August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5941 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

VETERANS JOBS CORPS ACT OF 

2012 MOTION TO PROCEED—continued 

MINERAL INDUSTRY TRANSPARENCY

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, it has 

been 2 years since Congress passed legislation that provided for transparency 

in the mineral industry. It was a provision that was included in the DoddFrank bill. It was included as an 

amendment on which Senator LUGAR

and I worked. I wish to thank Senator 

LUGAR for his incredible leadership on 

this issue—transparency—as well as so 

many other issues that affect the security of not only America but global security. 

The provision is something we 

worked on to provide transparency in 

developing countries. It provided a 

visible sign of U.S. leadership, that we 

are going to do everything we can to 

promote good governance around the 

world; to demonstrate that we understand that for the stability of America, 

we need countries that have good governance. 

The United States spends more 

money than any other country in the 

world on our national security budget. 

In fact, we spend more than most of 

the other countries combined spend on 

national defense. We have the ability 

to use our military for our national defense, but it is much better if we can 

develop stable countries around the 

world. The way to develop stable countries is to help them build a stable 

economy, to help them build wealth, 

and to help them have good governance. 

It is impossible to see the type of 

progress we want in the developing 

countries unless they have good governance. I might say that the more we 

can help in this regard, the more we 

promote good governance and economic growth, the better off we will be. 

Our direct security burdens will be reduced, and we will have new markets, 

which will create economic opportunities for America. 

As the Presiding Officer knows, this 

is the guiding principle of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in 

Europe. We used the Helsinki Commission as our implementing arm. The 

Helsinki Accords that were signed in 

1975 between Europe—all of the countries of Europe—the United States, and 

Canada recognized that it was in our 

national security interests to support 

stable countries that respect human 

rights and have good governance. 

This is the reason the Cardin-Lugar 

amendment was so important in the 

Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform legislation. Let me explain what it does. It requires mineral companies to list the 

payments they make to extract the 

minerals they take out of a country. 

Whether we are talking about gas or 

oil, whether it is diamonds or copper— 

the companies need to divulge their individual payments to foreign countries 

in their reports to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission, SEC. 

We did that for many reasons. 

One reason, quite frankly, is that although many countries in the world 

have vast sums of mineral wealth, 

these are some of the poorest countries 

in the world. We call it the ‘‘resource 

curse’’ because the natural resource 

wealth of the country isn’t just being 

denied to the people for their economic 

growth, it is being used to fuel corruption within their own country. So one 

of the reasons for the provision we incorporated in the Dodd-Frank bill was 

to provide transparency so that the 

people of the country, along with the 

international community, will know 

exactly where payments are being 

made for the extraction of mineral 

wealth in a country. 

Senator LUGAR and I also thought 

that such information would be important for U.S. investors, too. If someone 

is going to invest in a mineral company, he or she has a right to know 

where that company is signing contracts and paying money for access to 

the natural resource(s). 

It is also important for U.S. interests. We need stable mineral reserves. 

As the Presiding Officer knows, we 

have gone to war over the need for oil. 

We need stable markets so that we do 

not jeopardize our own economic 

progress. 

So the Cardin-Lugar provision gives 

us a chance to follow the money, as the 

saying goes, in a particular country. 

For all of these reasons, Mr. President, we passed a provision as part of 

the Dodd-Frank legislation that requires every company that is involved 

in extracting minerals to list those 

payments specifically by project in 

their SEC filings. 

It was pretty clear as to what needed 

to be done. We gave the authority to 

the SEC to issue the necessary regulations. Well, we have been waiting 2 

years for these regulations—2 years. 

We are now well beyond the time limit 

that was spelled out in the legislation 

for the SEC to issue its regulations. 

Yet the SEC still hasn’t issued final 

regulations. 

I have read the statute over and over 

again. I helped write the statute. Senator LUGAR has read the statute. We do 

not understand the difficulty. It was 

not a complicated provision. It said exactly what the companies have to do. 

So we are somewhat puzzled why it has 

taken this length of time for the SEC 

to issue its final regulations. In the 

meantime, we are being denied the benefit of this law. We are being denied the 

opportunity to protect our investors. 

We are being denied the opportunity to 

follow the money, to help promote 

good governance abroad. All that has 

been delayed as a result of the SEC’s 

failure to issue regulations. 

I must say that it also jeopardizes 

U.S. leadership. Yes, there are other 

countries interested in following what 

the United States is doing. We have 

heard from Europe, and we have heard 

from Asia. They want to adopt similar 

laws. They do not know what to pass 

because they are still waiting for the 

SEC to act. So the failure to act isn’t 

just affecting our ability; it is also affecting other countries. Collectively, 

between Asia, Europe, and the United 

States, we can pretty much cover all of 

the international extractive companies 

and therefore have a real, major impact on transparency on this issue. 

I might say that one of the criticisms 

I have heard is about why we have a 

separate bill. We already have what is 

known as the Extractive Industries 

Transparency Initiative, or EITI. There 

is an international organization that is 

voluntary. Countries can join. The 

United States has participated in the 

EITI. EITI participants help countries 

with best practices for developing the 

governance to deal with how they handle their mineral wealth. EITI is an important program. It is a voluntary program. It works well. 

The Cardin-Lugar provision in the 

Dodd-Frank legislation complement 

the EITI. The two work together. Between the two, the EITI and our legislation, there’s a way that we can really 

require companies to make the information available in an open way. The 

EITI gives developing countries the 

technical assistance they need to manage their mineral wealth in the most 

effective way for the benefit of their 

own people, to elevate their wealth and 

to have a more sustainable economy. 

This delay has caused a great deal of 

concern to many of us. Quite frankly, 

Oxfam, for example, has filed suit 

against the SEC for its failure to issue 

regulations, and I am very sympathetic 

to that lawsuit. 

I wish to inform Senators that we 

have now been told the SEC will finally 

issue its regulations on August 22, in 

just a few weeks. SEC officials have 

formally responded to the Oxfam lawsuit, saying the agency will issue regulations on August 22. I have received a 

letter from the SEC indicating the 

same thing. It is long overdue. 

I am looking forward to seeing the 

regulations from the SEC. I hope the 

SEC follows the letter and spirit of the 

legislation. It is up to Congress to pass 

the laws. SEC needs to implement the 

laws under direction and guidance from 

Congress. We have made it clear that 

we want openness and transparency. I 

know some oil companies may not like 

that, but they do not write the laws, 

we do. It is up to the SEC now to promulgate the regulations that carry out 

the intent of our law and help us move 

forward so that the resource wealth of 

countries in the developing world become a real asset, a real benefit, as 

they develop sustainable economies 

and good governance, which helps global stability and helps the global economy. 

We will be watching the SEC. I know 

we will be in recess on the 22nd, but we 

will be watching the SEC. I hope that 

Congress and the SEC will be working 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
S5942 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE August 2, 2012 

together and that the United States 

will continue exercising its leadership, 

so that we will see other countries follow suit where we really can make a 

difference in the wealth and growth of 

countries around the world that for too 

long have been suffering even though 

they have enormous mineral wealth. 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we 

have had a great deal of conversation 

these past several days regarding cyber 

security. There is no question that we 

all agree it is a critical issue. I am sure 

every Member of this body shares the 

concern that our Nation is vulnerable 

to cyber attacks, and those attacks 

could have severe economic and national security ramifications. 

We saw just this week over 180 

amendments filed to the cyber legislation. I think it is pretty clear that a 

lot of us have ideas on how best to protect our critical infrastructure. I think 

that is just one of the reasons I was 

disappointed that the amendment tree 

was filled and cloture was filed on the 

cyber measure. 

I don’t think that was the process we 

were promised when the Senate overwhelmingly agreed to consider the 

cyber security bill. Because Members 

were denied the opportunity to have a 

thoughtful and complete debate, the 

cloture vote failed on a bipartisan basis 

this morning. 

We have heard a lot about the electric grid during this debate and how 

legislation is needed to protect our Nation’s transmission systems from cyber 

attack. What perhaps has been missing 

from this debate and discussion is a 

recognition that Congress had already 

moved to protect our grid system, and 

they did so 7 years ago. They enacted 

the bipartisan Energy Policy Act of 

2005. 

I am the ranking member on the 

committee of jurisdiction. I reassure 

my colleagues that we already have 

mandatory cyber security standards in 

place for our electric grid. In the 2005 

Energy Policy Act, Congress directed 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, the grid’s regulator, to 

set mandatory enforceable reliability 

standards, including standards for 

cyber security. And because these 

standards can be very technical—extremely complex—Congress decided 

they should be developed through a 

consensus-driven stakeholder process 

that is overseen by the Electric Reliability Organization—an organization 

that we call NERC. 

We thought this was so important 

back in 2005 that we even expanded 

FERC’s traditional jurisdiction to include municipal and cooperatively 

owned utility systems under these grid 

reliability standards. Now, it might 

surprise some to learn that the FERCNERC mandatory cyber security regime currently regulates over 1,900 different entities and that the electric 

power sector is already subject to Federal penalties, and these penalties are 

serious—up to $1 million per day for 

noncompliance. So there is teeth attached to these standards. 

In fact, one of our own government 

entities—the Southwestern Power Administration—was recently fined by 

the grid regulators for violating two 

mandatory cyber standards. 

The point is the electric power sector 

and our grid regulators have been 

working extremely hard these past 7 

years to develop and to implement 

these cyber standards. We have already 

taken substantial measures to safeguard our electric utility systems. We 

have identified our critical assets and 

established security management controls, performed risk assessments, and 

trained personnel. We have established 

sabotage reporting and mandated disaster recovery plans. These are all 

processes and procedures that have 

been put in place. 

Also, it might surprise some to learn 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission— 

the NRC—has already taken action to 

protect the Nation’s nuclear facilities 

from cyber attack. The nuclear industry developed a cyber security program 

for critical assets over a decade ago. 

The NRC now mandates cyber security 

plans for nuclear plants, including the 

identification of critical cyber assets 

and required contingency and incident 

response plans. Failure to comply with 

the NRC cyber requirements also can 

result in fines and even an order to 

shut down the nuclear reactor. 

So, again, there are standards that 

have been put in place with compliance 

requirements and penalties that are attached for failure to comply. 

One concern was that the cyber bill 

was brought to the floor via rule XIV. 

A concern with this was that it would 

undermine the existing mandatory 

framework that Congress has already 

established within the electric utility 

grid. By establishing a competing regime—even if that regime was truly 

voluntary—the Cybersecurity Act the 

Senate just rejected could duplicate, 

conflict with, and even supercede the 

hard work that has already been put in 

over these past several years to safeguard both our grid and our nuclear facilities. 

One of the amendments I had filed to 

the bill, and I had hoped we would have 

an opportunity to discuss, was a strong 

savings clause—a savings clause that 

would maintain the mandatory protections that are in place. Two competing 

systems are not workable and could, in 

fact, make the Nation’s grid and nuclear facilities even more vulnerable to 

cyber attack. 

One thing we have learned in the Energy Committee, in overseeing our 

mandatory cyber practices, is not everything necessarily needs to rise to 

the level of a foundational standard. 

But with cyber threats and vulnerabilities that are constantly emerging and 

constantly changing, I think the one 

thing we would agree on is that we always need more information. 

I think we can also all agree the Federal Government needs to form a partnership with the private sector. The 

government and the private sector 

share the same goals—to keep our computer systems and our Nation safe from 

cyber intrusions. We need the private 

companies to be talking with each 

other and with the government about 

the cyber problems they face as well as 

potential strategies and the solutions 

to combat them. We also need our government to provide timely and actionable information to the private sector. 

It has to go both ways. 

So as we go off to our respective 

States and discuss with our constituents back home the many issues that 

are out there, I would encourage Members to take a look at what has been 

introduced by the ranking members— 

the SECURE IT cyber legislation. Take 

a look at what has been offered as an 

alternative. It is a commonsense approach to addressing our ever-increasing cyber threats. 

Our bill focuses on four areas where 

we believe we can reach bipartisan support and which will result in legislation that can get enacted, even given 

the politics of an election year. The 

four areas we focus on are information 

sharing, FISMA reform, criminal penalties, as well as additional research. 

Mr. President, I want to close with 

just some observations quickly about 

the process. Back in 2005, when the 

Senate passed the bipartisan Energy 

Policy Act, it passed by a considerable 

margin. It was 85 to 12. But we spent a 

full 2 weeks on the floor considering 

amendments at that time. We had earlier spent 2 weeks marking up the bill 

in committee. So what I would like to 

leave folks with is just the reminder 

that process really does matter. That 

is how strong bipartisan pieces of legislation are enacted. 

When you forego that process, you 

don’t do that hard work in committee 

and send an ever-changing bill directly 

to the floor via rule XIV and then fill 

the amendment tree, the legislation 

just doesn’t work. It is bound to fail, 

and that is what we saw today. 

A few months ago I came to the floor 

to advocate for cyber legislation and to 

express my concern that the all-ornothing approach to cyber security 

could result in nothing. After today’s 

vote, that is where we are. That is 

what we have. I do remain hopeful we 

can find a path forward on the cyber 

issue that will result in a truly bipartisan and effective—effective—piece of 

legislation that will help our Nation’s 

critical infrastructure. 

With that, Mr. President, I see my 

colleague from Louisiana is here, and I 

yield the floor. 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5943 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana. 

EDUCATION REFORM

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as 

Congress prepares to adjourn for the 

August State work period, nearly 50 

million students are preparing to head 

back to approximately 100,000 elementary and secondary public schools 

across the country. What a great responsibility it is for us in Congress and 

our partners at the State and local levels to engage with parents and teachers 

to ensure that these 50 million students are well educated. When I travel 

back to Louisiana this month, I will be 

visiting students and schools throughout the State, from Lafayette to New 

Orleans to Bogalusa. I am looking forward to watching stimulating lessons, 

meeting enthusiastic students and 

teachers, and learning more about the 

successes and challenges of Louisiana’s 

schools. 

The National Center for Education 

Statistics estimates that $544.3 billion 

will be spent in public education this 

upcoming school year. That is an estimated $11,000 per student. Are we making the most of those dollars? In Congress, we perennially debate the 

amount of Federal funds we should invest in our public school students. We 

recognize that many of our States’ education systems are underpreparing 

young people for the changing workforce and increasing global competition. Yet we cannot agree on the appropriate amounts to invest at the Federal 

level to ensure that all students receive the opportunity for an excellent 

education. All too often, the debate has 

been about ‘‘How much?’’ rather than 

about ‘‘How to get better results?’’ 

with existing resources. 

Over the last several years, Federal, 

State, and local governments have 

taken helpful steps to change the way 

taxpayer dollars are invested to ensure 

that our limited resources are driven 

toward high-impact solutions in education. Mayors and governors across 

the country are increasingly using data 

and evidence to steer public dollars to 

more effectively address the educational needs of their communities 

and States. At the Federal level, innovation funds have been created to invest in and scale proven solutions. 

Some of these Federal programs, such 

as the Social Innovation Fund, Investing in Innovation, and the High-Quality Charter Schools Replication and 

Expansion Program, provide competitive grants to nonprofit organizations 

in order to grow promising, evidencebased solutions. 

The Social Innovation Fund in particular focuses on three priority areas: 

economic opportunity, healthy futures, 

and youth development. Its unique 

Federal funding model requires all 

grantees and subgrantees to match 

Federal resources 1:1, thereby increasing the return on taxpayer dollars and 

strengthening local support. This program relies on outstanding existing 

grant-making ‘‘intermediaries’’ to select high-impact community organizations rather than building new government infrastructures. Additionally, it 

emphasizes rigorous evaluations of program results. 

In my home State of Louisiana, the 

Social Innovation Fund recently provided the Capital Area United Way 

with $2 million to replicate and expand 

effective early childhood development 

programs to increase school readiness 

among children in low-income and 

rural parishes within the Greater 

Baton Rouge area. We know that education does not begin in kindergarten, 

education begins in a child’s earliest 

years of life. New Profit, Inc., received 

a Social Innovation Fund grant of $15 

million over 3 years to collaborate with 

innovative youth-focused, nonprofit organizations in helping young people 

navigate the increasingly complex path 

from high school to college and productive employment. The project will expand the reach of these nonprofits to 

improve the lives of nearly 8,000 young 

people in low-income communities 

throughout the country. 

Another program investing in what 

works is the Investing in Innovation 

Fund, commonly known as the i3 Program. This program provides competitive grants to local school districts and 

nonprofit organizations with records of 

success to help them leverage publicprivate partnerships to implement education practices that have demonstrated positive impacts on student 

achievement. Since 2010, the U.S. Department of Education has awarded 

competitive i3 grants to 72 local school 

districts and nonprofit organizations in 

26 States and Washington, DC. 

I am proud that New Schools for New 

Orleans, in partnership with the Louisiana Recovery School District and 

Tennessee Achievement School District, received $28 million in i3 funds in 

2010 to significantly increase the number of high-quality charter schools in 

New Orleans and ultimately improve 

education outcomes for New Orleans’ 

students. With these funds, New 

Schools for New Orleans is replicating 

Sci Academy, a high-performing charter high school that New Schools for 

New Orleans incubated four years ago. 

Sci Academy just graduated its first 

class of seniors—with 96 percent matriculating to 7-year colleges. Two new 

high schools modeled after Sci Academy will open this fall. With the i3 

grant, New Schools for New Orleans is 

also funding the turnaround of a K–8 

school, Craig Elementary School in the 

Treme neighborhood. Dr. Doris Hicks, 

who runs the very successful Dr. Martin Luther King Charter School in the 

Lower Ninth Ward, will be overseeing 

the turnaround of Craig Elementary 

School, lending her expertise and community credibility to the effort. 

The High-Quality Charter Schools 

Replication and Expansion Program 

provides competitive grants to successful nonprofit charter management organizations to allow them to increase 

enrollment at existing charter schools 

or open one or more new charter 

schools based on their successful 

model. Both Rocketship Education out 

of California and KIPP, Knowledge is 

Power Program, out of Houston, TX, 

have received critical funds from this 

competition in order to expand their 

reach and serve more students. Both of 

these well-known and highly popular 

charter management organizations are 

opening and operating charter schools 

in Louisiana and other States across 

the United States. 

On May 18, 2012, the Office of Management and Budget issued a ‘‘Memorandum to Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies’’ asking them to 

demonstrate the use of evidence 

throughout their fiscal year 2014 budget submissions. This is exactly the 

right kind of directive—one which taxpayers will be happy to hear. In particular, I am enthusiastic about the potential impact of the provisions in the 

memo that urge agencies to propose 

new types of evaluations and consider 

how evidence can be used in both formula and competitive grant-making 

programs. 

For the Federal Government to make 

this shift toward requiring more evidence of impact and prioritizing the investment of taxpayer dollars in proven 

programs, I recognize that there are a 

number of challenges to address, including a lack of agreement about 

what constitutes ‘‘evidence’’ of impact; 

the difficulty of measuring certain 

kinds of interventions or their desired 

outcomes; the resources it takes to 

conduct the most rigorous evaluations; 

a concern that those communities 

most in need will be unable to compete 

and, therefore, fall further behind; and 

a concern that many well-intentioned 

organizations will lose public funding 

because they do not currently have the 

evidence necessary to prove their impact. These are very valid concerns, 

and I encourage the Office of Management and Budget and all Federal departments and agencies to address 

them through a thoughtful design of 

policy approaches. 

I strongly encourage my colleagues 

in the Senate to visit a variety of public schools in their home States this 

month. Talk with students, parents, 

teachers, and school leaders. Learn 

more about their successes and challenges, and consider this question: 

What is truly working in education and 

how can the Federal Government be 

more strategic about investing in evidence-based solutions in our classrooms? 

We need to be smarter about how we 

invest in education if we are going to 

close the achievement gap, prepare students for the 21st century workforce, 

and compete in the global arena. Joel 

Klein, Condoleezza Rice, and a Council 

on Foreign Relations-sponsored task 

force recently produced a report called 

‘‘U.S. Education Reform and National 

Security.’’ According to the report, 

‘‘Educational failure puts the United 

States’ future economic prosperity, 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
S5944 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE August 2, 2012 

global position, and physical safety at 

risk. Leaving large swaths of the population unprepared also threatens to divide Americans and undermine the 

country’s cohesion, confidence, and 

ability to serve as a global leader. . . . 

The United States will not be able to 

keep pace—much less lead—globally 

unless it moves to fix the problems it 

has allowed to fester for too long.’’ 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

FRANKEN). The Senator from Michigan. 

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I 

thank the Senator from North Dakota 

for allowing me to take a few moments 

to speak when he was waiting his turn. 

I wish to also say Senator HOEVEN

has been a terrific member of our Agriculture Committee, coming in, in his 

first term, and has made a significant 

difference. He and our chairman of the 

Budget Committee, Senator CONRAD, 

have been terrific powerhouses, and 

they never let me forget that 90 percent of the land in North Dakota is 

farmland. I thank him for allowing me 

to take a moment. 

AGRICULTURE AND THE DROUGHT

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am 

not sure the House has completed the 

vote yet on a partial disaster assistance program, but I am rising to urge 

colleagues in the House to join with us 

in passing the Agricultural Reform 

Food and Jobs Act, commonly known 

as the farm bill. 

I wish to commend the chairman and 

ranking member in the House for doing 

what we did in Senate, which is to 

work together on a bipartisan basis. 

They worked very hard with their committee and reported out a bill. We have 

some differences with that bill, but 

they worked very hard together, and I 

know we can come to agreement on 

something that is a compromise between the House and the Senate. I commend them for doing that. 

I am very concerned and very disappointed that the Speaker and the 

House leadership did not support their 

efforts to bring this to the floor in 

July. I was on the Agriculture Committee in the House. This is my fourth 

farm bill. I have never heard of a situation where there was a bipartisan farm 

bill reported out of committee and not 

taken up on the floor. It is very concerning. But nonetheless, I support the 

chairman and ranking member in the 

House and look forward to working 

with them to actually get this done. 

My colleagues, of course, remember 

the long and intense debate we had on 

this bill, both in committee and on the 

floor, with more than 70 amendments. I 

wish to again greatly thank our majority leader for understanding the significance of this bill to the economy 

and to rural America and to jobs across 

the country. The majority leader and 

the Republican leader both allowed us 

the time to do that, and I very much 

appreciate that. 

We passed the bill, as we all know, 

with an overwhelming bipartisan vote, 

64 to 35. The Senate came together and 

did what the Senate is supposed to do, 

and we worked very hard together to 

be able to get that done. 

Especially given the drought and the 

disaster farmers are dealing with—not 

just drought but other disasters—it is 

critical the House follow our lead and 

both pass a comprehensive disaster assistance program but in the context of 

real reform and a 5-year farm bill. 

The House Agriculture Committee 

passed their bill. I am anxious and I 

am, frankly, disappointed they did not 

have the support they needed to be able 

to bring it up, bring to the Senate, and 

put us in a situation where we are able 

to go to a formal conference committee, which I would like very much 

to do to resolve differences. 

But we do intend to begin that process, speaking together, listening to 

each other, negotiating in the next few 

weeks to see if we can’t come together 

informally, to be able to offer a compromise bill to the House and the Senate for consideration. 

I wish to remind my colleagues that 

the farm bill is a jobs bill. Sixteen million people work in our country because of our agricultural economy and 

our food industry. We have the safest, 

most affordable food supply in the 

world. The bright spot is agriculture. 

Export surplus is in agriculture. We 

should be doing everything possible to 

support agriculture, our farmers, our 

ranchers, both in the short term for 

disaster assistance but also looking 

down the road on a 5-year farm bill. 

Second, the farm bill expires on September 30, less than 2 months away. We 

need to get it done. We are racing 

against the clock right now. 

We also know that this year our Nation is experiencing the worst drought 

in a generation. You turn on the news, 

and you see serious wildfires in Colorado, Nebraska, Utah, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Montana, among others. You 

look in Michigan and you see a fruit 

disaster that relates from warmth and 

then freeze. We have more than half of 

the counties in the United States that 

have been declared disaster areas not 

just because of drought, which is what 

the House has addressed partially, but 

because of weather disasters. That is 

1,584 counties across the country, 82 of 

them in Michigan. We have only one 

county in Michigan that has not been 

declared a disaster area. Eighty percent of the country is now experiencing 

abnormally dry, moderate, or extreme 

drought, 22 percent of the country is 

facing extreme doubt, and so on. 

As an emergency measure, USDA has 

opened 3.2 acres of conservation land 

for grazing and haying, but we know 

there is a lot more to be done. That is 

what I want to speak about because 

when we look at this, all the disasters—and we understand we have to address drought. We have to address what 

is happening to livestock. I am very 

proud of what we have done in the Senate, what we passed, which is a stronger Livestock Disaster Assistance Program. It is permanent—not just for a 

couple of months, it is permanent. But 

we also understood that there are other 

kinds of disasters. For those fruit 

growers and cherry growers in Michigan who have no access to crop insurance—it is not available to them—we 

made sure there was support for them. 

For apple growers, for sweet cherries, 

for juice grapes, for others across the 

country, we have put in place provisions in the Senate bill. 

Frankly, I believe we need to do more 

and can do more as we look at how this 

has developed. We need to have the 

next few weeks to fully look at all that 

has happened, whether it is livestock 

in the drought, whether it is wildfires, 

whether it is what is happening to fruit 

growers, and put together a comprehensive effort in the context of 

passing a 5-year farm bill. 

But when we look at all this, these 

are the disaster areas, but most of 

Michigan is not helped by what the 

House is doing because it does not include the efforts to help those who currently do not have crop insurance, the 

fruit growers. Michigan is not helped. 

The Northeast, again, with fruit, or 

Florida with fruit, or out West, whether it is California or Oregon or in this 

whole area—not helped by what the 

House is doing. I appreciate the first 

step, and I certainly understand that 

the agriculture leadership in the House 

is trying to do whatever they can to 

take a step, and I commend them for 

that. But it does not cover this. It covers a good share, but it does not cover 

every kind of disaster we have before 

us. And frankly, it doesn’t cover disasters waiting to happen because of inaction on a 5-year farm bill. 

Let me go through the differences 

right now between what the House and 

the Senate have done. We passed a 

comprehensive 5-year farm bill as well 

as a comprehensive disaster assistance 

bill. I will underscore again that I believe that after looking through the 

next few weeks and looking at everything that has happened, we ought to 

be looking at what else we can do—not 

less, as the House did, but potentially 

more. 

Both the House and the Senate have 

extended the livestock disaster program to 2012. We extend it permanently. 

On tree assistance, if you lose the entire tree in an orchard, you are 

helped—not if you just lose the food, 

like most of our growers, but the entire 

tree. These things are the same, so we 

have sort of disaster-lite up here. 

Then, in the Senate bill, we increase 

payments for livestock producers facing severe drought, so we actually have 

a stronger payment system and safety 

net for our livestock producers. 

As I said before, we help fruit growers impacted by frost and freeze. We 

create new crop insurance options so 

that, going forward, we don’t have to 

be back here every year because we 

strengthen crop insurance and create 

opportunities for fruit growers who do 

not have insurance now to be able to 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5945 

have crop insurance—which, by the 

way, producers pay into, and there is 

no payout unless you have a loss. 

We also address urgently needed 

dairy reforms to save dairies from 

bankruptcy. In 2009, under the current 

dairy policy, we lost farms across the 

country. If we do not act in a 5-year 

farm bill, in the area of dairy, of milk 

producers, it is a disaster waiting to 

happen. So we need to have a comprehensive farm bill that deals with 

dairy reforms because that is part of 

avoiding the next disaster. 

There is permanent funding, as I 

said, for livestock disaster assistance 

and conservation efforts to prevent another dust bowl. One of the reasons we 

don’t have a dust Bowl in many areas 

where the drought has been horrible, 

just horrible, is because of conservation efforts that we put in place that 

have worked. We need to strengthen 

those. 

We give the Forest Service tools to 

protect and improve forest health and 

deal with another disaster not dealt 

with here, which is forest fires all 

across the country. 

We improve crop insurance to protect 

against disasters, and finally, we provide farmers and ranchers with longterm certainty. They want to know 

going forward not only what help they 

will receive this year—and they need 

it, and we will make sure that happens—but they want to make sure 

going forward that they have longterm certainty. 

I appreciate in my own home State 

that the commodity growers are very 

concerned—strongly supportive of the 

Senate bill, want to support the Senate 

disaster assistance efforts. In fact, the 

Michigan Farm Bureau came out today 

opposing what the House is doing because, from a Michigan perspective, it 

just doesn’t cut it. It is just not 

enough. 

We have gone through efforts that, in 

fact, will allow us to solve the problem 

long term and to also address the short 

term. What we need, after hearing from 

farmers and ranchers across the country, is a bipartisan farm bill that gives 

producers long-term certainty so they 

can make business decisions without 

worrying about risk-management provisions that are going to expire on September 30—which, by the way, is just 58 

days away. 

I would like all my colleagues to 

know that we have really a dual strategy right now, knowing how important 

this issue is all across the country to 

rural America and really to everybody—everybody who eats. I think that 

is everybody. We all have a stake in 

having a strong agricultural policy, nutrition policy, conservation policy that 

maintains our position as the world 

leader in access to safe, affordable 

food. With or without official conferees 

and so on, it is our intent to have conversations to see if we might come together on something that would bridge 

the differences between House and Senate agricultural perspectives. 

We know there are things we need to 

work on together. We are proud of the 

fact that we passed a farm bill on a 

strong bipartisan basis, but we understand we need to work with our colleagues and listen. It is our goal to do 

one of two things: to either have the 

opportunity to come together in September and offer something that would 

be a compromise with the House and 

the Senate that we could offer and look 

for an opportunity to pass—that is the 

best thing. It includes comprehensive 

disaster assistance as part of that. 

That is far and away what we are hearing from farm country and what we are 

hearing from those across the country 

whose livelihood depends on agricultural production in the food economy. 

If for some reason we are not able to 

succeed, we need to assess all of what 

has to happen in the next 4 weeks and 

come back together and do what we 

need to do in September to pass a very 

strong, comprehensive disaster assistance program—not just for livestock, 

as important as that is, but for all of 

our communities in every State where 

there has, in fact, been a disaster. 

We will work with colleagues. We 

will be offering a bipartisan effort. I 

am extremely hopeful that we can 

come together around what really 

needs to get done, which is a 5-year 

farm bill. If not, we certainly will 

make sure that in September we have 

the opportunity to work together. 

As I close, let me just indicate the 

reason—what happens if we do not do 

the whole farm bill. We lose deficit reduction. The only thing we voted on in 

a bipartisan way with deficit reduction, we passed here together. I see colleagues of mine who played a tremendous role in this. The former head of 

the Department of Agriculture, the 

Secretary of Agriculture from Nebraska, the distinguished Senator from 

South Dakota—North Dakota—we did 

this on a bipartisan basis, $23 billion 

deficit reduction. We repealed subsidies 

that we all agreed from a taxpayers 

perspective we should not be doing 

anymore. We made some difficult decisions on that. We want to make sure 

we support farmers for what they grow 

but not give a payment for what they 

don’t grow. And the number of reforms 

we did around payment limits and 

other things, including going through 

every part of this bill and doing what 

everybody says we ought to do, some of 

which is look for duplication, what 

doesn’t work, what ought to be eliminated—and we actually eliminated 

more than 100 programs and authorizations. 

If we don’t do a real farm bill, all of 

this goes away. I suppose you can say 

the folks who do not want reform 

would be trying to stop us from passing 

a 5-year farm bill—certainly the Senate bill—people who do not want reform, people who would like to keep 

status quo and would like to continue 

with a system that has not worked for 

many growers and ranchers. We in the 

Senate have come together, and we 

think that is not the right way to go. 

I am committed to working with my 

colleague, the ranking member from 

Kansas, who I know cares deeply as 

well about what is happening to livestock producers in his State. We have 

talked. I know how committed he is to 

making sure we have the right help to 

be able to support them. We are committed to doing that. But let’s not do 

half a disaster assistance bill. Let’s not 

do something short term that is less 

than what producers across the country are counting on us to do. They have 

sent a loud message. They want us to 

get it done. There is no reason we cannot. We did it here in the Senate. I believe that if we work in good faith, if 

we listen to each other, if we trust 

each other, we can get the whole thing 

done in September and have, really, 

something to celebrate and to offer to 

all of those in rural America, all of 

those who count on us, every one of the 

16 million people who have a job because of agriculture and our food industry. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. My 

colleague from North Dakota has been 

extremely patient, and I am very much 

appreciative of his willingness to allow 

me to speak. 

Mr. HOEVEN. I thank the Senator 

from Michigan, and actually I am 

going to yield to the good Senator from 

South Dakota. I know he has a commitment. He will be brief, so I yield to 

my colleague from South Dakota. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota. 

EUROPEAN UNION EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME

PROHIBITION ACT

Mr. THUNE. I know it is very confusing, and I thank my colleague from 

North Dakota for yielding to his colleague from the South. 

I hoped to come down and to ask 

unanimous consent to pass S. 1956 with 

a committee-reported amendment. My 

understanding is there is an objection 

on the other side. I am disappointed 

about that. I had hoped we would be 

able to get unanimous consent today to 

pass what is a very bipartisan bill. It is 

the European Union Emissions Trading 

Scheme Prohibition Act. It is a bill 

that passed by voice vote earlier this 

week from the Commerce Committee, 

and a similar measure was passed earlier this year in the House of Representatives by a voice vote. The aviation industry, the administration, consumers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, just about everyone believes 

that the EU must be reined in and it 

must happen quickly. 

In fact, just this week at the Commerce Committee markup Senator 

BOXER, who is the chairwoman of the 

Environmental and Public Works Committee, and also a member of the Commerce Committee, said, referring to 

my bill: 

I think moving it fast is critical because I 

think it will send a message to the international organization we are trying to nudge 

forward and know this is the way this is 

going to be dealt with. 

I could not agree more. In 2005, the 

European Union began their emissions 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
S5946 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE August 2, 2012 

trading scheme which attempts to cap 

emissions of carbon dioxide from stationary sources within the European 

Union. Starting in 2012, in January of 

this year, aviation operators departing 

from or landing in Europe began to be 

included in this emissions scheme. 

Under this program, any airline, including non-European airlines, flying 

into and out of Europe will be required 

to pay for EU emissions allowances. Allowances will be collected for the entirety of the flight including portions 

in U.S. and international airspace. 

This is a great example of this unfair 

application that is happening right 

now. We have Olympic athletes flying 

to and from the London games by air. 

One such Olympian is from my home 

State of South Dakota, Paige McPherson, and she is competing in 

Taekwondo next week. She arrived in 

London last week and the final leg 

took her from Newark Airport to 

Heathrow Airport. During this flight, 

approximately 555 miles of the 3,500 

miles flown, or 16 percent, was actually 

in EU airspace, but her flight was 

taxed as if 100 percent of it was in EU 

airspace. Obviously, this unilateral imposition of the EU ETS on U.S. aviation operators is arbitrary, unfair, and 

a clear violation of international law. 

Plus it is being done without any guarantee for environmental improvements 

and at a huge cost to the aviation industry and constituents we serve. 

Let me be clear that no one in Congress is against the EU implementing 

this European trading scheme within 

their boundaries. That is obviously 

their prerogative; that is their jurisdiction. However, I believe any system 

that includes international and other 

non-EU airspace must be addressed 

through the International Civil Aviation Organization, known as ICAO, of 

which the United States and 190 countries, including all of the EU member 

states, are members. That is why I introduced this simple bipartisan bill. It 

gives the Secretary of Transportation 

the authority to take the necessary 

steps to ensure America’s aviation operators are not penalized by any system unilaterally imposed by the European Union. 

The bill also requires the Secretary 

of Transportation, the Administrator 

of the FAA, and other senior U.S. officials to use their authority to conduct 

international negotiations and take 

other actions necessary to ensure that 

U.S. operators are held harmless from 

the actions of the European Union. 

It is time for the Senate to join the 

House of Representatives and the administration in voicing our strong opposition to application of the European 

Union’s emission trading scheme system to American operators. I am sorry 

that it couldn’t be done today because, 

as I said, this was unanimously reported out of the Commerce Committee earlier this week. We have 

broad bipartisan support. Democrats 

and Republicans agree this is an issue 

that needs to be addressed. 

Frankly, it is one that I think could 

be addressed in a very timely way. The 

longer we wait, the longer we have 

American air carriers and therefore 

American travelers paying into a system where is no guarantee it is going 

to be used for any kind of environmental improvements in Europe. It is, 

in effect, a tax on American travelers 

that would fund European governments. If we want to put it in a crass 

way, we could say that the American 

public is being taxed to bail out European nations. That is as simply as I can 

put this. It is a violation of international law; it is a violation of American sovereignty. It is unfair, unjust, 

and an illegal tax. It needs to be 

stopped. This legislation would allow 

that to happen. 

It is unfortunate that we have an objection on the other side to prevent 

that from happening tonight. I intend 

to work with my colleagues to get a 

vote on this when we return in September. 

I want to thank my colleague from 

North Dakota for his graciousness in 

allowing me to make that statement. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, does the 

Senator from North Dakota have the 

floor? 

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise on 

another issue, but I yield at least temporarily to see what the good Senator 

from Missouri has to say. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri. 

AGRICULTURE DISASTER

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I am concerned that we are going to go home 

without an agriculture disaster bill 

farm families can rely on. This disaster 

is real. The disaster programs for livestock ran out a year ago, September 30 

of last year. We have a chance to do 

something about that, and I wish to see 

us do something about that. 

The idea that we would decide we 

could put this off another month, that 

we can put those families in jeopardy 

for another month not knowing what 

their solution seems to me is totally 

unacceptable. 

I will yield the floor to my friend 

from North Dakota, but I intend to do 

everything that I can to see we solve 

this problem with a real solution, not 

just another Washington excuse as to 

why we can’t do what needs to be done. 

The Agriculture industry is a key 

economic driver for our country, supporting approximately 16 million jobs 

nationwide. The families that own and 

run these farms and ranches represent 

less than 2 percent of America’s population, but they raise enough food and 

fiber to feed the nation. These producers have been greatly impacted by 

the worst and widest reaching drought 

to grip the United States in decades, 

which continues to get worse with no 

signs of slowing down as we head into 

one of the warmest months of the year. 

On Wednesday the USDA added 218 

counties from 12 drought-stricken 

States to its list of natural disaster 

areas—bringing the overall total to 

1,584 counties in 32 States. That’s more 

than half of all U.S. counties. As of the 

end of last month, the entire State of 

Missouri was designated a State of severe to exceptional drought—the worst 

level of drought possible. 

For a State like Missouri, which is 

heavily reliant on agriculture revenue, 

this drought has been devastating. Missouri has more than 100,000 individual 

farms—the second highest number of 

farms of any state in the nation. Missouri also ranks No. 2 in the Nation in 

cow calf operations. 

Nationwide, 48 percent of our corn 

crop is now in poor to very poor condition, compared to 45 percent one week 

ago. Last year, only 14 percent was 

poor to very poor, while 62 percent was 

rated good to excellent. Among the 

hardest hit States, Missouri tops this 

list with 83 percent of our corn crop 

rated at poor to very poor. Based off 

the most recent data, approximately 73 

percent of the domestic cattle inventory in the country is within an area 

experiencing drought. Meanwhile, 57 

percent of American pasture and rangeland is in poor to very poor condition 

this week, compared to 55 percent last 

week and 36 percent a year ago. 

I have talked to many livestock producers who are being forced to decide 

whether to continue to feed their livestock or whether to liquidate otherwise 

productive livestock and dairy herds. 

For the few that have been able to put 

up hay, they are already taking it back 

out of the barn to feed—well before the 

normal feeding time in the winter 

months. A dairy producer and good 

friend of mine, Larry Purdom, said just 

the other day: ‘‘Some are just giving 

up. Yesterday I saw three dairy herds 

sell out at the Springfield livestock 

auction and two more herds were ready 

to go. I think we could lose up to a 

third of our dairy cow numbers in Missouri.’’ 

Undoubtedly, the best solution to assist our farmers and ranchers would be 

for Congress to pass a long term farm 

bill that includes funding for these disaster programs. I voted for the Senate 

farm bill, and I still believe we need a 

long-term bill to provide certainty to 

our producers. Many of these disaster 

programs have lapsed, leaving American producers with very few options to 

make it through this drought. While 

USDA has granted a primary disaster 

designation to every county in Missouri, qualifying them for emergency 

loan—this only gets our producers so 

far. It’s time we step up and take further action. We have an obligation to 

our nation’s producers to act immediately. 

The House has passed and sent us a 

targeted disaster aid bill. This bill is 

fully offset, and it immediately helps 

those farmers and ranchers who are 

facing the worst drought in decades. 

But instead of moving forward and providing our producers with the assistance they need, the majority has decided to play politics with drought relief. 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5947 

Now, the Democrats want to send the 

House the same bill that has already 

passed Senate, with no immediate disaster assistance attached. As we head 

into the August work period with no 

sign of relief in sight, it is unacceptable for the Majority to stand in the 

way of helping our producers. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota. 

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I wish 

to thank my esteemed colleague, the 

Senator from Missouri. I appreciate 

working with him on many issues, including agriculture, and I share his 

concern. 

I have been on the floor of the Senate 

this week and past weeks, expressing 

my desire to pass a farm bill, including 

agriculture assistance. I believe we can 

do that. We passed a farm bill here in 

the Senate. The Agriculture Committee has come forward with a product. We absolutely need to come together, House and Senate, on the farm 

bill for the good of our farmers and 

ranchers, including drought assistance 

and for the good of the country. 

(The remarks of Mr. HOEVEN pertaining to the introduction of S. 3512 

are printed in today’s RECORD under 

‘‘Statements on Introduced Bills and 

Joint Resolutions.’’) 

Mr. HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. President. I note the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

TERRORIST DETAINMENT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it was 

reported today that Iraq has denied the 

request of the United States to extradite senior Hezbollah field commander 

and confessed terrorist Ali Mussa 

Daqduq, who was recently ordered released by the Iraqi court after our government turned him over to Iraqi custody when our troops left the country. 

The administration had years to 

transfer Daqduq to our detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, but because 

the President seemed to lack the political will to do so—I think because of 

campaign promises he improvidently 

made—one of the most dangerous, reprehensible terrorists ever in our custody will likely be allowed to go free. 

We should never have been in this position. 

I and others saw this coming and we 

pleaded with the administration not to 

allow it to happen. Sadly, our warnings 

fell on deaf ears and, sadly, we were 

proven correct. Daqduq is responsible 

for the torture and murder of five 

American servicemen in Karbala, Iraq, 

including PVT Jonathan Millican of 

Locust Fork, AL, who was posthumously awarded the Silver Star for 

gallantry in action as he attempted to 

protect his comrades from Daqduq’s 

terrorist actions outside the rules of 

war. Daqduq and his followers wore 

American uniforms—an action that he 

directed. His actions were clearly 

against the laws of war and he can be 

held not only as a prisoner of war but 

as a violator of the rules of war and 

can be tried and should have been tried 

before an American military commission. 

When U.S. forces captured Daqduq, 

then the most senior Hezbollah figure 

in U.S. custody, he provided detailed 

testimony about the support and training provided by Iran to Iraqi insurgents 

and admitted to violating the laws of 

war. He is not a criminal defendant. He 

is not a member of an organized crime 

syndicate or some drug dealer. He is a 

confessed terrorist who committed 

atrocities against American soldiers 

during a war duly authorized by Congress. That makes him an unlawful 

enemy combatant who may be detained 

until the conclusion of the war or subjected to trial by a military commission. He could be imprisoned for up to 

life or he could be executed. 

Once the military determined he was 

no longer of use for intelligence purposes when he was in Iraq, he should 

have been brought to Guantanamo 

Bay. That was the perfect place for him 

to be detained. This should have been 

an open-and-shut case. But President 

Obama and Attorney General Holder 

have obstinately clung to the failed 

law enforcement approach to counterterrorism. They just have. It has been 

a dispute all the way through the campaign and since they took office. They 

believe in treating foreign enemy combatants as normal criminal defendants 

entitled to U.S. constitutional protections and civilian trials. This is contrary to history and contrary to the 

laws of war. It is contrary to our treaty 

obligations. Other nations don’t do 

this. 

The problem began when, upon taking office, the President decided to ban 

any new additions to the prisoner population at Guantanamo Bay. We remember that. He didn’t like Guantanamo Bay. He thought that was some 

bad place. So if he transferred Daqduq, 

or anyone else, for that matter, to 

Gitmo, he would anger certain of his 

supporters and violate some of his improvident campaign promises, one of 

which was to the effect that Gitmo was 

a cause of terrorism, not a way to prevent terrorism and prevent terrorists 

from murdering innocent civilians and 

attacking our military. 

So when the report surfaced that the 

administration planned to transfer 

Daqduq to the United States for a civilian trial—that was the first report, 

that he would be brought here for a civilian trial—my colleagues and I wrote 

to the Attorney General urging him to 

reconsider and try him before a military commission. For a time, the Attorney General appeared to have relented. But a few months later, it was 

reported that instead of transferring 

him to Gitmo, the administration decided to release Daqduq to Iraqi custody. 

This time, we wrote to Secretary of 

Defense Panetta asking him to reconsider that decision. We warned that the 

Iraqi Government previously had released terrorists who later returned to 

the battlefield to kill American servicemen. Yet as the deadline for the 

United States withdrawal from Iraq approached, it became clear the President had no intention of removing 

Daqduq from Iraq. 

The President then struck a deal 

with Prime Minister al-Maliki to 

charge Daqduq before an Iraqi criminal 

court for his acts of terrorism, forgery, 

and illegal entry, and other offenses. 

Now the Iraqi court has had a trial 

and ordered him released, in spite of 

the volume of evidence turned over by 

the United States to be used in the 

trial, including his uncoerced confessions detailing his role in training the 

insurgents and his role in the Karbala 

massacre that I referred to. It appears 

that it is only a matter of time before 

he will now be set free. 

Recent press reports indicate that 

the Iraqi authorities are trying to find 

a way to release Daqduq without angering the White House or embarrassing the President ahead of the election. Well, no one should be surprised 

that Iraq will not turn him over. We 

were concerned from the beginning 

that this would happen. 

The administration knew well before 

it handed over Daqduq that its decision 

was an abdication of its responsibility 

to prosecute a terrorist for war crimes 

against American soldiers—the murder 

of American soldiers. The administration knew if the Iraqi courts failed to 

bring him to justice, we may never get 

a second chance. That was known. And 

they knew that Iraq would not agree to 

an extradition request. That has been 

their policy. So the fact of the matter 

is we wouldn’t be in this position if we 

had prosecuted Daqduq when we had 

the opportunity. But now, not only is 

justice perverted, but he could be returned to the battlefield to kill more 

Americans, Iraqis, and others. 

Unfortunately, Daqduq was not the 

first, nor will he be the last, example of 

this administration’s unwillingness to 

confront dangerous terrorists effectively and to process them effectively. 

In July of 2009, Senator JON KYL and 

I wrote President Obama urging him to 

adhere to this Nation’s longstanding 

policy of not negotiating with terrorists and not to release the Khazali 

brothers—two of the top Iraqi terrorists trained by Daqduq who were 

complicit in the Karbala massacre in 

2009; but they went forward—in exchange for the release of British hostages held by the terrorist organization 

called the League of the Righteous. 

President Obama authorized the 

Khazalis’ release as part of what the 

Iraqi Government called its ‘‘reconciliation efforts’’ with insurgent groups. 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
S5948 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE August 2, 2012 

But in reality, this release was a thinly 

veiled ploy to use Iraq as a middleman 

in a terrorist-for-hostage exchange in 

direct violation of President Reagan’s 

policy not to negotiate with terrorists. 

In fact, there was an Executive order 

he issued to that effect. 

When Iraq released the Khazalis to 

the League of the Righteous, the terrorist group responded by releasing five 

British hostages, but, sadly, four of 

them had already been executed. Qais 

Khazali immediately, upon his release, 

resumed his position as leader of the 

terrorist group and orchestrated the 

kidnapping of a U.S. civilian contractor in Baghdad less than a month 

after his release, and Abdul Reza 

Shahlai, an Iranian Quds Force officer 

now in Iraq—the Quds Force is one of 

the most loyal and vicious parts of the 

Iranian regime—helped Khazali and 

Daqduq plan the Karbala massacre and 

helped coordinate the attempt to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador 

to the United States on U.S. soil. Do 

you remember that? That is the same 

guy. 

Despite this alarming track record 

and the obvious lessons to be learned 

from its previous mistakes, the administration recently insisted on engaging 

in negotiations with the Taliban to release five terrorist detainees from 

Guantanamo Bay—detainees who were 

categorized previously as ‘‘too dangerous to transfer’’ by the administration’s own Guantanamo Review Task 

Force—and they were to be released in 

exchange for the Taliban’s promise in 

Afghanistan to ‘‘begin’’ talks with the 

Afghan Government. 

Negotiating, I suggest, with terrorists is not a profitable enterprise, and 

in effect that is what that was. Three 

of the five have ties to al-Qaida. Another met with Iranian officials on behalf of the Taliban immediately following 9/11 to discuss Iran’s offer of 

weapons and support to attack U.S. 

forces in Afghanistan. Another detainee then under consideration, Mohammad Fazl, is a close friend of the 

supreme Taliban commander, Mullah 

Omar, who is accused of killing thousands of Afghan Shiites, and who was 

responsible for the prison revolt that 

claimed the life of CIA Officer Johnny 

Michael Spann, the first American 

killed in Afghanistan and, incidentally, 

another brave Alabamian. 

As time has passed, it has become 

clear that the policy of not negotiating 

with terrorists is sound and essential, 

and the administration’s actions in 

violation of that policy have failed and 

they are dangerous. 

Indeed, the administration’s failed 

terrorist detention policies appear to 

have led to a policy that favors killing 

rather than capture and interrogation 

of enemy combatants. It is an odd 

event, but it does appear to have some 

truth to it. 

So today we face a situation in Afghanistan that is similar to that which 

we faced in Iraq in 2009. Parwan Prison 

currently houses roughly 2,000 to 3,000 

individuals, including high-value detainees. 

In August 2011, the Washington 

Post—last August—reported: 

U.S. officials say that giving Afghans control over the fates of suspected insurgents 

would allow dangerous Taliban fighters to 

slip through the cracks of an undeveloped 

legal system. 

I will tell you what that means. It 

means they will not be able to keep 

them in those jails. History shows 

that. They will get their way out of 

there—through violence, through bribery, through threats, or some other 

mechanism, and that is what is continuing to happen. It is a big concern of 

the military. As a Federal prosecutor, 

who observed this particular issue over 

the years in Iraq and Afghanistan, it 

has been a source of concern to me. 

In March of this year, the administration agreed to a gradual transfer of 

control of the prison to the Afghan 

Government over a period of 6 months, 

with the United States holding veto 

power over the release of certain prisoners. However, the Washington Post 

reported in May—just May of this 

year—that the administration has been 

secretly releasing high-value detainees 

held in Afghanistan in exchange for 

certain ‘‘promises of support’’ from 

leaders of insurgent groups. 

Now, how long do you think that will 

last? Once we release the prisoner, they 

are out, but the promises by some 

Taliban or some terrorists are not 

going to be honored. Not only do some 

of these prisoners have ties to Iran or 

al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations that continue to attack our 

troops, but their release is not even 

conditioned on them severing their 

contact with the insurgent groups. 

According to the Washington Post, 

the administration has approved these 

releases in part because they do not require congressional approval. That is 

what they report. It also has been reported that the administration is attempting to repatriate some of the 50 

most dangerous militants over which 

the United States currently retains 

custody to Pakistan and other Arab 

countries—this in the face of reports 

from the Director of National Intelligence that nearly 28 percent of former 

Gitmo detainees are either confirmed 

or suspected to have returned to the 

battlefield to attack America and our 

allies. That is 28 percent. How many 

are doing so and we have not yet proven that they have been in the game? I 

suspect many more than that 28 percent. 

So the question inevitably arises: 

When American detention operations 

in Afghanistan come to an end, where 

will the administration take those 50 

or so dangerous prisoners, assuming it 

has not already negotiated with other 

insurgent groups for their release? If 

they are not going to release them, 

what are they going to do with them? 

Once again, the administration has 

kicked the can down the road, just as 

it did in Iraq, which eventually culminated in the Daqduq mess. 

The country cannot afford to continue down this dangerous path, especially in light of the impending withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan 

and the administration’s agreement to 

transfer detainees in U.S. custody to 

the Kabul Government. The same unacceptable result will surely occur. 

The President is the Commander in 

Chief. He has serious responsibilities, 

and one is to defend the honor, the dignity, and the credibility of the United 

States. I do not believe we are doing so 

when we are dealing with terrorists 

who double-cross us at every turn. He 

has a duty to those magnificent troops 

who have answered his call to go into 

harm’s way to execute U.S. policy. 

Part of that duty is not to give away 

what they have fought and bled for, not 

to give it away after they fought and 

bled for it, and captured these people. 

That includes not giving up prisoners 

whom these soldiers, at great risk and 

effort, have captured—terrorists who 

seek to destroy what we have, terrorists we have worked so hard to capture, 

terrorists who may return to kill more 

Americans and more Afghans. 

This policy cannot be defended. It 

has to end. So I urge the President and 

his team to act forcefully now. It may 

not be too late. With strong action we 

may be able to ensure that Daqduq is 

not released, that he is able to be tried 

for the murders he committed and the 

American soldiers he killed. 

I thank the Presiding Officer and 

suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

BEGICH). Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent to speak as in 

morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

GEORGIA PEANUT COMMISSION ANNIVERSARY

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I 

rise to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Georgia Peanut Commission. In 1961, Georgia peanut farmers 

came together to form a commission 

that would promote their industry, 

perform research, educate the community, and conduct outreach around the 

State. Thus, the Georgia Peanut Commission was born. 

We have come a long ways since 1961. 

As we celebrate this 50th anniversary, 

it is important to note that Georgia 

peanut farmers in 1961 harvested 475,000 

acres of peanuts with an average yield 

of 1,200 pounds per acre. But thanks to 

the evolution of technology and techniques and the hard work and the innovation of Georgia’s peanut farmers, 

farmers in 2011 in Georgia harvested 

the same amount of land with a yield 

of more than 3,500 pounds per acre. 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
August 2, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5949 

Agricultural producers face a combination of challenges, including unpredictable weather and market volatility that determine profit or loss in 

any given year. Through the Georgia 

Peanut Commission, Georgia peanut 

farmers have persevered through the 

hardships. Georgia leads the Nation in 

peanut production, producing nearly 50 

percent of our Nation’s annual crop. 

Anyone who has ever stopped by a 

congressional office on Capitol Hill and 

taste-tested the complimentary peanuts we offer can thank the Georgia 

Peanut Commission. Those little red 

bags are recognized by hungry constituents and staffers alike as a symbol 

of Georgia agriculture. 

Annually, the commission distributes 

2 million of those little red bags. The 

peanut industry is vital to Georgia’s 

economy, contributing some $2 billion 

annually, and creating nearly 50,000 

jobs across the sector. In the past 50 

years, peanut farmers with the help of 

the commission have reduced production costs through research and have 

worked to stimulate and increase consumption. 

Last year, the Georgia Peanut Commission broke ground at the site for its 

new headquarters in Tifton, GA, which 

will be the first net-zero energy building affiliated with State government in 

Georgia. There are many changes happening in rural America. The facade of 

these rural towns may look different 

year after year, but the challenges confronting our small towns and communities have not changed. The Georgia 

Peanut Commission has been critical 

to the foundation of not just rural 

Georgia but our entire State’s economy. 

I am proud to recognize the work the 

Georgia Peanut Commission has done 

for our State and congratulations to 

them on their 50th anniversary. 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST—H.R. 6079

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, earlier this week, the majority leader and 

a number of his colleagues took to the 

floor to defend the President’s health 

care law and to tout provisions they 

believed to be popular with the public. 

What they didn’t do was allow a vote 

on the entirety of the bill, which 

proves to be even more of a disaster 

with each passing day and which the 

majority of Americans continue to vigorously oppose. 

Put another way, Senate Democrats 

spent nearly an entire day talking 

about parts—parts—of ObamaCare that 

polled well but refused to spend 15 minutes being caught on camera voting to 

uphold the entire law. What are they 

afraid of? Why will they not allow a 

vote? 

When the health care bill was working its way through Congress, you will 

recall, former Speaker of the House 

PELOSI famously said: We need to pass 

the bill to find out what is in it. Now 

that we have had some time to study 

its consequences, I can’t think of any 

reason why Senators wouldn’t want to 

stand and be counted with a vote on 

the floor either for or against repeal. 

Does ObamaCare get a passing grade 

or not? That is all I asked for on Tuesday, a vote to either reaffirm or repudiate the votes we all took on 

ObamaCare based on everything we 

know about it now that we didn’t know 

back then. 

It has been clear, in my view, that 

the Democratic health care law is making things worse and should be repealed 

in full. A week doesn’t seem to pass 

that we don’t learn about some problem this law creates or doesn’t solve. 

There is a headline in the Wall Street 

Journal today: ‘‘Small Firms See Pain 

in Health Law.’’ And just yesterday we 

learned it will increase Federal spending and subsidies on health care by $580 

billion, which means even after you 

count the more than $700 billion it 

takes out of Medicare, it still increases 

Federal health spending and subsidies 

by more than one-half of $1 trillion. 

So let’s have a vote. Let’s have a 

vote: Is ObamaCare making things better or worse? Let’s show the American 

people where we stand. It is what the 

American people want. It is a vote they 

deserve. 

When my friends on the other side 

are represented on the floor, I will ask 

consent for a vote that would follow 

the completion of cyber security, so I 

will defer on asking that consent until 

the majority leader or one of his representatives comes to the floor. 

Mr. President, I suggest the absence 

of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant bill clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I 

would say to my friend, the majority 

leader, I have already made some comments about why I will be propounding 

the consent agreement I now propound 

with him here on the floor. 

I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the disposition of the 

pending cyber security bill, but no 

later than September 28, the Senate 

proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 451, H.R. 6079, an act to repeal the President’s health care bill or 

the so-called ObamaCare; further, that 

there be 1 hour of debate on the bill, no 

amendments be in order to the measure, and following that debate the bill 

be read a third time and the Senate 

proceed to the vote on passage, with no 

intervening action or debate. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving 

the right to object, there is no other 

way to say this than my Republican 

friends are hopelessly stuck in the 

past. They continue to want to fight 

battles that are already over. 

At the beginning of this Congress, 

when we were trying to pass an air 

transportation bill, the Republican 

leader offered an amendment to repeal 

the Affordable Care Act. On February 2 

of last year, the Senate voted that 

amendment down. It was defeated. 

In March of this year, when we considered the highway jobs bill, Republicans insisted on voting on stopping 

women from getting contraceptive coverage—part of the Affordable Care Act. 

On March 1, the Senate voted that 

amendment down. 

Just this week, when we have been 

considering a bill to protect our country from cyber attack, the Republican 

leader gave notice that he wanted once 

again to offer an amendment to repeal 

the Affordable Care Act. Remember, 

the House has already voted 34 times to 

repeal the Affordable Care Act. I repeat, they are hopelessly stuck in the 

past. 

They are stuck in the past when before the Affordable Care Act, insurance 

companies didn’t have to pay for preventive care. They are stuck in the 

past when before the Affordable Care 

Act, there was a gap in coverage for 

seniors’ prescription drugs. That is the 

doughnut hole that we are filling. Republicans are stuck in the past when 

before the Affordable Care Act passed, 

insurance companies didn’t have to 

allow young adults up to age 26 to stay 

on their parents’ health insurance. 

I have spoken here at least a half a 

dozen times about my friend from 

Searchlight, NV, who, at 22 years old, 

went off his parents’ insurance. The 

time ran out. Within weeks, he was diagnosed with testicular cancer. It 

about broke his parents. He had no insurance and had two surgeries. That 

will not happen in the future. This 

young man was in college. That is what 

this is to protect. 

They are stuck in the past when before this act passed, insurance companies could deny coverage to people because of preexisting conditions. And, 

by the way, one of those conditions was 

being a woman; or diabetes; or if a 

woman had been a victim of domestic 

abuse. They are stuck in the past when 

insurance companies could charge 

women more than men. Republicans 

are stuck in the past when women 

didn’t have access to the services they 

need. They are stuck in the past when 

insurance companies could drop your 

coverage when you got sick or set some 

arbitrary limit on how much insurance 

would pay. 

I have talked about a man in Las 

Vegas who was badly injured, living a 

pretty decent life even though he was 

paralyzed—and suddenly he finds he 

has no insurance, which led him into 

an awful situation. 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE
S5950 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE August 2, 2012 

Republicans are stuck in the past 

when insurance companies could use 

premium dollars for bonuses for the 

bosses rather than health care. All 

around America this month there will 

be hundreds of thousands of people who 

will be getting a rebate because insurance companies weren’t spending 

enough money on them but, rather, on 

their own salaries. We set a limit: You 

have to spend 80 percent of a premium 

to help people get well. They are stuck 

in the past and they want to return to 

when insurance companies were king. 

They are hopelessly stuck in the past. 

But there was a vote that we should 

all focus on, on the Affordable Care 

Act. It was a 5–4 vote that upheld that 

bill. The Supreme Court of the United 

States did that. But I guess they didn’t 

get the news. The Supreme Court ruled 

the act is constitutional. It is the law 

of the land now. 

We need to move on. They need to 

catch up on the fact that people want 

us to work to create jobs, whether it is 

in Alaska, Nevada, Kentucky—any of 

the States. But they want us to vote on 

repealing the Affordable Care Act. 

On July 19, they blocked us from voting on a bill to prevent outsourcing 

jobs—which, by the way, their Presidential nominee is very good at doing. 

Now they want us to vote on repealing 

the Affordable Care Act. 

On July 12, they blocked passage of 

the small business jobs bill that would 

have helped small businesses all over 

this country. They wanted to vote on 

repealing the Affordable Care Act. 

But on March 29, they blocked a bill 

to promote renewable energy. 

On March 13, they blocked Senator 

STABENOW’s amendment to extend expiring energy tax credits. 

They wanted to vote on the Affordable Care Act, and they stopped us 

from proceeding to put workers back 

on the job building and modernizing 

America, and that was done on November 3. 

On October 20, they blocked the motion to proceed to a bill to keep teachers and first responders on the job. 

They so badly want to go back and 

fight these old battles that they 

blocked a motion to proceed to the 

American Jobs Act. 

They blocked us on a bill to reauthorize the Economic Development Administration, something that has been 

done as a matter of fact in the past, 

creating thousands of jobs in America. 

They wanted us to vote on repealing 

the Affordable Care Act. 

One day last year, after weeks of debate, they blocked the bill to improve 

small business innovation. That, by the 

way, is one of the programs that has 

done so many interesting things, including inventing the electric toothbrush. 

Republicans are hopelessly stuck in 

the past. They need to stop trying to 

repeal a law enacted 3 years ago. The 

Supreme Court has declared it constitutional. Let’s move on to try to get 

jobs for people. 

So I object. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest 

the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant bill clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 

quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I believe we 

are now on a motion to proceed to S. 

3457; is that correct? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is 

correct. 

CLOTURE MOTION

Mr. REID. I have a cloture motion at 

the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented 

under rule XXII, the Chair directs the 

clerk to read the motion. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

CLOTURE MOTION

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move 

to bring to a close debate on the motion to 

proceed to Calendar No. 476, S. 3457, a bill to 

require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 

establish a veterans jobs corps, and for other 

purposes. 

Harry Reid, John F. Kerry, Bernard 

Sanders, Kent Conrad, Al Franken, 

Tom Udall, Christopher A. Coons, Mark 

Begich, Patty Murray, Bill Nelson, 

Amy Klobuchar, Thomas R. Carper, 

Robert Menendez, Jim Webb, Kirsten 

E. Gillibrand, Jeff Merkley, Jack Reed. 

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent 

that the mandatory quorum under rule 

XXII be waived and that the vote with 

respect to this motion occur at 2:15 on 

Tuesday, September 11. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I 

would like to thank Chairman MURRAY

for her work on the Veterans Jobs 

Corps Act. 

The unemployment rate for our 

young, returning veterans is higher 

than that national average, and this is 

a travesty. This important bill would 

invest $1 billion in creating a Veterans 

Jobs Corps to help our veterans transition into civilian life and get job placements in important areas of law enforcement, first responders positions, 

or positions in parks and forests involving restoration and protection of 

our public lands. 

The bill makes other strategic investments to improve our infrastructure to help veterans with their job 

search. Veterans deserve access to 

Internet at one-stop job centers, as 

well as qualified outreach specialists to 

help disabled veterans seek employment. It is designed to help ensure that 

veterans get the credit they deserve for 

their training and military experiences 

when they seek civilian certification 

and licenses. 

I would also like thank Leader REID

and Chairman MURRAY and their staffs 

for working with me to find an acceptable offset for this legislation, which 

would have had an impact on the National Energy Technology Laboratory, 

NETL, located in West Virginia. NETL 

does critically important research on 

improving the safety and environmental sustainability of offshore oil 

and gas development and importantly 

for my State they are working on identifying measures that can be taken to 

reduce the environmental impact and 

improve the safety of shale gas production. I am pleased that we will be able 

to switch out the objectionable offset 

and move this bill forward quickly as 

soon as we return from recess. 

f 

MORNING BUSINESS 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed 

to a period of morning business, with 

Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 

minutes each. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

DISABILITIES CONVENTION 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Disabilities Convention enjoys strong bipartisan support in the Senate, with Senators McCAIN, DURBIN, KERRY, BARRASSO, COONS, TOM UDALL, MORAN, and 

HARKIN leading the charge to ratify the 

Convention. With their help, I hope we 

will be able to move this treaty forward in the future. 

Twenty-two years ago, Congress 

passed the Americans with Disabilities 

Act to lift the barriers Americans with 

disabilities faced in everyday life. And 

ever since the passage of that law, the 

United States has been a leader in expanding disability rights across the 

globe. 

We have led, other countries have followed, and persons with disabilities 

have found ever greater opportunities 

to succeed. Now we are presented with 

an opportunity to strengthen our leadership on disability rights around the 

world by joining the Convention on the 

Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 

This convention is another step towards ensuring that all people with a 

disability, in any country, are treated 

with dignity and given the right to 

achieve to their full potential. 

Let me read part of a recent statement to the Foreign Relations Committee from one of my esteemed predecessors, former Senate Majority Leader 

Bob Dole, recipient of two Purple 

Hearts and a Bronze Star for heroic 

achievement, who was wounded fighting for our country in World War II. 

U.S. ratification of the [Convention] will 

improve physical, technological and communication access outside the U.S., thereby 

helping to ensure that Americans—particularly, many thousands of disabled American 

veterans—have equal opportunities to live, 

work, and travel abroad. . . . An active U.S. 

presence in implementation of global disability rights will promote the market for 

devices such as wheelchairs, smart phones, 


bjneal on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with CONG-REC-ONLINE