted in 1943, he immediately enlisted. In the closing days of World War II, when his platoon came under intense enemy fire, Second Lieutenant Inouye led the attack, despite grievous wounds.

That extraordinary heroism earned Dan Inouye the Medal of Honor but cost him his right arm and his dream of becoming a surgeon. In the true ``Aloha Spirit,'' he found another way to serve, first as a member of the Hawaii Territorial Legislature, and then, when statehood was achieved in 1959, as Hawaii's first Member of Congress.

In 1962, Dan was elected to the Senate, beginning a half century of contributions, accomplishments, and leadership on behalf of this institution and our Nation. He was the first Japanese American elected to the Congress and a stalwart champion of civil rights for all. He was a decorated hero who fought for the rights and benefits of all veterans. From his daily work in the Senate to his exceptional service on the Watergate and Iran-Contra committees, Dan approached every task with the determination to do what was best for our country.

I was privileged to serve with Dan on the Appropriations Committee and honored to join him in the Gang of 14 to preserve the tradition of open debate in the Senate. No matter how difficult the issue, he always conducted himself with dignity and civility.

In this time of sorrow, I offer my deep condolences to the Inouye family. I hope they will find comfort in knowing that this great patriot and public servant leave a legacy that will inspire Americans for generations to come. And to Senator Daniel Inouye I say, aloha pumehana, my friend. Farewell with my deepest regards and affection.

Mr. President in his farewell message to the people of Hawaii, Senator Daniel Akaka wrote that his dream was always to work in a job in which he could help people. In his 36 years in Congress--14 in the House of Representatives and 22 here in the Senate--Danny Akaka has done that job exceedingly well.

He has done it with statesmanship and perseverance. As just one example, just a few weeks ago, President Obama signed into law landmark legislation to better protect Federal employees who come forward to disclose government waste, fraud, abuse, and other wrongdoing. The Akaka-Collins Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act would not have passed without Danny's determination to help both our dedicated Federal workers and the citizens they serve.

Serving with Danny on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I appreciate the priority he always placed on making the Federal Government more efficient and transparent, and on advancing policies to attract, recruit, and retain the skilled workforce needed to meet today's challenges. From safeguarding our Nation against terrorist attacks to supporting the first responders in our communities, Danny has been a great ally and a true leader.

It also has been an honor to work with Danny on the Armed Services Committee. As a World War II veteran, he brought to the committee a deep and personal understanding of the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform, and by their families. He is a champion of efforts to ensure that our Active National Guard and Reserve personnel have the equipment and training to remain the best fighting force in the world, and he is dedicated to providing our veterans with the services they earned and deserve.

Danny Akaka has been described as the ``Aloha Senator.'' To most of us,

that multi-purpose word can mean anything from ``hello'' to ``goodbye.'' To the Hawaiian people, it is a word of deep spirituality and profound meaning.

The late Reverend Abraham Akaka, Danny's oldest brother and one of Hawaii's most beloved clergymen, defined the ``Aloha Spirit'' this way: ``God first, others second, yourself last.'' As a patriot and statesman, Senator Daniel Akaka embodies that spirit through his desire to promote the true good of others and to help people. Aloha pumehana, Senator Akaka, farewell with my deepest regards and affection. Thank you for your friendship and for your service to our country.

Mr. President, I rise today to engage my colleague, Senator Tester, in a colloquy regarding language he authored in this bill that would amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. This language would authorize chief executives of federally recognized tribes to submit a request for a major disaster or emergency declaration directly to the President of the United States.

The principal effect of this language would be to eliminate the current requirement that tribal chief executives submit such requests to the Governor of the State in which the tribal reservation is located; tribal chief executives would be permitted to submit such requests to the President without first obtaining the Governor's approval.

The tribes of Maine--the Penobscot, the Passamaquoddy, the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, and the Aroostook Band of Micmacs--have a jurisdictional relationships with the State of Maine which is unique among the 50 States. Although, based on my analysis, this language would not in any way affect the relationship between the State of Maine and the tribes of Maine, to make this clear, I would like to pose some questions to the Senator regarding the intent of the language.

The jurisdictional relationship between the tribes of Maine and the State of Maine is set forth in the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act and the Maine Implementing Act, the latter having been enacted by the Maine State Legislature and ratified and approved by Congress when it enacted the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act.

If the language the Senator authored was to be enacted into law, would this in any way change the relationship of the State of Maine and the tribes of Maine?

Did the Senator take Section 1735 into account in his drafting of this legislation?

Did my colleague also consider the unique foundation for the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act and the Maine Implementing Act, as well as the subsequent acts for the Houlton Band and the Aroostook Band?

I appreciate the time and attention of my colleague from Montana, Senator Tester, regarding the intent of this language, as well as the care that he took in crafting this legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, with Senator Snowe, to expand the geographic boundaries of HUBZones located at former U.S. military installations that have been closed through the so-called Base Closure and Realignment--or BRAC--process. These military installations were often the economic heart of the community in which they were located, and those communities can struggle for years to overcome the closure of those facilities.

In recognition of this fact, Congress passed legislation providing ``HUBZone'' status for 5 years to military facilities closed through the BRAC process. Last week, the Defense Reauthorization bill passed by the Senate included language, authored by Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, to extend HUBZone status for these facilities for an additional five years.

The HUBZone program provides certain federal contracting preferences to small businesses located within a HUBZone. In addition to the BRAC- related HUBZones I have already mentioned, HUBZones are located in ``economically distressed communities,'' that suffer from low income, high poverty rates, or high unemployment.

According to the Congressional Research Service, there are currently 127 BRAC-related HUBZones in the United States. Unfortunately, for many of the military bases that have been closed, HUBZone status has not brought the benefits we had hoped for. One of the reasons is simple-- the law defines the geographic boundaries of a BRAC-related HUBZone to be the same as the boundaries of the base that was closed. When that is combined with the requirement that 35 percent of the employees of a qualifying business must live within the HUBZone, the problem is clear: very few people live on these former bases, so it is difficult or impossible for businesses to get the workers they need to meet the requirements of the HUBZone program.

One of these HUBZones is located at the former Brunswick Naval Air Station, in Brunswick, Maine. This facility closed in 2011, as a result of the 2005 BRAC round. When the Navy left, the host community lost more than 2400 military and civilian personnel. Brunswick and its neighbor, Topsham, have a combined population of just 22,000, so losing the Naval Air Station has had a significant economic impact on these communities. Because so few people actually live within the boundaries of the former base, its HUBZone designation does not provide any real assistance to these communities.

My legislation would expand the geographic boundaries of BRAC-related HUBZones to include the town or county where the closed installation is located, or census tracts contiguous to the installation, up to a total population base of 50,000. This would provide a large enough pool of potential workers to enable qualifying businesses to locate within the HUBZone, and to help host communities overcome the loss of military installations closed through the BRAC process.

The Association of Defense Communities has endorsed the concept of expanding BRAC-related HUBZones in this manner. In a letter to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain, the ADC noted how important it is that ``Congress restore its intent to support BRAC-impacted communities attracting small businesses to help build and strengthen their local economies.''

Steve Levesque, the Executive Director of the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority, or MRRA, which oversees the redevelopment of the former Brunswick Naval Air Station, also urges Congress to modify the HUBZone program. In a letter, Steve explained that BRAC facilities do not have the residential areas needed to support the 35 percent residency requirement for businesses located within the HUBZone. As a consequence, these businesses cannot ``realize the HUBZone benefits for BRAC'd installations as envisioned by Congress.''

This point was underscored in a letter from Heather Blease, an entrepreneur who is hoping to locate a new business at the former Brunswick Naval Air Station. Ms. Blease describes the HUBZone law as ``flawed,'' because the 35 percent residency requirement makes it impossible for businesses like hers to achieve HUBZone status.

I ask my colleagues to consider the legislation I am offering today to help communities get back on their feet after the loss of a military installation closed through the BRAC process.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, with Senator Snowe, to expand the geographic boundaries of HUBZones located at former U.S. military installations that have been closed through the so-called Base Closure and Realignment--or BRAC--process. These military installations were often the economic heart of the community in which they were located, and those communities can struggle for years to overcome the closure of those facilities.

In recognition of this fact, Congress passed legislation providing ``HUBZone'' status for 5 years to military facilities closed through the BRAC process. Last week, the Defense Reauthorization bill passed by the Senate included language, authored by Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, to extend HUBZone status for these facilities for an additional five years.

The HUBZone program provides certain federal contracting preferences to small businesses located within a HUBZone. In addition to the BRAC- related HUBZones I have already mentioned, HUBZones are located in ``economically distressed communities,'' that suffer from low income, high poverty rates, or high unemployment.

According to the Congressional Research Service, there are currently 127 BRAC-related HUBZones in the United States. Unfortunately, for many of the military bases that have been closed, HUBZone status has not brought the benefits we had hoped for. One of the reasons is simple-- the law defines the geographic boundaries of a BRAC-related HUBZone to be the same as the boundaries of the base that was closed. When that is combined with the requirement that 35 percent of the employees of a qualifying business must live within the HUBZone, the problem is clear: very few people live on these former bases, so it is difficult or impossible for businesses to get the workers they need to meet the requirements of the HUBZone program.

One of these HUBZones is located at the former Brunswick Naval Air Station, in Brunswick, Maine. This facility closed in 2011, as a result of the 2005 BRAC round. When the Navy left, the host community lost more than 2400 military and civilian personnel. Brunswick and its neighbor, Topsham, have a combined population of just 22,000, so losing the Naval Air Station has had a significant economic impact on these communities. Because so few people actually live within the boundaries of the former base, its HUBZone designation does not provide any real assistance to these communities.

My legislation would expand the geographic boundaries of BRAC-related HUBZones to include the town or county where the closed installation is located, or census tracts contiguous to the installation, up to a total population base of 50,000. This would provide a large enough pool of potential workers to enable qualifying businesses to locate within the HUBZone, and to help host communities overcome the loss of military installations closed through the BRAC process.

The Association of Defense Communities has endorsed the concept of expanding BRAC-related HUBZones in this manner. In a letter to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain, the ADC noted how important it is that ``Congress restore its intent to support BRAC-impacted communities attracting small businesses to help build and strengthen their local economies.''

Steve Levesque, the Executive Director of the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority, or MRRA, which oversees the redevelopment of the former Brunswick Naval Air Station, also urges Congress to modify the HUBZone program. In a letter, Steve explained that BRAC facilities do not have the residential areas needed to support the 35 percent residency requirement for businesses located within the HUBZone. As a consequence, these businesses cannot ``realize the HUBZone benefits for BRAC'd installations as envisioned by Congress.''

This point was underscored in a letter from Heather Blease, an entrepreneur who is hoping to locate a new business at the former Brunswick Naval Air Station. Ms. Blease describes the HUBZone law as ``flawed,'' because the 35 percent residency requirement makes it impossible for businesses like hers to achieve HUBZone status.

I ask my colleagues to consider the legislation I am offering today to help communities get back on their feet after the loss of a military installation closed through the BRAC process.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last week I came to the floor and was honored to give tributes to some of our departing colleagues. Tonight I am going to take advantage of this time to pay tribute to two other outstanding Senators, colleagues and friends of mine whom I will miss greatly. They are Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Senator Scott Brown.

Mr. President, in her marvelous book entitled ``American Heroines: The Spirited Women Who Shaped Our Country,'' Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison wrote the following: ``No history can be written appropriately without acknowledging the part women have played in building the greatness of our country.''

As my valued colleague and good friend begins a new chapter in her life, I hope she finds the time to add a new chapter to her own book, one that will be fascinating, inspiring--and autobiographical.

Like the women Kay celebrates as an author, from Amelia Earhart to Sally Ride, from Clara Barton to Condoleeza Rice, Kay Bailey Hutchison is a pioneer, a breaker of barriers. In the special election in 1993, the people of

Texas made her the first woman to represent them in the Senate. In the three regular elections since then, they have confirmed their trust in her by ever-increasing margins. As the leader of the Senate Commerce Committee, Kay has been a strong voice for transportation systems that are efficient, safe, and secure. In my own work on the Homeland Security Committee, I am well aware of the major role she played in drafting the airline security bill that Congress passed after the attacks on 9/11/01. She has also worked successfully to include more effective air cargo screening.

From the America COMPETES Act to her steadfast support for NASA, Kay is determined our country will not cede its position as the world's leader in science, technology, and space exploration. When the NASA rover Curiosity thrilled all of us with its perfect landing on Mars this past August, the hands of Kay's legislative leadership were on the controls. Working with Kay as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I know how dedicated she is to ensuring that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely and efficiently. She is a champion for our small business owners and for policies that promote free enterprise and job creation.

Her complete commitment to the men and women of our Armed Forces is reflected in her years of service on the Armed Services Committee as well as the Military Construction Subcommittee on Appropriations, and her unanimous election this year to serve as chairman of the Board of Visitors at West Point.

In the afterword to her book, Kay wrote that as a young girl growing up in Texas she was so inspired by the lives of great Americans that by the sixth grade she had exhausted all of the biographies on the school library shelf and had to turn elsewhere for book report material. I am sure the story of her own contributions and accomplishments will be avidly read by generations of girls and boys to come.

I wish her all the best as she turns a new page in what has truly been a remarkable life of public service.

Scott Brown

Mr. President, when Scott Brown, a fellow New Englander, came to the Senate 2 years ago, I immediately saw in him those traits shared by the people of our two New England States: a strong work ethic, a determination to always do what he thought was right, and a spirit that was independent and dedicated to doing what was best for his constituents and for his country.

My initial assessment was confirmed by our time working together on so many issues. Scott conducted his inspiring 2010 campaign via his now legendary pickup truck. When he got to Washington, he kept his foot on the gas. His work in government at the State and local level in Massachusetts and his distinguished service in the Army National Guard prepared him with experience that made him a respected and effective legislator from day one. His intellect, energy, and character made him a valued colleague and a dear friend.

Scott is a person one could always count on. I have had the opportunity to work closely with Scott on so many key issues. In each and every case he brought an informed, thoughtful, and open-minded approach to every issue.

As the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I have gotten to know Scott very well and I appreciate his service on our committee. He placed his top priority on helping to keep our Nation safe from the continuing threat of terrorism. He also worked hard to make our Federal Government more efficient and transparent.

With Scott's leadership, the Senate passed bipartisan legislation to help put the Postal Service back on a more sound financial footing and to ensure that this institution could endure. He also authored the STOCK Act, the new law that clearly prohibits insider trading by Members of Congress and their staff.

Scott has long been an effective champion for our small business owners, working to ensure that entrepreneurs and innovators in Massachusetts and across the country have the ability to survive and thrive and, most of all, to create good jobs. He has advocated for our Nation's veterans through the Hiring Our Heroes Act that he coauthored, which provides tax credits to small businesses that hire a returning veteran or member of the National Guard Reserve.

Scott has been a devoted advocate in the Senate for fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget amendment. At the same time, he kept a firm commitment to helping those most in need. He fought hard for such vital programs as the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program, which is so important to getting through those cold New England winters.

Equally important to Scott's hard work in the Senate has been the approach he has always taken in legislating. He studies the issues. He seeks areas where a consensus can be found. From the very first day in the Senate, he demonstrated his belief that compromise is not a dirty word but an absolute necessity if we are to meet the challenges facing America. Scott always looked at the issues before Congress not through the lens of a partisan politician but, rather, through the lens of a pragmatic problem-solver.

Scott's tenure in the Senate has been far too brief but, perhaps more important, it has been characterized by a remarkable degree of success in transforming good ideas into public laws. Given his Maine roots and strong commitment to Massachusetts, I am sure we will remain good friends in the years to come. But, oh, how I will miss serving with my friend Scott Brown.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, many of our colleagues will be leaving us at the end of this Congress, and I wish to take time this morning to pay tribute to some of my colleagues, particularly those with whom I have worked most closely. Of course, I must start with my colleague and friend from Maine, Olympia Snowe.

In ancient Sparta, there was a saying that roughly translated as this: It seems all the world knows what is the right thing to do, but it is only the Spartans who will do anything about it.

As my friend, colleague, and senior Senator from Maine, Olympia Snowe, ends her service in the Senate, I rise to pay tribute to this descendent of that legendary civilization. Olympia is a true leader who has always devoted her considerable intellect, energy, and commitment to doing what was right for Maine and for America. Olympia Snowe has dedicated her life to public service: 18 years in the Senate, preceded by 16 representing Maine's Second Congressional District, plus 5 in the Maine legislature adds up to a remarkable record of commitment to our Nation and the great State of Maine.

But that span of nearly four decades tells us only part of the story, for Olympia has truly set the gold standard for public service. From the State house to the U.S. Capitol, Olympia has built an outstanding reputation as an informed, thoughtful, and effective legislator. She can always be counted on as a leader with integrity who pursued solutions and who had no interest in just scoring partisan political points. It is Olympia's character that has made all the difference.

The private acts of public figures can tell us a lot about their character, so I wish to share with my colleagues this morning a story about Olympia Snowe that I witnessed personally. There was a Republican fundraiser going on one night and I was arriving late, driving up in a car. People were streaming out of the fundraiser and each of them was passing by a man who was on crutches, with only one leg, clearly destitute, clearly down on his luck, who was asking for money. Everybody but Olympia Snowe passed him by without a word, as if he were invisible. Olympia went over to this destitute man on crutches, with one leg, and she not only handed him some money but she took the time to talk with him. I think that tells us so much about who Olympia Snowe is--her kindness to this individual, when everyone else was passing him by, her kindness to him when no one was watching, her kindness to him was a private act that told all of us so much about her character.

With her retirement from the Senate, Olympia Snowe will join the pantheon of great leaders our State has produced: Margaret Chase Smith, Ed Muskie, George Mitchell, and Bill Cohen. All of them, similar to Olympia, exemplify the principle that public office is a sacred trust.

Olympia's inspiring record of service is but part of an even more inspiring life story. Several times, from childhood on, Olympia has been visited by tragedy that would have caused most people to become discouraged, disheartened, and negative. But each time Olympia rose, transcended her personal tragedy, and was more determined than before to succeed and to contribute to a better life for others. Her well- deserved popularity among Maine people transcends party lines and is testament to her strength and her spirit.

The people of Maine and America are grateful for her many years of service. I am grateful for her leadership and her friendship. I know Olympia Snowe will continue to influence national policy for many years to come.

Joe Lieberman

Mr. President, we have a tradition in the Senate of referring to our colleagues on the Senate floor during debate as ``my friend from this State'' or ``my friend from that State,'' and oftentimes the word friend just means colleague. But there is a fellow Senator whom I call friend in the truest sense of the word. That person is the senior Senator from Connecticut, my dear friend Senator Joe Lieberman.

When Joe Lieberman announced earlier last year that he would not seek reelection to the Senate, he called himself a lucky guy for having had the opportunity to serve his State and his country. I would contend it is we in this Chamber and the people throughout Connecticut and across our Nation who are the ones who are truly fortunate for Joe Lieberman's lifelong commitment to public service, including his 24 years in the Senate.

For more than a decade, it has been my privilege to serve with Joe as the leaders of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Regardless of who has been chairman and who has been ranking member, ours has been a partnership. Indeed, I will never forget when I was losing the chairmanship because of the change in control, Joe leaning over to me and saying: Don't worry, Susan, all that will change is that you will pass me the gavel.

It was typical of his thoughtfulness and generosity, and it is not coincidental that ours is the only committee in the Senate where we do not sit with Republicans on one side and Democrats on the other but instead are interspersed because we recognize, given our important mandate, that we must work together in a bipartisan and, indeed, a nonpartisan way.

During the time Joe has been the chairman and that we have worked together, the committee has established a well-deserved reputation for bipartisanship, for thoroughness, and--most important--for getting things done. I know the American people have been so frustrated with the gridlock that has prevented action on so many issues facing our Nation. For the most part, we do not see that kind of stalemate on our committee and that is a tribute to the leadership of Joe Lieberman. That reputation for our committee--of accomplishment and bipartisanship--is the work of many hands, but Joe Lieberman's fingerprints are all over it. Joe has always based his leadership on his unwavering belief that the great challenges America faces--such as combating terrorism, putting our fiscal house in order, and defending freedom--transcend party lines.

The success our committee has achieved in helping to safeguard our Nation is the result of that nonpartisan--some might say independent-- spirit that guides him. Those successes are many, from the landmark Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act to providing the tools that strengthen our first responders, to our extensive investigations into the flawed response to Hurricane Katrina, the fatal communication failures in the Fort Hood terrorism case, and our current scrutiny of the attacks in Benghazi, Joe Lieberman has always put country first. His actions are guided by deeply held principles and aim toward progress. He has demonstrated his willingness, time and again, to risk his political career to do what he believes is right for America.

Joe brings the same dedication to everything he does. Working with him on the Armed Services Committee, I know firsthand how devoted he is to our men and women in uniform and the deep respect he has for their service and their sacrifice. His leadership in bringing about the repeal of the discriminatory don't ask, don't tell law was nothing short of extraordinary, and it gives me great personal pride to have assisted him in achieving that important victory for justice. It was vintage Joe Lieberman. He did what was right. He never gave up. He got the job done.

Throughout his many years of dedicated service, Joe has demonstrated the kind of character America needs and the American people deserve. It is not by coincidence that the PowerPoint slide show I present to students throughout Maine includes a photograph of Senator Joe Lieberman at work. The young pupils of today who will be the leaders of tomorrow could have no better role model than this leader of intelligence and integrity.

A wonderful fringe benefit of working so closely with Joe for so many years has been the opportunity I have had to get to know his wonderful wife Hadassah. She is a person who also demonstrates remarkable strength and compassion. Her devotion to community service spans a range of issues, from advocating for women's health and breast cancer research to providing women with opportunity through microfinance programs.

The integrity and decency Joe brings to public service stands on the unshakable foundation of his deep faith. It is telling that his retirement announcement included these wise words from Ecclesiastes: ``To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.''

In closing, I offer my dear friend this traditional Jewish blessing: ``May you live 120 years.''

While none of us expects to attain the longevity achieved by the prophet Moses, I am confident the gratitude of the American people for the service of Senator Joe Lieberman will be everlasting.

Jon Kyl

Mr. President, in reflecting on Senator Jon Kyl's service to this institution and to our Nation, I am reminded of these words by Abraham Lincoln. He said:

Character is like a tree and reputation like a shadow. The

shadow is what we think of, the tree is the real thing.

Jon Kyl is the real thing. During 18 years in the Senate, preceded 8 by in the House, Jon has built a reputation that is a perfect image of his character. National magazines have named him one of America's 10 best Senators, one of the world's most influential people, and one of our Nation's hardest working lawmakers.

His unanimous election in 2008 as our Republican whip and his recognized leadership on the great challenges of our time throughout the Senate reflect the esteem in which he is held on both sides of the aisle. These accolades confirm what we who have had the privilege of working closely with Jon know from experience. He is intelligent, he is informed, and he is fair. He is dedicated to the people of Arizona and exemplifies the principles that are the foundation of our Constitution and of our country.

Of all the words that have been used to describe Jon Kyl, these five describe him best: As good as his word. Jon has been an invaluable ally in the great challenge of defending America against terrorism, a challenge he recognized and worked hard to address long before the terrorist attacks of more than a decade ago.

As the leader of the Judiciary Committee, he worked hard to strengthen our intelligence capabilities and was at the forefront of one of the most crucial antiterrorism issues, tracking, exposing, and cutting off financial networks that bankrolled terrorism. Combating this financing was one of our earliest and greatest antiterrorism successes, although work continues today, and it was Jon Kyl who played a key role.

Arizona, similar to Maine, has a long international border. The American people fully understand the importance of borders that are close to our enemies as they remain always open to our friends. Jon is dedicated to providing those who protect our borders with the personnel, the training, and the technology so America can continue to welcome with compassion those seeking a better way of life while turning away those who would do us harm.

As a member of the Finance Committee, Jon Kyl has been one of the Senate's most diligent fiscal watchdogs. He has a sharp eye for wasteful spending. He is dedicated to reining in deficit spending, reforming our Tax Code, and making government more accountable.

Jon Kyl understands the challenges that confront America, and he also empathizes with the challenges that confront American families. His record is one of strong advocacy for our most vulnerable citizens, including victims of crime, children, and our seniors.

Jon often compares his work in the Senate to that of a teacher. Whether addressing constituents or colleagues, he strives to educate with facts, with evidence, and with the truth. None of us has ever heard Jon try to win an argument by belittling or berating an opponent. It is simply not in his character to do so.

It has been said that a politician thinks of the next election and a statesman thinks of the next generation. This statesman from Arizona expresses his philosophy of government and the obligation of government leaders this way:

We owe future generations the chance to live their dreams,

to be successful, and--most important--to achieve true

happiness by their own efforts.

Senator Jon Kyl's commitment to the security of our Nation, to fiscal responsibility, and to helping those in need have earned him a reputation that is worthy of his character.

The people of Arizona and America are grateful for his service. I am thankful for his guidance over the years and for his friendship. We wish him all the best in the years to come.

Mr. President, there is one more tribute I would like to give this morning if there is time remaining. Could the Chair inform me if we are under a time agreement.

Mr. President, in his 36 years of service in the Senate, Richard Lugar has established a reputation as an extraordinary leader on such issues as foreign relations, national security, energy policy, agriculture, and economic growth. He is the Senate's most senior Republican and the longest serving Member of Congress in Indiana's history.

Senator Lugar has established a well-deserved reputation as a true statesman. At a time when the coarsening political discourse across our Nation and in Congress is a growing concern, Dick Lugar is a shining example of civility and mutual respect we must regain if our Nation is to meet the challenges that lie ahead.

Thirty-six years in the Senate is a part of Dick Lugar's long time of service. After attending Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, Dick volunteered for the U.S. Navy in 1957, eventually serving as an intelligence briefer for the Chief of Naval Operations. As the two-term mayor of Indianapolis, beginning in 1968, he was a trailblazer in unifying local government, setting his city on a remarkable path of economic growth and prosperity as well as efficiency. As mayor, he served three terms on the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and as president of the National League of Cities. It is evident Dick Lugar always rises to the top of any organization because his colleagues recognize his extraordinary capability and his outstanding leadership.

Dick's life experiences and character have served the people of Indiana and our country so well. He has been the leader in reducing the threat of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. What better tribute or legacy could anyone leave the world than to reduce the inventory of these dangerous weapons. The bipartisan partnership he forged in 1991 to destroy these weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union has resulted in the deactivation of more than 7,500 nuclear warheads that once were aimed at the United States.

As chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Dick Lugar has led the way for reforming our Federal farm programs and has promoted research advancements and increased export opportunities that have generated higher net income for America's family farms. Through the Lugar Energy Initiative, he has combined his foreign policy and agricultural expertise to promote policies to spur economic growth.

In the dark days following the attacks of September 11, 2001, Senator Lugar set forth a set of principles to guide our Nation in these difficult times. The Lugar doctrine calls upon the United States to ``use all of its military, diplomatic and economic power--without question--to ensure that life threatening weapons of mass destruction everywhere are accounted, contained and hopefully destroyed.''

In addition, the Lugar doctrine asserts that America should encourage democratic institutions and decrease reliance on foreign energy sources.

These accomplishments, and so many more, stem from a profound intellect combined with character. There is nothing I love more than to hear Dick Lugar give a tutorial on any country in the world, and he can talk knowledgeably and teach us about any country in the world. That is the depth of his experience, his knowledge, and his expertise.

Dick has also always been a voice of reason in the Senate. No matter how bitter the debate, he has always stood by his values and engaged in thoughtful discussions that result in solutions. That is why his advice has so often been sought by Presidents, military leaders, Cabinet Secretaries, Governors, and so many of his colleagues, including me.

As Dick Lugar returns to the private life he left behind so many years ago, his advice will continue to be sought after and I hope heeded. His knowledge and insight will still be valued, and the example of his decency and civility he has set throughout his life should guide us all. The people of Indiana and America are grateful for his service, and I am so grateful for his friendship and guidance over the years we have served together.

Madam President, I rise to speak on the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act that is currently before the Senate. As a cosponsor of Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law and Accountability Act, I am very pleased to see this important human rights legislation move forward, and I want to commend Senators Cardin, McCain, and others who have worked so hard on this bill for getting us to this point.

The bill that we are considering today would repeal the so-called Jackson-Vanik amendment with respect to Russia, which my colleagues know tied trade relations to the right of free emigration, and replace it with a tough new law to impose sanctions on Russians deemed to have grossly violated human rights.

The bill is named after Sergei Magnitsky, a 37-year-old lawyer who died on November 16, 2009, in Matrosskaya Tishina Prison in Moscow. He was jailed in 2008 after exposing a massive tax fraud by officials of Russia's Interior Ministry. While in jail, he became ill but was denied medical treatment; he was brutally beaten and left to die. This bill is clearly targeted to go after the perpetrators of human rights violations in Russia, including those involved in the death of Sergei Magnitsky, and would require the President name and sanction those individuals, subject to a waiver for national security interests. Those listed by the President could be denied visas to enter the United States and have their assets frozen by the U.S. Treasury Department.

Just yesterday the Washington Post ran a large spread detailing the current state of political affairs in Russia. I want to read an excerpt from that article:

Since his return to the presidency in March, (President

Vladimir) Putin has relentlessly demonstrated his

determination to quell dissent.

In an apparent attempt to scare off demonstrators, 17

protesters are being prosecuted for their part in a May 6

rally on the eve of Putin's inauguration, accused of

attacking police officers. One has already been sentenced to

4\1/2\ years in prison.

A newly passed law defines treason so broadly that some

Russians are afraid that even associating with foreigners

could put them at peril. The penalties for slander and

violations of rules governing rallies have been toughened. As

of Nov. 21, nongovernmental organizations that receive money

from abroad must register as foreign

agents . . .

. . . One by one, opposition leaders have come under

intense pressure. Alexei Navalny, the anti-corruption

blogger, has been charged with bribery in a recently

resurrected three-year-old case. Sergei Udaltsov, a socialist

leader, has been charged with plotting mass disorder.

One of his associates, Leonid Razvozzhayev, accused Russian

authorities of abducting him in Ukraine, where he was seeking

asylum. On Nov. 22, Russian investigators said they would not

investigate the case because Razvozzhayev had not presented

convincing evidence that he had been spirited out of Ukraine.

In September, Gennady Gudkov, like Putin a former KGB

agent, was stripped of his parliamentary seat after he

aligned himself with protesters.

The article goes on to detail further acts of intimidation by the Russian Government aimed at voices of dissent. It makes clear that despite all of the talk of a ``reset'' in U.S.-Russia relations, this is not a regime that shares our values when it comes to democratic freedoms and other human rights.

Over the last several weeks, there have been news reports that the Kremlin has claimed this bill in some way infringes on Russian sovereignty. That is simply not the case. The bill does not require the Russian Government to take any action against human rights abusers it does not want, but it does say that those abusers may not enter the United States or access our financial system. This bill reaffirms our values, and makes a clear statement that the United States stands for dignity, respect, and the rule of law when it comes to internationally recognized human rights.

Finally, I do want to say a few words about the trade facilitation aspects of this bill. By repealing Jackson-Vanik with respect to Russia and Moldova, this bill will ensure that U.S. businesses and their employees will be able to realize the benefits of Russia's and Moldova's membership in the World Trade Organization. With respect to Russia, these benefits include additional market access for U.S. service providers and civil aircraft; improved intellectual property enforcement; consistent science-based sanitary and phytosanitary measures; and new dispute settlement tools to enforce WTO rules.

Last year, Maine exported $14 million worth of goods to Russia, including $8.1 million worth of aircraft parts and $5 million worth of cattle. Granting Russia PNTR can help cement this trade relationship by providing U.S. businesses more certainty that their investments will be protected. A Peterson Institute for International Economics study estimates that the volume of U.S. exports of merchandise and services to Russia could double from $11 billion in 2011 to $22 billion over about 5 years as a result of granting Russian permanent normal trade relations, or PNTR.

Additionally, the bill includes strong reporting requirements on Russia's compliance with its WTO commitments and directs the U.S. Trade Representative to develop a plan for action on areas where Russia does not live up to its WTO requirements.

I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. This bill represents a bipartisan commitment to ensuring that our brave men and women in uniform have the resources, equipment, and support they require to defend the interests of the United States around the globe.

I wish to commend Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for their efforts.

This bill represents a prudent path forward for the Department of Defense. But it is a path that could be shortly undermined if a compromise is not reached to avert the impending self-inflicted crisis of sequestration. Without action, sequestration could spell disaster for many of the programs that we would authorize through this bill. I stand ready to work with all my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to correct the short-sighted policy of sequestration and determine a sustainable way forward for our country.

I am pleased this bill recognizes the importance of shipbuilding to our Nation's defense, authorizing $778 million more than the administration's fiscal year 2013 request for Navy ships.

While the total annual shipbuilding budget is less than what the United States pays each month on interest to service the national debt, the ships built by the Navy represent such an important part of our national military strategy. The Navy's fleet, as an instrument of national policy, has a positive effect upon global security that far exceeds the percentage of the budget it represents.

This bill authorizes multiyear procurement authority for both the Virginia-class submarine program and for up to ten Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The two programs are projected to achieve savings of 14 percent and 9 percent respectively, when compared to the cost of annual contracting.

I congratulate both the chairman and ranking member for their willingness to direct the Navy to make good on cost-effective planning and, as a result, to increase the size of the fleet. For as we have heard this year in the testimony of virtually every combatant commander, the importance of the maritime environment continues to grow with each passing year.

As our Nation and our military look to the Western Pacific, that trend is sure to continue. Events this year in the South China Sea, which saw a disconcerting maritime standoff between the Philippines and the People's Republic of China, highlight just how important the maritime environment is to global security. Although thankfully the crisis abated, the ability of the Navy to respond with forward-deployed multimission platforms capable of operating in anti-access and area- denial environments must be maintained. Moreover, we must continue to make the necessary investments in both our public and private shipyards to allow for a strong domestic shipbuilding and ship repair industrial base.

I am proud that my own State of Maine contributes so much to the strength of our Navy. Maine, after all, has a proud maritime legacy. Tens of thousands of Mainers earn their living from the sea, as commercial fishermen or lobstermen, as merchant sailors, as Coast Guardsmen or Navy Sailors, as part of Maine's tourist industry, or as workers at Maine's public and private shipyards.

Bath Iron Works, a private shipyard and Maine's largest private employer, has been building ships for the Navy since 1893, and the shipyard continues to be known by the phrase ``Bath built is best built.''

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, in Kittery, ME, is one of only four public shipyards that remain in the United States, and conducts repair and refueling work on nuclear submarines. Both of the yards, along with the other public and private yards across the country, are truly national strategic assets, and the workers in these yards are the world's leading experts in ship construction and repair. As Chinese yards continue to churn out modern warships, and as the Chinese fleet continues to expand, we cannot allow any of the capabilities represented by our shipyards to atrophy.

Given the events of this month in the Middle East, I am pleased this bill also authorizes important additional funding for the Iron Dome program and cooperative programs with the State of Israel. As the Senate has affirmed time and again, most recently on November 15 when we passed S. Res. 599 introduced by Senator Gillibrand, Israel has an inherent right to act in self defense. In that resolution, the Senate expressed our unwavering commitment to Israel's security--a security which unfortunately continues to be threatened.

While I commend the efforts undertaken by those in the Middle East and by Secretary Clinton to achieve the recent ceasefire, we must continue to make the investments necessary to guarantee Israel's security. I can think of no better investment than the Iron Dome system, which had a success rate of 80-90 percent against the hundreds of rockets fired into Israel's borders.

And while Iron Dome protects the State of Israel, we must also look at how to better secure the United States, particularly those states on the East Coast, from the threat of a missile attack from rogue regimes in the Middle East. According to the Pentagon's Annual Report on the Military Power of Iran, parts of which were released in July, Iran could produce missiles capable of reaching the U.S. within 3 years.

To address this threat, Senators Lieberman, Ayotte, and I have filed an amendment which would require the Department to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement and create a plan for establishing a missile defense site on the East Coast of the United States. Such a site, whether sea-based or on land, located in the northeast tip of our country, could better protect the East Coast from an intercontinental ballistic missile attack. Beginning an EIS now, a task which could take up to 18-24 months, is a prudent measure to preserve our options in the future.

Just as we must protect the East Coast, we must also provide the military the tools to protect the mental

and physical wellbeing of military personnel. This year, the suicide rate amongst Active-Duty personnel has continued to soar. On average, more than one soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine has taken their own life every day this year. That is a tragedy of the first degree.

For every servicemember who dies in battle, 25 veterans die by their own hands. Not only have more military personnel killed themselves than were killed in Afghanistan this year, but the rate of suicides in the military significantly exceeds the rate of suicides in the general population. Veterans, many of whom are dealing with financial or posttraumatic stress, chronic pain, or depression resulting from their time in uniform, also face high rates of suicide. According to a Department of Veterans Affairs report this spring, a veteran commits suicide every 80 minutes.

While I applaud the military and the VA efforts to address this threat seriously, especially the Army, we can and must do more. To that end, I have filed an amendment with Senators Lieberman and Blumenthal to require the Attorney General to exercise authority granted to him by the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2010 to establish a drug take-back program in coordination with both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

There is substantial evidence that prescription drug abuse is a major factor in military and veteran suicides. The Army has reported that 29 percent of suicides had known history of psychotropic medication use, including anti-depressants, anti-anxiety medicine, anti-psychotics, and other controlled substances such as opioids.

I understand the legitimate concerns raised by some law enforcement officials that accountability of drugs must be strictly maintained and that these drugs must be prevented from being misused, abused, or sold in the black market. I am confident, however, that both the military-- an institution that has developed and implemented programs for the handling of nuclear weapons and classified information--and the VA are capable of running a drug take-back program with the utmost accountability and highest of standards.

I have also filed another amendment to establish a resilience research program in the Army to study the effectiveness of the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program. This program is intended to improve the resilience of our active duty force.

The loss of even one servicemember to a potentially preventable suicide is unacceptable. We have a responsibility to take every practical step that we can to help the military win the battle against suicides. Over the past decade, we have made an incredible investment to prevent deaths or injuries from IEDs. Although the threat to our forces posed by suicide will not be solved overnight, it deserves a similar commitment to combat this epidemic.

Likewise, the high incidence of military sexual assaults also continue to warrant our attention, particularly after the scandal at Lackland Air Force Base. This bill includes two provisions that I support which would codify into law regulations that were issued by the Department earlier this year. We should all continue to watch the Department closely to see that the changes are implemented wisely, that the Department's policy of zero tolerance becomes a culture of zero tolerance, and that the incidence of these crimes is dramatically reduced.

In the area of mental health, this bill includes a provision to grant authority for additional behavioral health professionals to conduct pre-separation medical examinations for post-traumatic stress disorder. This provision would increase the number of medical professionals available to conduct evaluations because the backlog of cases within the integrated disability evaluation system is significant, and results in unacceptable wait times for our military personnel being processed for separation.

Unfortunately, the military does not even know the true scope of the backlog within the disability evaluation system, and I am sure that many of our colleagues receive letters from their constituents expressing this concern each week. This year's bill contains a provision I authored that would require DOD to collect data on the physical, mental, and behavioral health of Wounded Warriors in order to accurately assess the efficacy of the military's Wounded Warrior programs.

In Afghanistan, where many of our wounded warriors received their injuries, military personnel continue to pay a high cost. As we head into the final 2 years of combat in Afghanistan, after more than a decade of war, I have grown increasingly concerned about the high number of insider attacks and their effect upon our strategy to transition to Afghan Security Forces leadership and for U.S. forces to assume a training and mentoring role after 2014.

Each death caused by the tactic of insider attacks has a strategic effect upon the war, both in terms of the American people's perception, and the willingness of our partners in NATO and ISAF to remain engaged in battle.

In 2012 alone, 60 Coalition troops, representing 16 percent of Coalition deaths, have been slain at the hands of those upon which our strategy depends. It is for that reason that I, along with Senators Udall, Portman, and Shaheen have filed an amendment that would require the Secretary of Defense to report on the effect of insider attacks upon the progress of the war and the effect these attacks have upon our strategy and the behavior of our partners. Our Nation has made too great an investment in blood and treasure in Afghanistan; Congress must understand the strategic environment, and be presented with all the information to make informed decisions about how to proceed in Afghanistan.

The Afghan war has also left us with important questions about detention policy here at home that must be resolved. One of the questions that has been left unaddressed in the eleven years since the Congress authorized the use of military force to go after al-Qaeda and the Taliban is whether the Congress intended to authorize the detention of persons in the United States, and specifically the detention of American citizens. I have cosponsored an amendment with Senator Feinstein that would explicitly prohibit the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens captured on U.S. soil.

The final amendment I have offered, along with Senators Kerry, Brown of Massachusetts, Blumenthal, Whitehouse, Snowe, and Brown of Ohio, would require the Department of Defense to establish a temporary pilot program to issue domestically procured athletic shoes to Army recruits in initial entry training. DOD historically provided athletic footwear to new recruits that comply with the Berry Amendment, but DOD's current procurement process has allowed it to circumvent the spirit, letter, and intent of the law. I have no doubt that domestic suppliers will be able to produce a Berry compliant shoe, with minimal waivers necessary, that can meet the needs of recruits and the Army in a cost-effective manner. We should not allow government funds to be used to support foreign-made shoes, when American shoes are available. Much like our Olympic athletes should be clothed in domestically produced apparel, so too should our military recruits be wearing athletic shoes made in the

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator DeMint be added as a cosponsor of the amendment entitled ``Feinstein- Collins amendment No. 3018.''

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment offered by Senator Feinstein. The purpose of our amendment is to make clear that a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident arrested in this country cannot be detained indefinitely without charge or trial. This amendment is necessary because current law with respect to the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens within the United States remains unclear after more than 11 years of a persistent conflict in which the enemy often does not distinguish itself from civilians.

Without this amendment, it is conceivable that an American citizen could be arrested, detained, and held without charge or trial in order to address the gap in the law. Our amendment is necessary.

Last year the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act defined the scope of the detention authority provided under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force for detainees captured outside the United States. But the scope of detention authority, as it relates to U.S. citizens and lawful residents captured or arrested inside the United States, was left nebulous.

Because of this legal ambiguity, despite the guarantees enshrined in our Constitution, an American citizen could be indefinitely detained without charge or trial, even if they are detained in the United States.

I do not believe that many of us intended to authorize such a sweeping detention authority within the United States when we voted to allow our military to pursue al-Qaida following the 9/11 attacks.

Because Congress was responsible for authorizing the use of military force in the first place, it is our duty, our obligation, to define carefully the scope of the detention authority we intended in the AUMF. If we do not clarify this important issue, the Federal courts and the executive branch will be left to substitute their judgment for ours. This amendment specifically addresses the issue of American citizens and lawful permanent residents detained in the United States, and it would clarify that it is not the intention of the Congress to allow for their indefinite detention.

Let me briefly mention what the Feinstein-Collins amendment does not do.

First, it does not change the ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that an American citizen who wages war against U.S. troops in an active combat zone can be taken into preventive detention in order to keep that person from continuing to wage war overseas against American military forces.

When an American citizen leaves this country to wage war against his fellow citizens, he relinquishes certain rights, otherwise supported by the Constitution, and I agree with the Court's decision in this case.

Next, this amendment does not preclude intelligence gathering subsequent to a suspected terrorist being taken into detention.

The intelligence gathered from a suspect in the hours or days after his arrest can be vital to preventing further acts of violence or in uncovering terrorist networks at home or abroad. This amendment balances the ability to gather this important information with the suspect's rights by providing some flexibility within the Constitution's bounds.

For example, it does not circumscribe the existing public safety exception to Miranda. This exception permits law enforcement, in certain circumstances, to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation and allows the government to introduce the statement as direct evidence in a judicial proceeding. Law enforcement officials, confronted with an emergency, may question a suspect held in custody about an imminent threat to public safety without providing Miranda warnings first.

In addition, nothing precludes other Federal agents from gathering intelligence without providing Miranda rights. Under current law, a U.S. citizen cannot be tried in a military tribunal, and that does not change under our amendment.

Finally, this amendment does not change the treatment of those who are here on temporary visas, such as students or travelers--the kind of visas that were used by the 9/11 terrorists.

In closing, let me talk about how this amendment would have changed the treatment of some U.S. citizens detained under the authorization for use of military courts during the last 11 years had it become law.

First, because this amendment only covers American citizens captured in

the United States, it would not have affected the detention of John Walker Lindh, for example. So the only U.S. citizen affected by this amendment would have been Jose Padilla. If this amendment were the law, Jose Padilla's detention would have ended as it did under the Bush administration--in a Federal courtroom, where he was charged with aiding terrorists in a terrorist organization.

Since 2001 terrorism has claimed far too many victims, both abroad and here in our country. But it is crucially important that in pursuing the war on terrorism, we must assure our fellow citizens their constitutional rights--the very foundation of what makes us Americans. For this reason, I am proud to be a cosponsor of Senator Feinstein's amendment, and I strongly urge its adoption.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that LCDR Peter Halvorsen, the military fellow from the Department of Navy, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the consideration of the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, first, let me thank the Senator from Texas for reserving some time for me while I was at a briefing and on my way to the floor. I will attempt to be very quick because I know our colleagues are eager to vote on this important issue. And, Mr. President, that is my point. This is a critically important issue. How many more warnings do we need to hear from the experts that we are extremely vulnerable to a cyber security attack? Cyber attacks are happening every day.

Just recently there was an attack on several of our financial institutions. According to press reports, it was launched by Iranian sources. We know that Iran, Russia, and China are extremely active in probing our cyber systems, including those that control our critical infrastructure--not only our financial systems, our transportation systems, our water treatment plants, but also our electric grid.

Recently we have seen what Hurricane Sandy, the superstorm, has done to States--so many States--destroying lives and property and leaving people without power for days on end. Well, multiply that many times. If it were a deliberate cyber attack that knocked out the electric grid along the entire east coast, that is what we are talking about. That is the kind of risk that calls us to act.

We have heard from the experts over and over again that this vulnerability is huge and escalating. We know that the number of cyber attacks that have been reported to the Department of Homeland Security has increased by 200 percent in just the last year. And those are just the attacks that have been reported. That is just the tip of the iceberg. Undoubtedly, there are many more on our critical infrastructure that have not been reported. We know there have been attempts to probe the security of the computer systems that run some of our natural gas pipelines.

This problem is very real, and it is not only a threat to our national and homeland security, it is also a threat to the economic prosperity of this country. How many more thefts of research and development, of intellectual property of businesses right here in our country that are providing good jobs for Americans do we need to endure before we act to secure our cyber systems?

I have worked on the cyber security bill for years with my friend, colleague, and chairman, Joe Lieberman. We have held countless hearings. We have marked up a previous bill. It is so ironic that we are being criticized for not doing yet another markup on this bill when all of the changes reflect our attempts to address the criticisms of the opponents of this bill. We made a huge change by making this bill voluntary rather than mandatory and by providing incentives such as liability protections for businesses that voluntarily agree to adopt cyber standards. We have created a system where there would be a cooperative process between the public and the private sectors to share information and to develop the best practices so that information can be shared.

In all the time I have worked on homeland security issues, I cannot think of another threat where our vulnerability is greater and where we have failed to act and have done less.

This is not a Republican or a Democratic or an Independent issue. The experts, regardless of their political leanings, from the Bush administration to the current administration have urged us to act, have pleaded with us to act.

General Alexander, the nonpartisan general who is the head of Cyber Command and the head of the National Security Agency, has urged this Congress over and over again to give this administration, to give our country the tools it needs to protect critical infrastructure and to help safeguard our economic edge.

I urge our colleagues to listen to the wisdom of former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and former NSA chief GEN Michael Hayden from the previous administration, from President Bush's administration. They wrote the following:

We carry the burden of knowing that 9/11 might have been

averted with the intelligence that existed at the time. We do

not want to be in the same position again when ``cyber 9/11''

hits--it is not a question of ``whether'' this will happen;

it is a question of ``when.''

This time all the dots have been connected. This time we know cyber attacks are occurring each and every day. This time the warnings are loud and clear. How can we ignore these dire warnings? How? How can we fail to act on the cyber security bill, especially since the majority leader has indicated he is willing to allow for amendments, as he should, to make this process fair. Germane amendments would be allowed.

I urge our colleagues to heed the warnings from the experts and to vote for cloture on the cyber security bill so we can proceed to its consideration. I do not want to be here 1 year from now saying, why did we not act? Why did we not listen to the cyber experts from the Bush administration, from the Obama administration, from GEN Keith Alexander, the premier expert in our government.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, although we have different views on this issue, I would yield 1 minute to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, the Postal Service's financial crisis continues to escalate.

At the end of this month, the U.S. Postal Service will miss the deadline for the required $5.6 billion payment toward its future retiree health care obligations. In fact, the Postal Service will have defaulted on more than $11 billion in payments to fund health care for future retirees, raising concerns about its ability to keep promises to current workers about their future benefits.

Five months ago, the Senate passed by a strong bipartisan vote legislation to shore up the Postal Service. Yet the House has failed to act. And unfortunately, the House is about to adjourn without taking up either the Senate-passed postal bill or a House version.

I have implored House leaders to take up postal reform legislation-- any postal reform legislation--so the conference process and the difficult negotiations involved in that process can begin in earnest.

No one should pretend this is not a crisis worthy of congressional action.

The Postal Service has lost more than $13 billion during the past 2 years and is losing $25 million each day. It will reach its credit limit of $15 billion by the end of the year. Despite the fact that Congress has deferred or reduced the Postal Service's payments for future retiree health benefits multiple times, the Postal Service has still reported billions of dollars in deficits--clear evidence that its fiscal woes go far beyond this requirement.

The Senate bill passed in April ensures those promises to future retirees will be kept, while still providing financial relief by restructuring the payment plan in a responsible way.

Much is at stake. Without legislative reforms, the universal mail service that drives a trillion-dollar mail industry and supports more than 8 million jobs will be in jeopardy.

A key reason for the Postal Service's crisis is simply a changing world, where more and more communication is online rather than via traditional mail. First-class mail volume has fallen by 26 percent over the past 6 years and continues to decline. Reflecting that sharp drop in volume, the Postal Service's revenue has also plummeted from $72.8 billion in 2006 to $65.7 billion in 2011.

Nearly 80 percent of the Postal Service's costs are workforce- related, and so, as painful as it may be, finding a compassionate way to reduce these costs is simply unavoidable. In doing so, however, it is critical that the service on which many postal customers depend-- customers the Postal Service desperately needs to keep--be preserved. The worst thing the Postal Service could do would be to drive more customers out of the mail, causing revenues to decline further and ensuring that the financial free fall continues. That would trigger a death spiral from which the Postal Service might never recover.

We need to help put the Postal Service back on solid financial footing, not only to help protect those who work in jobs related to mailing industry but also so that taxpayers are not left holding the bag.

The bill I coauthored along with Senators Lieberman, Carper, and Scott Brown would do just that.

Our bill encourages the Postal Service to operate more like a business by cutting internal costs first instead of driving away customers with deep service cuts or steep price hikes.

Our bill would transfer to the Postal Service the nearly $11 billion it has overpaid into the Federal Employee Retirement System and direct the Postmaster General to use a portion of this money for retirement and separation incentives in order to reduce the size of the workforce in a compassionate way.

Let me emphasize: This refund is not taxpayer money. It was contributed by the Postal Service using ratepayer dollars. It is an overpayment that was identified and confirmed by the actuaries at OPM and verified by the GAO. GAO recently confirmed OPM's assessment that this figure now has risen to nearly $11 billion.

The Senate-passed bill also includes a new requirement that arbitrators rendering binding decisions in labor disputes consider the financial condition of the Postal Service. I know that it might defy belief that an arbitrator would not automatically consider the looming bankruptcy of the Postal Service when ruling on contract disputes. Some previous arbitrators, however, have discounted this factor in their decisions because the requirement to consider it was not explicitly listed in law.

For the first time in 35 years, the bill also brings sorely needed, commonsense reforms to the Federal Workers' Compensation Program, not only at the Postal Service but across the entire Federal Government. More than 45,500 people are on the long-term rolls for Federal workers' comp, and 40 percent of those are Postal Service employees. The reforms will help injured employees return to work and ensure that workers' comp is not a substitute for retirement benefits.

The Senate bill would also rationalize what has been an erratic and Draconian closure plan for thousands of rural post offices. While some post offices can and should be closed, curbing access for customers could well jeopardize revenue. Therefore, our bill would set up a new process that would involve the consideration of alternatives to closure, such as reducing hours, co-locating a post office at a nearby pharmacy, or renting out excess space to other government agencies. Perhaps most important, the process includes the requirement for the views of the affected community to be heard and responded to prior to any final decision.

Our bill would prevent the Postal Service from eliminating Saturday delivery for the next 2 years. Instead, it directs the USPS to embark on a period of aggressive cost-cutting and then would allow this reduction in service only if the Government Accountability Office and postal regulators both certify that elimination of Saturday delivery is still necessary to achieve solvency.

The Senate's bipartisan postal reform bill preserves the Postal Service and the critical economic activity it supports.

Now, the House must act. Failure to do so puts in peril American commerce and could harm our fragile economy.

I am confident that, for the good of our country, we will be able to come together with our House colleagues and work out our differences, no matter how significant those differences may be. No doubt more compromises will be required along the way, but it is critical that we get a bill to the President for his signature as soon as possible.

Our task is urgent. Postal employees, businesses who rely on the U.S. mail, and the American people should not have to wait any longer.