`[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5941-S5950]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      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 Dodd-Frank 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

[[Page S5942]]

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 FERC-NERC 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-or-nothing 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.

[[Page 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, evidence-based 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 public-
private 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,

[[Page S5944]]

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

[[Page 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 long-term 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 long-term 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

[[Page S5946]]

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.

[[Page 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.

[[Page S5948]]

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.

[[Page 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.

[[Page S5950]]

  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.

                          ____________________`