Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator would yield for one moment, without losing his right to the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Before the Senators from New Hampshire and Maine leave the floor, I just want to commend them for their statements, for their conversation. It is so critically important we avoid sequester. The more Senators and the more Members of the House who look for ways on a bipartisan basis to avoid it, the better. We only have 2 weeks left to go. With the kind of energy and creativity that these two Senators bring to this body, it makes me a little bit more hopeful that we are going to be able to avoid this unbelievably bad outcome. So I just want to thank both Senators and thank my friend from Oklahoma for yielding for a moment.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, one-half century ago this month the residents of Portage Township made a significant and lasting decision. They voted in February 1963 to incorporate, becoming the city of Portage. This decision provided many opportunities for this nascent, vibrant community to grow, enabling city leaders and residents alike to chart a course for future prosperity. This milestone will be commemorated in a number of ways throughout the year, including at Portage's city council meeting last night. The city of Portage is a part of Michigan's rapidly evolving story. Historically, residents and community leaders relied on fertile farmland for agriculture production. In fact, in the late 1880s and early 1900s, this area was known as ``Celery City.'' Today, it is home to thriving businesses, welcoming neighborhoods and abundant natural beauty. The population of Portage has more than doubled in the past half century, and a number of new businesses, large and small, have helped to transform the city's economic base. As part of the celebration, Portage recently unveiled its new motto, ``A Natural Place to Move.'' It speaks to the city's continued commitment to preserving its many parks, lakes, and trails in a way that encourages residents to stay active and healthy. It is fitting that the celebrations planned this year include a mix of activities. A commemorative newsletter in February will highlight the city's rich history; a half-marathon and 5K road race later this month will showcase the city's extensive and impressive park system; volunteer opportunities spread throughout the year offer residents a number of ways to give back to their community; and a 50th anniversary concert this summer as part of the 2013 summer concert series will bring families and friends together to celebrate this important anniversary. The city of Portage and its residents have much to be proud of. Together, they have steadily moved forward. This year is a moment to pause and reflect on the past, and to ensure that the next 50 years continues to be marked by growth and progress.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, as a cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, I urge my colleagues to adopt this important measure. The issue before us is not partisan. It is not of importance to just one State or region, or to a single group or interest. It is manifestly in the interest of every American to reauthorize these important programs that have made such a difference in the lives of women and families across this country. Since its passage, the Violence Against Women Act has provided comprehensive support to survivors of domestic and sexual violence and to the Federal, State and local agencies that confront this scourge every day. The original legislation passed in 1994 laid a strong foundation that helped establish a coordinated response to violence against women. Reauthorizations in 2000 and 2005 strengthened that foundation. Today, through violence prevention grants, services to survivors of sexual assault, legal assistance, transitional housing grants, assistance to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors and other efforts, VAWA has made an enormous difference. Deaths due to violent acts by intimate partners have decreased significantly. And according to a cost-benefit analysis, VAWA saved nearly $15 billion in its first 6 years of existence by avoiding the high social costs violence against women exacts on our Nation. William T. Robinson, the president of the American Bar Association, calls VAWA ``the single most effective federal effort to respond to the epidemic of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in this country.'' I had hoped the Congress would act to reauthorize VAWA last year. There is no reason that today we cannot pass this legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support. Doing so will make an enormous difference in protecting women from domestic abuse and other forms of violence. And it will make a strong statement that the Senate is united in our desire to ensure that our mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters will continue to receive that protection. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend from Rhode Island, who has done good work in trying to increase revenues, to close some of the egregious loopholes which have allowed the draining of revenues to the Treasury. A few moments ago, the Senator made reference to the offshore tax havens as a way to avoid paying taxes. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal--I don't know if my friend saw this article--about pharmaceutical companies that were transferring intellectual property to Ireland to avoid paying taxes. There was an earnings call by the chairman or the CEO of the Gilead company. He was telling investors and stockholders that there is a significant reduction in their tax liability because they had transferred the intellectual property rights to a compound to deal with hepatitis C. He announced that the rights of the hepatitis C compound are now domiciled in Ireland. It is not that his company is domiciled in Ireland, it is that the intellectual property has been transferred to a company they own in Ireland. The intellectual property they used to own--it is still owned by them, of course, and is now a wholly owned subsidiary, but the hepatitis C compound is now domiciled in Ireland. So intellectual property is now shipped around the world to various domiciles. We have had hearings in our Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on the way in which tax revenue is lost to the Treasury and tax responsibility is avoided by these transfers of intellectual property to those wholly owned shell companies that perform no economic function except tax avoidance. We have to end it, and we can end it. If we do end it, it will provide a significant amount of revenues for our Treasury. Today, with Senator Whitehouse, I am introducing the Cut Unjustified Tax Loopholes Act, or CUT Loopholes Act, which is S. 268. This bill outlines what I believe is a crucial element to the solution to our fiscal problems. It would raise revenues to reduce our deficits and preserve critical programs by cutting loopholes in our Tax Code that allow multinational corporations and wealthy individuals to avoid paying their fair share of the tax burden. Now, we are just a few weeks away from sequestration, and the Presiding Officer has spoken very eloquently about what would happen if sequestration hits. This collection of mindless, across-the-board cuts is going to severely hurt our economy, it is going to undermine our national security, and it is going to threaten programs vital to seniors, children, middle-class families, workers, and businesses. These cuts, if they occur, will hurt every single American. I have said repeatedly for more than 2 years that any deficit reduction effort must pass the test of balance. Balanced deficit reduction requires three elements: cuts to discretionary spending, additional revenues, and entitlement reforms. As the Senator from Rhode Island has pointed out, we have enacted $2.4 trillion in deficit reductions. The vast majority of the deficit reduction achieved so far--more than $1.7 trillion--has come from spending cuts. So while further cuts may be necessary, we must renew our focus on the other two categories: additional revenues and entitlement reforms. The CUT Loopholes Act can help us produce the required revenue. According to estimates in the Joint Committee on Taxation, this legislation would yield at least $189 billion in deficit relief. I hope no Member of this body doubts the damage sequestration would do to our Nation and to our people. The Congressional Budget Office warned us just last month that the enactment of these cuts would likely reduce GDP growth by 1.25 percent. George Mason University economist Stephen Fuller has estimated that these cuts in this year alone would reduce GDP by $215 billion and cost the jobs of over 2 million American workers. Tomorrow the Armed Services Committee is going to meet to hear from Defense Department officials and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the potential effects of sequestration on our national security. Just last week, in his final appearance before our committee as Secretary of Defense, Secretary Panetta warned us of a ``readiness crisis'' that would impair our forces' ability to respond to crises. Sequestration will also prevent investments needed to protect us in emerging areas of concern, such as cyber security. It will threaten our ability to keep faith with the most important national security asset we possess: the men and women of our military and their families. Secretary Panetta has pointed out that sequestration's ills will not be limited to defense. In a speech last week, he said: It is not just defense, it's education, loss of teachers, it's child care . . . It's about health care, 700,000 women and children will no longer receive nutritional assistance. It's about food safety, it's about law enforcement, it's about airport safety. Today we are introducing the CUT Loopholes Act to protect those and other important priorities. Over the last 50 years, Federal revenues have averaged approximately 18 percent of GDP. Over that time, our budget has been balanced only a handful of years. Each of those years that had a balanced budget, revenues exceeded 19.5 percent of GDP, but in recent years revenues have fallen off to about 15 percent of GDP. One significant factor in our revenue shortfall is a massive plunge in the share of the stocks burden borne by corporations. Corporate tax revenue amounted to as much as 7 percent of GDP in the 1950s, 2.7 percent of GDP just 7 years ago, and in 2012 it amounted to just 1.2 percent of GDP. Corporations today pay an average tax rate--a real effective tax rate--of 12 percent. How is that possible when the statutory tax rate on corporations is 35 percent? Through loopholes in the Tax Code is how it is possible. One of the key abuses is when companies use these various gimmicks and tax loopholes to shift their assets offshore. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, has spent more than a decade investigating offshore tax loopholes. We have shown how companies such as Enron used offshore schemes to avoid billions of dollars in taxes. Just last year we showed how companies such as Microsoft and Hewlett Packard used tax rules to avoid taxes on billions of dollars in income. These gimmicks cost us that much income even on products developed in the United States and sold in the United States to U.S. customers. They often do this by transferring intellectual property rights and other intangible property developed in the United States to wholly owned subsidiaries and tax havens, thereby avoiding U.S. tax. How big is the problem? According to the Congressional Research Service, American multinationals in 2008 claimed to have earned profits in Bermuda amounting to 1,000 percent of Bermuda's GDP. Multinationals reported earning more than 40 percent of their offshore profits in five tax haven countries, despite the fact that just 4 percent of their overseas workforces and 7 percent of offshore investments were located in those five tax havens. The CUT Loopholes Act will end abuse of so-called ``transfer pricing'' agreements. It will allow companies to transfer revenue for products developed in the United States to tax haven countries. It would strengthen enforcement tools so our tax authorities can investigate and rectify tax avoidance offshore. It would end the taxpayer-funded subsidy to corporations for expenses in moving jobs and operating facilities overseas. It would stop corporations from manipulating rules on foreign tax credits to avoid taxes. It would end the ``check the box'' loophole that allows multinationals, by a stroke of a pen, to cloak offshore income from taxation. Here at home, the CUT Loopholes Act would eliminate a loophole that allows large corporations to exploit what is in effect a Federal subsidy that helps pay for the compensation awarded to their executives. When companies award stock options to their top executives, they are allowed under law to record that expense in two totally different ways--one for their books and one for tax purposes. They report one amount to their investors on their annual financial reports, but they can report a much larger expense--often orders of magnitude larger--to the IRS and claim a tax deduction for that much larger claimed expense. One company, Facebook, used this loophole as part of its initial public offering last year. Facebook will use this loophole to claim a $16 billion tax deduction. It would then seek a $\1/2\ billion tax refund for taxes paid in past years, and then avoid taxes for up to as many years into the future. That is just one company. The amount it showed in its books for that same cost for executive compensation was about 5 percent of what it told Uncle Sam the cost was, and then it was able to deduct a much larger cost--20 times as much of its income taxes. So this legislation would end that. By the way, that was just one company. This legislation would also end two Wall Street tax loopholes. It would end the derivatives blended rate loophole, which gives preferential tax treatment in the form of long-term capital gains rate for speculative trades in certain derivatives--derivatives sometimes bought and sold in fractions of a second. Now, we have to understand the amazing part of that is these derivatives that are sometimes sold in one-millionth of a second-- bought and sold in one-millionth of a second--are given long-term capital gains treatment. We can imagine the amount of money that is involved in that and the loss to the Treasury. Another loophole the CUT Loopholes Act would address is in the energy sector. Because of a three-decade-old IRS decision, oil produced from tar sands, as opposed to traditional oil extraction, is not subject to the tax that funds the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. If spilled into the environment, oil produced from tar sands is just as damaging as oil produced by other means, as residents along the Kalamazoo River in Michigan learned in 2010. Cleanup of that oil spill is still underway nearly 3 years later. Surely producers of oil from tar sands should help contribute to the costs of cleaning up these spills--ust like producers of other oil must do. The CUT Loopholes Act also would tighten rules that combat tax- shelter promoters, stiffen penalties on those who aid companies or individuals who seek to shirk their fair share of the tax burden, strengthen our ability to collect taxes from tax avoiders when we catch them, and modernize the IRS tax lien process. I know these issues can be complicated. But the American people are seeing through that complexity. Americans support these reforms not just because of the great fiscal challenges before us. People recognize that these loopholes are not fair. They are wrong in every sense that a policy can be wrong--wrong fiscally, wrong economically, wrong ethically. Even if one disagrees with the American people, and sees these egregious loopholes as somehow justified, how can one argue that preserving them is more important than avoiding the damage of sequestration? How are these loopholes more important than preventing a recession caused not by the ups and downs of the economic cycle or by the reckless behavior of financial speculators, but by sequestration? I offer these ideas in the genuine belief that they can help bridge the gap, and in the urgent belief that we cannot leave that gap unbridged. I urge my colleagues to adopt them for the good of the millions of Americans whose prospects will dim if we cannot reach agreement. I will close with this: There was a survey completed last month which shows that two-thirds of Americans believe corporations need to bear a larger share of the tax burden. Eight in ten say closing corporate tax loopholes should be an important priority for Congress. Seventy-three percent approves of efforts to stop corporations and individuals from avoiding taxes by shifting income offshore. So this is what the survey shows: Do you approve or disapprove of the following policies? Prevent corporations from avoiding taxes when they award executives millions in stock options: That is 73 percent. In terms of closing loopholes, allowing corporations or the wealthy to avoid U.S. taxes by shifting income overseas: That is 63 percent. By the way, that percentage applies across the board. Americans of all political persuasions agree with these points. Mr. President, 8 out of 10 Republicans--8 out of 10 Republicans--agree the amount of revenue which will be saved by ending these kinds of loopholes should go to either deficit reduction or to public investments, and only 11 percent believe the revenue should be used to reduce tax rates on corporations. So I think we have to act to avoid sequestration. Senator Whitehouse's bill is directly aimed at that. Our bill, if we can get this passed and get some of these loopholes closed, will clearly help to avoid sequestration. There is some overlap between the bills, but the point is the same. These loopholes are draining our Treasury. This is not like increasing tax rates, to say we ought to close these kinds of egregious loopholes. These loopholes shouldn't be there. If we had a surplus, we ought to close these loopholes. These loopholes have helped to shift the burden in this country to middle-income families from corporations, and these corporations that avoid these taxes, in many cases, are extremely profitable corporations. It is an absurdity that we allow money to be drained from our Treasury to go to these offshore tax havens where no or little taxes are paid. We can end it. We can end that kind of loophole. We can close it, and we can do a lot of good for our country, both in terms of avoiding sequestration in the short term, as well as to help reduce our deficits in the long term. I wish to thank Senator Whitehouse again for the leadership he has shown and continues to show in this area. Some of these issues are extremely complex. We know that. One of the reasons they are difficult to end is that these loopholes are very difficult to explain. So we just hope our colleagues will follow the instincts of the American people who know these tax havens are wrong. We should put them out of business in terms of their drain on the American Treasury, and we can do so. In fact, then-Senator Obama was a cosponsor of much of this legislation when he was in the Senate. So I am going to close here, but I will again thank the Senator from Rhode Island for the leadership he is showing for his bill, which I am proud to cosponsor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend from Rhode Island, who has done good work in trying to increase revenues, to close some of the egregious loopholes which have allowed the draining of revenues to the Treasury. A few moments ago, the Senator made reference to the offshore tax havens as a way to avoid paying taxes. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal--I don't know if my friend saw this article--about pharmaceutical companies that were transferring intellectual property to Ireland to avoid paying taxes. There was an earnings call by the chairman or the CEO of the Gilead company. He was telling investors and stockholders that there is a significant reduction in their tax liability because they had transferred the intellectual property rights to a compound to deal with hepatitis C. He announced that the rights of the hepatitis C compound are now domiciled in Ireland. It is not that his company is domiciled in Ireland, it is that the intellectual property has been transferred to a company they own in Ireland. The intellectual property they used to own--it is still owned by them, of course, and is now a wholly owned subsidiary, but the hepatitis C compound is now domiciled in Ireland. So intellectual property is now shipped around the world to various domiciles. We have had hearings in our Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on the way in which tax revenue is lost to the Treasury and tax responsibility is avoided by these transfers of intellectual property to those wholly owned shell companies that perform no economic function except tax avoidance. We have to end it, and we can end it. If we do end it, it will provide a significant amount of revenues for our Treasury. Today, with Senator Whitehouse, I am introducing the Cut Unjustified Tax Loopholes Act, or CUT Loopholes Act, which is S. 268. This bill outlines what I believe is a crucial element to the solution to our fiscal problems. It would raise revenues to reduce our deficits and preserve critical programs by cutting loopholes in our Tax Code that allow multinational corporations and wealthy individuals to avoid paying their fair share of the tax burden. Now, we are just a few weeks away from sequestration, and the Presiding Officer has spoken very eloquently about what would happen if sequestration hits. This collection of mindless, across-the-board cuts is going to severely hurt our economy, it is going to undermine our national security, and it is going to threaten programs vital to seniors, children, middle-class families, workers, and businesses. These cuts, if they occur, will hurt every single American. I have said repeatedly for more than 2 years that any deficit reduction effort must pass the test of balance. Balanced deficit reduction requires three elements: cuts to discretionary spending, additional revenues, and entitlement reforms. As the Senator from Rhode Island has pointed out, we have enacted $2.4 trillion in deficit reductions. The vast majority of the deficit reduction achieved so far--more than $1.7 trillion--has come from spending cuts. So while further cuts may be necessary, we must renew our focus on the other two categories: additional revenues and entitlement reforms. The CUT Loopholes Act can help us produce the required revenue. According to estimates in the Joint Committee on Taxation, this legislation would yield at least $189 billion in deficit relief. I hope no Member of this body doubts the damage sequestration would do to our Nation and to our people. The Congressional Budget Office warned us just last month that the enactment of these cuts would likely reduce GDP growth by 1.25 percent. George Mason University economist Stephen Fuller has estimated that these cuts in this year alone would reduce GDP by $215 billion and cost the jobs of over 2 million American workers. Tomorrow the Armed Services Committee is going to meet to hear from Defense Department officials and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the potential effects of sequestration on our national security. Just last week, in his final appearance before our committee as Secretary of Defense, Secretary Panetta warned us of a ``readiness crisis'' that would impair our forces' ability to respond to crises. Sequestration will also prevent investments needed to protect us in emerging areas of concern, such as cyber security. It will threaten our ability to keep faith with the most important national security asset we possess: the men and women of our military and their families. Secretary Panetta has pointed out that sequestration's ills will not be limited to defense. In a speech last week, he said: It is not just defense, it's education, loss of teachers, it's child care . . . It's about health care, 700,000 women and children will no longer receive nutritional assistance. It's about food safety, it's about law enforcement, it's about airport safety. Today we are introducing the CUT Loopholes Act to protect those and other important priorities. Over the last 50 years, Federal revenues have averaged approximately 18 percent of GDP. Over that time, our budget has been balanced only a handful of years. Each of those years that had a balanced budget, revenues exceeded 19.5 percent of GDP, but in recent years revenues have fallen off to about 15 percent of GDP. One significant factor in our revenue shortfall is a massive plunge in the share of the stocks burden borne by corporations. Corporate tax revenue amounted to as much as 7 percent of GDP in the 1950s, 2.7 percent of GDP just 7 years ago, and in 2012 it amounted to just 1.2 percent of GDP. Corporations today pay an average tax rate--a real effective tax rate--of 12 percent. How is that possible when the statutory tax rate on corporations is 35 percent? Through loopholes in the Tax Code is how it is possible. One of the key abuses is when companies use these various gimmicks and tax loopholes to shift their assets offshore. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, has spent more than a decade investigating offshore tax loopholes. We have shown how companies such as Enron used offshore schemes to avoid billions of dollars in taxes. Just last year we showed how companies such as Microsoft and Hewlett Packard used tax rules to avoid taxes on billions of dollars in income. These gimmicks cost us that much income even on products developed in the United States and sold in the United States to U.S. customers. They often do this by transferring intellectual property rights and other intangible property developed in the United States to wholly owned subsidiaries and tax havens, thereby avoiding U.S. tax. How big is the problem? According to the Congressional Research Service, American multinationals in 2008 claimed to have earned profits in Bermuda amounting to 1,000 percent of Bermuda's GDP. Multinationals reported earning more than 40 percent of their offshore profits in five tax haven countries, despite the fact that just 4 percent of their overseas workforces and 7 percent of offshore investments were located in those five tax havens. The CUT Loopholes Act will end abuse of so-called ``transfer pricing'' agreements. It will allow companies to transfer revenue for products developed in the United States to tax haven countries. It would strengthen enforcement tools so our tax authorities can investigate and rectify tax avoidance offshore. It would end the taxpayer-funded subsidy to corporations for expenses in moving jobs and operating facilities overseas. It would stop corporations from manipulating rules on foreign tax credits to avoid taxes. It would end the ``check the box'' loophole that allows multinationals, by a stroke of a pen, to cloak offshore income from taxation. Here at home, the CUT Loopholes Act would eliminate a loophole that allows large corporations to exploit what is in effect a Federal subsidy that helps pay for the compensation awarded to their executives. When companies award stock options to their top executives, they are allowed under law to record that expense in two totally different ways--one for their books and one for tax purposes. They report one amount to their investors on their annual financial reports, but they can report a much larger expense--often orders of magnitude larger--to the IRS and claim a tax deduction for that much larger claimed expense. One company, Facebook, used this loophole as part of its initial public offering last year. Facebook will use this loophole to claim a $16 billion tax deduction. It would then seek a $\1/2\ billion tax refund for taxes paid in past years, and then avoid taxes for up to as many years into the future. That is just one company. The amount it showed in its books for that same cost for executive compensation was about 5 percent of what it told Uncle Sam the cost was, and then it was able to deduct a much larger cost--20 times as much of its income taxes. So this legislation would end that. By the way, that was just one company. This legislation would also end two Wall Street tax loopholes. It would end the derivatives blended rate loophole, which gives preferential tax treatment in the form of long-term capital gains rate for speculative trades in certain derivatives--derivatives sometimes bought and sold in fractions of a second. Now, we have to understand the amazing part of that is these derivatives that are sometimes sold in one-millionth of a second-- bought and sold in one-millionth of a second--are given long-term capital gains treatment. We can imagine the amount of money that is involved in that and the loss to the Treasury. Another loophole the CUT Loopholes Act would address is in the energy sector. Because of a three-decade-old IRS decision, oil produced from tar sands, as opposed to traditional oil extraction, is not subject to the tax that funds the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. If spilled into the environment, oil produced from tar sands is just as damaging as oil produced by other means, as residents along the Kalamazoo River in Michigan learned in 2010. Cleanup of that oil spill is still underway nearly 3 years later. Surely producers of oil from tar sands should help contribute to the costs of cleaning up these spills--ust like producers of other oil must do. The CUT Loopholes Act also would tighten rules that combat tax- shelter promoters, stiffen penalties on those who aid companies or individuals who seek to shirk their fair share of the tax burden, strengthen our ability to collect taxes from tax avoiders when we catch them, and modernize the IRS tax lien process. I know these issues can be complicated. But the American people are seeing through that complexity. Americans support these reforms not just because of the great fiscal challenges before us. People recognize that these loopholes are not fair. They are wrong in every sense that a policy can be wrong--wrong fiscally, wrong economically, wrong ethically. Even if one disagrees with the American people, and sees these egregious loopholes as somehow justified, how can one argue that preserving them is more important than avoiding the damage of sequestration? How are these loopholes more important than preventing a recession caused not by the ups and downs of the economic cycle or by the reckless behavior of financial speculators, but by sequestration? I offer these ideas in the genuine belief that they can help bridge the gap, and in the urgent belief that we cannot leave that gap unbridged. I urge my colleagues to adopt them for the good of the millions of Americans whose prospects will dim if we cannot reach agreement. I will close with this: There was a survey completed last month which shows that two-thirds of Americans believe corporations need to bear a larger share of the tax burden. Eight in ten say closing corporate tax loopholes should be an important priority for Congress. Seventy-three percent approves of efforts to stop corporations and individuals from avoiding taxes by shifting income offshore. So this is what the survey shows: Do you approve or disapprove of the following policies? Prevent corporations from avoiding taxes when they award executives millions in stock options: That is 73 percent. In terms of closing loopholes, allowing corporations or the wealthy to avoid U.S. taxes by shifting income overseas: That is 63 percent. By the way, that percentage applies across the board. Americans of all political persuasions agree with these points. Mr. President, 8 out of 10 Republicans--8 out of 10 Republicans--agree the amount of revenue which will be saved by ending these kinds of loopholes should go to either deficit reduction or to public investments, and only 11 percent believe the revenue should be used to reduce tax rates on corporations. So I think we have to act to avoid sequestration. Senator Whitehouse's bill is directly aimed at that. Our bill, if we can get this passed and get some of these loopholes closed, will clearly help to avoid sequestration. There is some overlap between the bills, but the point is the same. These loopholes are draining our Treasury. This is not like increasing tax rates, to say we ought to close these kinds of egregious loopholes. These loopholes shouldn't be there. If we had a surplus, we ought to close these loopholes. These loopholes have helped to shift the burden in this country to middle-income families from corporations, and these corporations that avoid these taxes, in many cases, are extremely profitable corporations. It is an absurdity that we allow money to be drained from our Treasury to go to these offshore tax havens where no or little taxes are paid. We can end it. We can end that kind of loophole. We can close it, and we can do a lot of good for our country, both in terms of avoiding sequestration in the short term, as well as to help reduce our deficits in the long term. I wish to thank Senator Whitehouse again for the leadership he has shown and continues to show in this area. Some of these issues are extremely complex. We know that. One of the reasons they are difficult to end is that these loopholes are very difficult to explain. So we just hope our colleagues will follow the instincts of the American people who know these tax havens are wrong. We should put them out of business in terms of their drain on the American Treasury, and we can do so. In fact, then-Senator Obama was a cosponsor of much of this legislation when he was in the Senate. So I am going to close here, but I will again thank the Senator from Rhode Island for the leadership he is showing for his bill, which I am proud to cosponsor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first I want to thank my dear colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow. We have worked so closely together on Michigan issues. She is one great partner, and I am proud to represent Michigan with her at my side and her as a partner. Talking about partners, my wife Barbara has been married to me for 51 years, and she is my lifelong--excuse me. I have to straighten this out. My brother is my lifelong best buddy. He was there when I was born. I have to modify what Senator Reid said. For the last 51 years, my wife has been my best buddy, and my brother has been my second-best buddy, but I am blessed with family. I would like to thank everyone for mentioning my family. I am blessed with a staff that is led by David Lyles. I have great friendships here in this body and there is no substitute for the kind of friendships and relationships which make this body work. Even when it doesn't appear to be working, it is working. I know the public gets frustrated with us at times, but this is an extraordinarily resilient body. Many times during the 34 years I have been here there have been periods when we have been frustrated in terms of getting our work done, but we pull through in this wonderful, noble institution. This venerable institution is being protected here by people who love it, and I cherish those relationships with the people who do cherish this body and what it uniquely stands for in the world. There is no other body like it in the world. I only wish that people such as Robert Byrd and Danny Inouye could live forever to help protect this body, but that is not the case. I want to mention one other thing. I am very grateful to Senator Reid and Senator McConnell for their comments. I wanted to speak about something Senator McConnell referenced. A few weeks ago this body did something which was very bipartisan and very essential to its health and its survival, and that was to make sure we continue to protect the minority but not to overprotect the few Members if those Members take excessive advantage of our rules. Eight of us got together. Senator McCain and I pulled together three Democrats and three Republicans. For many weeks we worked together, without staff, and came up with an alternative which the leaders used to work through this complicated situation we found ourselves in relative to the rules. On the Democratic side, we had Senator Schumer, Senator Cardin, and Senator Pryor, and on the Republican side we had Senator Alexander, Senator Kyl, and Senator Barrasso join Senator McCain and me. I believe it was one of the most important things we have done in recent years here, which was to change the procedures. They were not working. They were being used to frustrate efforts to get legislation to the floor. We had to do that. We had to do something to change the rules which were being misused in terms of postcloture hours. There were judges who were going to be approved by votes of 95 to 1 or 2, and those postcloture hours were being used to stall the Senate. We took care of that situation. We acted on a bipartisan basis, and hopefully that spirit of bipartisanship, which is so essential to making this place work, will continue and be given a boost not just by what the leaders essentially did in accepting our recommendations on these procedural changes but will now apply and work with other efforts that will be underway in this Congress. I want to mention that because eight of us, on a bipartisan basis, did something which we believe very deeply about as a way of avoiding what was called the nuclear option. If that were used, it would have led to a change in a way which was not provided for in the rules. Under the rules, this is a continuing body. If that were used, it could have gone around the rules and essentially put the Presiding Officer in the position of ignoring the advice of our Parliamentarian and saying that we could, by majority vote, do something which our rules say could only be done by two-thirds of us. That would have done severe, long-lasting damage to this institution. We were able to avoid that, Democrats and Republicans--well beyond the eight of us--including the Presiding Officer, who was so helpful to me in working through this idea and giving me suggestions. I am very grateful to him for the kind of suggestions and conversations we had. We were able to work through an issue on a bipartisan basis and then the body came together and about 80 or more voted for these procedural changes. I thought it was a great day, personally. I know that. I know the eight of us feel very strongly about the important contribution we made to this body, working together. So we feel very good about it. I hope over time some of the people who were critical of it will see it as being a significant advance in making this body work better, allowing us to work our will. I wanted to mention that because it was mentioned by one of our leaders--Senator McConnell--and I know Senator Reid worked so closely with him and his staff, and they helped us through a very difficult situation which would have, if not resolved on a bipartisan basis, created some real problems for the ongoing operations of this body. So I thank our leaders. I thank Senator Reid, of course, who is such a dear friend, and I thank him for not just mentioning my beloved wife Barbara but also my brother Sandy. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, John Kerry is a valued colleague and a loyal friend, and we will miss him in the Senate. But at a time when our Nation faces complex and difficult challenges around the globe, he is especially well qualified to serve as Secretary of State, and I strongly support his confirmation. Unquestionably, Iran is at the top of the list of challenges the next Secretary of State will face. Senator Kerry has supported efforts in the Senate, including sanctions language included in the defense authorization acts for 2012 and 2013, that have helped isolate the Iranian regime. At his confirmation hearing, Senator Kerry succinctly stated the Obama administration's policy on Iran: We will do what we must do to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and I repeat here today: Our policy is not containment, it is prevention and the clock is ticking on our efforts to secure responsible compliance. Senator Kerry will be an effective and dedicated executor of that policy as we unify the international community in our efforts to prevent the Iranian government from developing nuclear weapons. Another significant challenge for our foreign policy is the volatile Afghanistan-Pakistan region. Here again, Senator Kerry's unique qualifications will serve our Nation well. He strongly supports the plan for transitioning the security lead to Afghan forces so they can provide for their own security. He has established a critical relationship with President Karzai that will strengthen our bilateral relations as we define the enduring strategic relationship between the United States and Afghanistan for post-2014. Senator Kerry understands the importance of negotiating a bilateral security agreement that provides our troops the necessary protections, including legal immunity, for a limited force to continue to train, advise and assist the Afghan forces and conduct counterterrorism operations after 2014. Senator Kerry also has significant experience engaging with Pakistan, which remains key to efforts to establish security and stability in South Asia. Through the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act and other efforts, Kerry has led efforts to strengthen civilian institutions in Pakistan and to reset our bilateral relations. Senator Kerry also recognizes, as he said during his confirmation hearing, that ``[m]ore than ever, foreign policy is economic policy.'' Those words will hearten working families in my State and across the Nation whose well-being is increasingly connected to our economic competitiveness around the world, our ability to engage with other nations to ensure that our companies and workers have the opportunity to compete in the global marketplace on an equal footing, and our recognition that economic competition today is not just among companies, but also among the countries that support their companies and workers. I look forward to working with Senator Kerry as we bring all the levers of American policy to bear on this issue of paramount importance to American prosperity. Another issue on which I look forward to cooperating with Senator Kerry is our policy toward Cuba. Senator Kerry and I have similar voting records on United States policy towards Cuba. We also both recognize the need for policy that places maximum pressure on the Cuban regime to democratize. However, our voting records maintain that our Cuba policy is counter-productive in promoting change in Cuba. I look forward to working with Senator Kerry to rebalance our approach to Cuba as we look forward to a new era in that nation's history and its relations with us. Throughout his public career, John Kerry has proven his dedication not just to America's interests, but to its values. Indeed, he recognizes that our ability to defend our interests around the world depends on adherence to the values that make the United States a beacon of freedom and opportunity. He has spoken with eloquence about the need to combat violence and extremism around the world not just with our military might, but with the power of our ideas. As he said in his confirmation hearing, ``America lives up to her values when we give voice to the voiceless.'' His commitment to aiding those around the world whose lives have been shattered by war, repression or disaster is in keeping with those values. Senator Kerry knows personally the cost of war and the value of peace. He knows the difficulty of the challenges we face, and the importance of American leadership in facing those challenges-- leadership important not just to our Nation's security and prosperity, but to the world's. He has been an outstanding servant of the American people, and I am confident he will continue that record of extraordinary service as our next Secretary of State.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, public service is a noble endeavor, and there are many individuals across our great nation that dedicate their lives to making our communities better and function smoothly. I am pleased today to recognize the illustrious career of one such public servant, a talented and well-respected judge from my home State of Michigan. Elizabeth A. Hacker's legal career has spanned more than three decades, and her tenure on the bench has been defined by her sound judgment, wisdom, and expansive knowledge of the law. Judge Hacker is retiring from the Federal bench after 32 years of distinguished service to the Detroit Immigration court and to the U.S. Department of Justice. Her family, friends, and colleagues from the court and the Michigan bar gathered this past weekend to celebrate this milestone and to honor her distinguished career. I am delighted to honor her impressive record of public service to our Nation, the Justice Department, the City of Detroit and our great State of Michigan. Elizabeth Hacker is a proud daughter of Detroit. She received her B.A. from Wayne State University in 1974 and a law degree from the Detroit College of Law in 1978. Following a brief period in private practice, Judge Hacker joined the Detroit office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1980. She rose quickly within the INS, serving as a naturalization attorney; a trial attorney; a chief attorney; and finally assistant regional counsel for the western region for three immigration districts, including Los Angeles, where she supervised dozens of other immigration attorneys. Elizabeth Hacker is currently the senior United States immigration judge for the Immigration Court with jurisdiction over Michigan, Ohio, and northern Kentucky. Notably, Judge Hacker re-established the Detroit Immigration Court when she was appointed to the bench in July of 1995. While affiliated with the Immigration Service, Judge Hacker acted as an instructor at both Federal law enforcement training academies, teaching a range of subjects, including the law of arrest, search and seizure, employer sanctions and general immigration law. During her long tenure on the Detroit Immigration Court, Judge Hacker handled numerous noteworthy and high-profile cases, many of which were covered extensively by the news media. Of particular note was the role she played in the deportation of Nazi war criminals that were discovered residing in the United States living under false pretenses. In 2011, Judge Hacker wrote the opinion in the trial of Ivan Kalymon for his participation in Nazi-sponsored acts of persecution while serving as an armed member of the Ukrainian Auxiliary Police during World War II. Hacker ordered Kalymon deported. In the months following the attacks of September 2001, Judge Hacker handled several cases involving terrorists and terrorist organizations plotting in the United States. Many high-stakes cases came before her court. Her colleagues on immigration courts across the country came to rely on her expertise and experience. They would frequently solicit her opinion on complex matters involving national security. Her colleague on the bench, Judge Marsha Nettles, describes Judge Hacker as someone who ensured that everyone who came before her ``received a full, fair and complete hearing. She never forgot the mission of the Immigration Service or the Court. She always put the mission first, no matter the public pressure or media scrutiny.'' By all accounts, Judge Hacker is looking forward to her retirement and to spending more time on Grosse Ile with her loving husband Brian Munson and doing more cooking, which outside of the law, is her true life's passion. Judge Hacker is a trailblazer. Through her tireless dedication, sense of purpose and unfailing fidelity to the mission of the Justice Department and the court, Elizabeth Hacker has set a high standard. I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Elizabeth Hacker as she concludes her long and distinguished legal career.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Hurricane Sandy was one of the costliest storms in our Nation's history, resulting in at least 125 deaths, the destruction of tens of thousands of homes and businesses, electricity losses for millions of people, disruption of fuel supplies, and devastating damage to public infrastructure. When Hurricane Sandy struck land on October 29, hurricane-force winds covered 900 miles, wreaking havoc across a broad stretch of the Eastern seaboard. While the impact of Hurricane Sandy was most severe in New Jersey and New York, the storm impacted 24 States, including Michigan. Across the Great Lakes, gale force winds caused damage to breakwaters and silted in harbors and channels. On Lake Huron, wave heights reached 23 feet, in Lake Michigan the waves peaked at 22 feet, and the storm caused waves of 14 feet in Lake Erie.

Mr. LEVIN. The supplemental appropriations bill before us today includes $821 million for necessary expenses related to Hurricane Sandy to dredge Federal navigation channels and repair damage to Corps projects. Great Lakes channels, harbors, breakwaters, and piers were damaged by gale-force winds caused by Hurricane Sandy. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates damage to the Great Lakes System of $17 million, including in my State of Michigan. This system transports over 160 million tons of commodities and hundreds of thousands of jobs are tied to the system. It is vital that repairs be made promptly. Madam Chairwoman, will these Great Lakes navigational projects damaged by Hurricane Sandy be eligible for some of the $821 million in funding?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for her assurances. Mr. President, I will vote in support of the disaster assistance bill to aid the victims of Hurricane Sandy, who number in the millions. Hurricane Sandy covered over 900 miles, took over 125 lives, destroyed homes and businesses, demolished breakwaters, piers, boardwalks, and other infrastructure, and left millions without transportation. This superstorm occurred nearly 3 months ago, and assistance is long past due for the victims who remain homeless and communities trying to rebuild. Hurricane Sandy left such far-reaching devastation that its destruction reached into the Great Lakes. Gale force winds across the Great Lakes caused damage to breakwaters and silted in harbors and channels. The bill before us provides $821 million to dredge Federal navigation channels and repair damage to Corps projects impacted by Hurricane Sandy. I entered into a colloquy with Chairwoman Mikulski to ensure that the damage incurred to Great Lakes harbors as a result of Hurricane Sandy would be eligible for that funding. I thank Senator Mikulski for clarifying that funding could go to the Great Lakes, and I hope the Corps will prioritize funding for those Great Lakes projects, which are estimated to require about $17 million in repairs. We have a responsibility to help our fellow Americans who have lost homes and businesses through no fault of their own, and I hope we will pass this bill and immediately send it to the President for his signature. Hurricane Sandy is estimated to be the second or third most costly disaster in U.S. history. We need to provide the assistance promptly to those affected by Hurricane Sandy.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank my dear friend from Arizona for helping to lead this bipartisan effort, where eight of us spent weeks to try to come up with a bipartisan proposal to our leaders. Senator Cardin was one of the eight, and I am grateful to him and to all the eight Members, including one who has now left, Senator Kyl. Its purpose was twofold. The first purpose was to address the specific hurdles that have created gridlock, the specific mechanisms which have been overused in this Senate that have led to gridlock. There are a number of things that have led to gridlock, but the most significant problem we have faced is the excessive use of the threat of the filibuster on the motion to proceed to a bill. The reason it was used--according to many Members of the minority-- was because of a fear that the tree would be filled by the majority leader and then there would be no opportunity to offer amendments. So what the eight of us strived to do was to find a balance where we could protect the minority's rights to offer some amendments at the same time that we finally got rid of a roadblock which was being abused, which was a threat to filibuster a motion to proceed. So we devised this approach which is now part of the leadership proposal to do exactly that. The other purpose is the one which my friend from Arizona has just identified; that if we could come together, the eight of us, four Democrats and four Republicans--Senator Schumer is now on the floor and he was one of the eight. If we could come together and come up with a bipartisan proposal on this issue, we could hopefully begin to change the dynamic that has so divided this Senate. That is, hopefully, a very important and, I hope, successful outcome of those discussions and of the leadership then coming together, because those two leaders have to come together if this Senate is to come together and be able to move legislation in the ordinary course. I agree with Senator McCain's assessment as to the second goal we had, which was to show that on the thorniest procedural issue we face, that four Democrats and four Republicans, meeting in a very thorough and personal way, without a lot of staff around, could find a way through this procedural thicket and then make recommendations to the majority and to the Republican leader. I do agree with the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first of all, let me comment on what Senator Cardin said about one of the purposes of this effort, which is to get a bill to the floor so the managers can work on it. As we have proven in the last couple of months on a number of bills, and the Senator has pointed this out, if we can get the bill to the floor for the managers to be able to work with our colleagues on amendments, we can legislate. The problem has been that we have not been able to get bills to the floor because of this blockage, the blockage caused by the overuse of the filibuster and, more accurately, the threat of a filibuster on the motion to proceed, which, in turn-- and my Republican friends believe this very keenly--was caused by the use of filling the tree, which meant that they would not have the opportunity to offer amendments. So they would then use that threat of a filibuster in order to try to gain assurance that they would be able to offer some amendments. That is the heart of the compromise we proposed. There are a lot of other aspects to it, including trying to get rid of these filibusters on going to conference; including these filibusters that tied up nominations with postcloture 30-hours, nominations that were going to pass with votes of 90 to 0. There are a lot of other parts to the recommendations and what the leaders are recommending to us, but the key thing--and Senator Reid said it to us repeatedly--the key thing that this compromise addresses, and it is a bipartisan approach, is trying to overcome that barrier to getting legislation to the floor. We know--the Senator from Maryland has pointed out and Senator McCain knows it because we have lived it-- if you can get a bill to the floor with managers, they can work out amendments, sometimes by the hundreds. I think Senator McCain and I probably had over 100 amendments filed to our bill.

Mr. LEVIN. OK. I am glad I exaggerated in the downward direction. In any event, we were able not to work through all of them but to deal with that challenge, to probably deal with about 100 of them, as I remember. We did it in about 3 days. That doesn't mean we are magicians. It means we are capable, all of us are capable, if we can get the bill to the floor. Particularly when the bill has come out of committee with broad bipartisan support, we can get bills passed here. So the heart of what we have proposed to the leadership, this group of 8, and what they have adopted and incorporated in their bipartisan approach to the Senate and to the country, is exactly what Senator Cardin has talked about: getting bills to the floor. We can then watch the momentum work. I want to add one other thing. Senator McCain just made reference to it. That has to do with the so-called nuclear option, or the constitutional option, depending on what your view of it is. I have always believed the threat of that option was troublesome. I was troubled by it because it is inconsistent with the rules of the Senate which require a two-thirds vote for amendments to the rules and because we are a continuing body, not just by our rules but by even a Supreme Court opinion which so ruled. I believe if the constitutional or the nuclear option were utilized here, if we ended up with the utilization of that option, that what we now have, which is gridlock, would have resulted instead in a meltdown. I want to remind my Democratic friends and folks around the country that not too many years ago when the Republicans threatened to use a constitutional option, the reaction on this side of the aisle was intense. The words of Senator Kennedy, Senator Biden, Senator Byrd resonated through this Chamber in strong opposition to the use of a nuclear option. I have just a few examples of what our reaction was on this side of the aisle when there was a threat to use the nuclear option when it was threatened relative to judges. What I am not going to do tonight is go through the history of the constitutional or the nuclear option, what happened over the century when it has been threatened, how it has not been adopted by the Senate. It is a long, detailed history. I know some of my colleagues have argued that the constitutional option is based on the Constitution. It is very much the opposite in terms of the history of this Chamber and the rejection of any idea that the Constitution somehow requires that at the beginning of a session of a Senate that rules can be amended by majority vote. It is a long history. I want to just quote, if I can find these quotes, what the reaction was on this side of the aisle when there was a threat on the Republican side of the aisle to use this approach of getting a ruling from the Chair, somehow, that the rules, although they say they can only be amended by two-thirds, can in fact be amended by a majority.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, while I am looking for these quotes, let me ask unanimous consent the period for morning business be extended until 7 p.m. today and that all provisions of the previous order remain in effect.

Mr. LEVIN. Our proposal was born out of the sincere belief that, even in today's hyper-partisan environment, it is still possible for Senators from both parties to work together to restore the deliberative traditions for which the Senate was once known. It took many days of discussions over two months among our group to reach an agreement we could present to our Leaders. We looked past our frustrations with the recent practices of the Senate and acted together for the sake of this vital institution. I would also like to thank our former and current Parliamentarians, Alan Frumin and Elizabeth MacDonough, who answered our questions and provided their expert advice throughout our discussions. Perhaps the most significant reform in the bipartisan leadership proposal, as in our bipartisan proposal to the leadership, is a reform designed to end the abuse of the threat of a filibuster on the motion to proceed to a bill--that is, the abuse of the Senate's minority protections to obstruct the Senate from even taking up and debating legislation. Reform in this area is vital, because abuse of the rules on the motion to proceed has prevented the Senate from engaging in what our rules are supposed to promote: Debate of the important issues our nation must face. Over the previous two Congresses, we have had to hold 59 cloture votes on motions to proceed, and the very threat of the filibuster on the motion to proceed has on countless occasions derailed the Senate's legislative process. Reforming the procedures regarding the motion to proceed will allow this body to deliberate as it is intended to do. The proposal before us will give the majority leader two alternatives to the method in the existing rules for proceeding to a bill. The first alternative, in the form of a standing order effective for the 113th Congress, would limit debate on the motion to proceed to 4 hours. When used by the majority leader, this alternative would guarantee consideration of some minority amendments. Specifically, two amendments each for both the majority and the minority would be the first amendments in order at the beginning of consideration of a measure. The order of those amendments would be the first minority amendment, the first majority amendment, the second minority amendment, and the second majority amendment. Each amendment would need to be disposed of prior to the offering of the next amendment in order. These amendments would not be subject to amendment or division, and if adopted, the amendments would be considered original text for purpose of further amendment. They could be tabled or filibustered. If an amendment is not offered in its designated order, the right to offer that amendment would be forfeited. Filing deadlines would occur on these amendments if a cloture motion is filed. If cloture is invoked, any of these amendments not offered prior to the expiration of post-cloture time could be offered and would be guaranteed up to 1 hour of debate. The second alternative would allow the Senate to move quickly when both the majority and minority leaders agree we should proceed to a matter. Specifically, where eight Senators from each side, including the two Leaders, sign a cloture petition on the motion to proceed to a measure, then the cloture vote would occur the day following the filing of the motion with no post-cloture debate if cloture is invoked. The bipartisan proposal before us would also reform the process of going to conference by collapsing the three motions currently required by the rules to be adopted in order to go to conference into a single motion and shrinking the cloture process on that conference motion from 30 to 2 hours. This change would be in the form of an amendment to the Standing Rules, and was part of our bipartisan group's recommendations to the leaders. In addition, the proposal before us would reform the consideration of nominations. First, for district court nominations, it would reduce post-cloture time from 30 to 2 hours, as recommended by our bipartisan group of eight. Second, it would shrink the cloture process on subcabinet nominations by reducing post-cloture time from 30 to 8 hours. This change would be in the form of a standing order and would be effective for the 113th Congress. When a few Senators threaten to filibuster or object to proposed unanimous consent agreements, those Senators should have to come to the floor to speak or object. Our bipartisan group's reform proposal urged the leaders to give notice that the existing rules of the Senate will be used more vigorously to force filibusterers to show up on the Senate floor to speak, and their colloquy on this matter reflects the leaders' intention to do so. This proposal includes reasonable protections for the minority, and it reforms our procedures in ways that can end the gridlock that bedevils us. And as it accomplishes those important reforms, this proposal allows the Senate to avoid a process that would break the rules of the Senate and do untold damage to this institution. Amending our procedures in this way, without use of the nuclear option, avoids having the Senate go from gridlock to meltdown. I want to spend some time discussing this process because the issue is extremely important and not fully understood. The greatest difference between the Senate and the House of Representatives is the approach to minority rights. Senate rules protect the rights of the minority and the House rules do not. With those rights, a minority or even a single Senator can influence the legislative process. Without those rights, a simple majority can render a minority irrelevant and powerless to influence the legislative process. The current Standing Rules of the Senate spell out clearly the process by which the rules of the Senate may be amended. Rule 5 states that the rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules. Rule 22 states that an affirmative vote by two-thirds of the Senators present and voting is required to end debate on a proposal to amend the rules. Some Senators have argued that the Constitution empowers a simple majority of Senators to force a change in the rules at the beginning of a Congress, although the change would occur in violation of rule 5 and rule 22. Supporters of this position refer to this procedure as the ``constitutional option.'' Others, including many of us who have served here for longer periods of time in both the majority and in the minority, refer to it as the ``nuclear option'' because we can see the damage this procedure would do to the Senate. Indeed, many of us who are deeply concerned about its use vehemently opposed Republican threats to use this procedure in 2005. How worried were we in 2005? Senator Kennedy was worried enough to tell his colleagues: ``By the time all pretense of comity, all sense of mutual respect and fairness, all of the normal courtesies that allow the Senate to proceed expeditiously on any business at all will have been destroyed by the preemptive Republican nuclear strike on the Senate floor . . . They will have broken the Senate compact of comity, and will have launched a preemptive nuclear war.'' And here's what Senator Biden said on this floor: ``I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the field right now, but you won't own it forever. I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.'' Why were our esteemed former colleagues so concerned about walking this path? Here are some of the dangers inherent in the ``constitutional'' or ``nuclear'' option, and some explanation of why and how the Senate has consistently rejected this approach in the past. Supporters of the nuclear option claim a simple majority of Senators can force a rules change at the beginning of a Congress, but do not argue that they can do so at other times. There is no basis for the argument that the beginning of a Congress enjoys a special status for rules adoption or amendment that the remainder of a term of Congress does not. If the Constitution grants a simple majority of Senators the right to amend the rules of the Senate at the beginning of a Congress, when and how does that majority lose that right? This temporal distinction cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution. Article I, section 5 of the Constitution says that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. It makes no distinction as to when. That provision of the Constitution, which governs the Senate, also governs the House. The House adopts its rules at the opening of every Congress, but it can and does amend its rules in the middle of a Congress. If the Constitution grants a simple majority of Senators the power to adopt rules, what would stop that simple majority from amending those rules in the middle of a Congress, just as our House colleagues do? And if that is the case, the Senate would no longer be able to fulfill its historic distinction of protecting the rights of the minority. Some supporters of the constitutional or nuclear option claim that rule 22's supermajority threshold to end debate on a proposed rules change is unconstitutional because it inhibits the Senate from exercising its constitutional power to determine its rules under article I, section 5. But the power to set its own rules is just one of the many powers granted the Senate by the Constitution. For instance, the Senate is empowered to provide advice and consent on nominations and to consider legislation to collect taxes, to pay the nation's debts, to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Yet, filibusters have delayed or prevented the Senate from acting on those important measures and nominations that fall within the Senate's constitutional duties. In testimony before the Senate Rules Committee, CRS expert Stanley Bach argued: Adopting and amending its own rules is not the only thing, and arguably not the most important thing, that the Constitution empowers and expects the Senate to do. If filibusters are unconstitutional because they impede the Senate in its efforts to exercise its authority under section 5 of Article I to adopt or amend its rules, then why are filibusters constitutional when they impede the Senate's efforts to exercise its equally or more important authority under Article I, especially section 8, to legislate on matters committed to it and the House of Representatives? In other words, if the filibuster of a rules change is unconstitutional, as nuclear option advocates contend, then a filibuster on any matter would also be unconstitutional because it would delay or prevent the Senate from discharging its constitutional duties. So by declaring the filibuster unconstitutional on a rules change, advocates of the nuclear option are thereby swinging the door wide open to eliminate the filibuster altogether from the Senate. Some supporters of the nuclear option say that the Founders never intended for the Senate to have filibusters. They claim that the original Senate's rules included a motion for the previous question, which they further claim was used to end debate and bring a matter to an immediate vote. So, they argue, the early Senate supported the ability to close debate and bring a matter to immediate vote by simple majority vote. The problem is that they have their history wrong. The early form of the motion for the previous question is unlike its modern day version. In the first Congress, both Chambers had a motion for the previous question in their rules--the Senate dropped the motion from its rules in 1806. But the early version of the motion was not used to bring a question to an immediate vote. The motion, which was phrased ``shall the question be now put,'' was used to suppress or postpone a question. It was moved by Senators who would then vote against the motion in order to suppress or postpone the pending question. The modern day version of the motion for the previous question in the House serves as a simple majority cloture device. However, in the early House, just as in the Senate, if the motion for the previous question was decided in the negative, then the question was suppressed and the House moved on to other business; if the motion was decided in the affirmative, then the House would continue debate on the pending question, not immediately proceed to a vote. That practice continued until 1811, when a new precedent was set that the motion, when agreed to, would immediately end debate and bring a vote on the question. That was the origin of simple majority cloture in the House. The early history of the motion for the previous question is set forth in the House of Representatives official guide to procedure, House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House: In early Congresses, the previous question was used in the House for an entirely different purpose than it is today, having been modeled on the English parliamentary practice. As early as 1604, the previous question had been used in the Parliament to suppress a question that the majority deemed undesirable for further discussion or action. The Continental Congress adopted this device in 1778, but there was no intention of using it as a means of closing debate in order to bring the pending question to a vote. Early interpretations of the rule in the House were consistent with its usage in the Continental Congress. (House Practice, page 690) Just as in the House, the early Senate rules had a motion for the previous question, which, just as in the House, was used only to end debate and move to another matter, not put a question to an immediate vote. This motion was eventually dropped from the Senate rules. In his speech to the Senate on March 2, 1805, Vice President Aaron Burr recommended changes to the rules of the Senate. Among those, he suggested that the Senate drop the motion for the previous question on the basis that it was duplicative to the motion for indefinite postponement. The diary of John Quincy Adams contains the following account of Burr's speech: He [Burr] mentioned one or two of the rules which appeared to him to need a revisal, and recommended the abolition of that respecting the previous question, which he said had in the four years been only once taken, and that upon an amendment. That was proof that it could not be necessary, and all its purposes were certainly much better answered by the question of indefinite postponement. (Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, edited by Charles Francis Adams, vol. I, p. 365) Supporters of the nuclear option often reference advisory opinions and rulings by Vice Presidents Nixon, Humphrey, and Rockefeller that the Senate may adopt its rules by simple majority vote at the opening of Congress. These advisory rulings and opinions were rendered during actual attempts to change the rules, but the proposed changes were rejected, for good reason. For example, Vice President Nixon believed the constitution granted a simple majority of Senators the power to force a rules change in violation of Senate rules. In 1957, when an attempt to change the rules was made at the beginning of a new Congress, Nixon made reference to his belief, but his advisory opinion recognized no special status for the beginning of a Congress. Nixon believed a simple majority of Senators could amend the rules at any point during a Congress. In his advisory opinion, Nixon said, ``The Constitution also provides that `each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.' This constitutional right is lodged in the membership of the Senate and it may be exercised by a majority of the Senate at any time.'' Vice President Nixon also acknowledged that his opinion was merely advisory, and not binding upon the Senate. Vice President Humphrey advised the Senate in 1969 that if a simple majority of Senators, but fewer than the two- thirds required by the rules, voted to invoke cloture on a proposed rules change, then he would rule that cloture had been invoked. On January 16, 1969, the Senate voted 51-47 in favor of a motion to invoke cloture. Vice President Humphrey ruled that cloture had been invoked by the majority. Humphrey's decision was appealed and the Senate reversed Humphrey's decision by a vote of 53-45. In doing so, the Senate established a clear precedent rejecting Vice President Humphrey's ruling that a simple majority could end debate. Supporters of the constitutional argument point to statements by Vice Presidents Humphrey and Rockefeller in 1967 and 1975, respectively. In both these instances, the Vice Presidents advised the Senate that tabling a point of order against a motion to end debate by simple majority would validate the motion to end debate and cause it to self- execute. It is my understanding that both former and current Senate Parliamentarians disagree with the advisory opinions of Humphrey and Rockefeller. Tabling a point of order lodged against a motion to end debate by simple majority does not validate that motion or cause it to self-execute. In tabling the point of order, the question simply recurs on the underlying motion, and that question is debatable. At the end of my remarks I intend to propound several parliamentary inquiries that, I believe, will address the errors of the Humphrey and Rockefeller rulings. Let's examine more closely these two advisory rulings. In 1967, it was Senator McGovern who offered a motion to end debate by a simple majority on the question of proceeding to a rules change. Senator Dirksen raised a point of order that the motion was out of order because it violated the rules of the Senate. Vice President Humphrey advised the Senate that if the Senate tabled the Dirksen point of order, that act would serve to validate the constitutionality of the McGovern motion. But in any event, the Senate rejected the motion to table the Dirksen point of order by a vote of 37-61. Then the Senate sustained Dirksen's point of order by a vote of 59-37. This is yet another example of the Senate establishing a clear precedent rejecting simple majority cloture of debate on a rules change. Then, again, in 1975, the Senate faced a very similar question. Senator Mondale offered a motion that would end debate with a simple majority. Majority Leader Mansfield raised a point of order against the motion. Vice President Rockefeller advised that if the Senate tabled the Mansfield point of order, he would interpret that act as an expression of the Senate that the motion was proper--again, as I will show in a moment, a dubious position. After considerable intervening action and debate, the Senate ultimately sustained the Mansfield point of order by a vote of 53-43. Once again, the Senate established a clear precedent of its rejection of simple majority cloture of debate on a rules change. The danger of the advisory rulings by Humphrey and Rockefeller in 1967 and 1975 is made clear in a grave warning issued by our former colleague, Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, the longest serving Senator in the history of the Senate and the author of its definitive history. During the debate in 1975 on the question of whether a simple majority could end debate on a proposed rules change, Senator Byrd gave the following remarks that I believe we should heed carefully today. May I say to those of us on our side that the day may come--although I hope it will not be in my time--when we will be in the minority, and it will take only 51 Senators from the other side of the aisle to stop debate immediately, without one word, on some matter which we may consider vital to our States or to the Nation. Let me show the Senate how this would work. ... Suppose it were the Bay of Tonkin resolution, which involved a declaration of war by the Congress of the United States. Any Senator could contrive his own--and I do not use that word disrespectfully--any Senator could write a similarly phrased divisible motion, a multiple motion, sent it to the Chair and all someone would have to do is raise a point of order, another Senator would move to table the point of order; if the point of order were tabled, the matter, without debate, would immediately be put to a vote. If a majority were to sustain that vote, debate would be closed on the basic motion to move to consideration of the matter, or if the matter were already before the Senate, to proceed to vote immediately on the matter without further debate. Senator Byrd that same day said: I must say that I have to disagree respectfully with the Chair. We are today operating by the rules of the Senate, which rules and precedents provide that a motion before the Senate, against which a point of order has been made and tabled, remains before the Senate and is debatable. I cannot for the life of me understand how, in this instance, the motion, if the point of order is tabled, will not still be before the Senate and will not be debatable. I cannot understand that. I cannot understand how the Chair can logically state that the Senate, by this motion, and by virtue of its tabling a point of order, which is a separate matter, ipso facto shuts off debate on the motion. Now, if we go down this road, I can guarantee that every Senator in this body will rue this day ... Senators, do we want to do it this way? If this is done today, it can be done any day. If it can be done on this constitutional question, it can be done on any other constitutional question. It can be done on any other point of order the Chair wishes to refer to the Senate for decision. ... I believe that there is a danger here that, if Senators will reflect upon it for but a little while, they can foresee a time when we would say that we went the wrong way to achieve an otherwise very notable purpose ... Put this power in the hands of a tyrannical leadership, and a tyrannical majority of 51 Senators, and we are going to be sorry on both sides of the aisle. (121 Congressional Record 3842-3844) So in 1975, the Senate did what it has always done when confronted with the question of simple majority cloture on debate of a motion to amend the rules. It rejected it. The reason that the constitutional approach to rules changes has never been implemented is that every time it has been attempted, the Senate has not gone along. When Vice President Humphrey explicitly ruled that the Senate could end debate by a simple majority, the Senate voted to overturn that ruling. In those instances when a Vice President has advised that tabling a point of order against a motion to limit debate on a rules change by a simple majority amounted to Senate approval of that motion, the Senate has either voted to reject that interpretation outright or voted against tabling the point of order. The very basis for minority rights in the Senate is the absence of simple majority cloture, which would allow a majority of Senators to end debate. The absence of simple majority cloture is the only ground on which a minority, and sometimes a single Senator, can stand to demand they be heard on any given issue. I believe by the letter and spirit of our rules, and the history and practice of this body, the bipartisan leadership proposal before us merits support. But I also recognize that these arguments alone may not suffice for the millions of Americans who understandably do not know or care much about the procedures and rules of the Senate, and who have watched for the last 4 years with mounting frustration as abuse of those rules has obstructed progress and mired the Senate in seemingly endless delay. The foundation of Democratic governance is rule by majority consent. Indeed, democracy arose as a response to centuries of rule by a privileged and self-interested minority imposing its will on the majority. And the need for a system that protects minority rights is counter-intuitive to many Americans, who find it hard to understand why the majority's will does not always carry the day in the Senate. But while the foundation of our Democratic system is rule by the will of the people, our Founding Fathers were careful to enshrine protections against what they warned was a dangerous threat to true political liberty. They called it ``majority faction,'' the possibility that a majority of the public would, in pursuit of its own interests, infringe upon the rights of their fellow citizens. They crafted our system with a series of checks and balances to protect against the dangers of majority faction. And since the founding, many of the most important steps forward for our country have involved protecting minorities from the harms of majority faction. The giants of the Senate have recognized the vital importance of protecting minority rights. Senator Daniel Inouye was rightly eulogized recently in this chamber as a wise and experienced presence in the Senate. He demonstrated that wisdom from the very beginning of his career here. In his maiden speech on this floor, he implored the Senate to preserve its protections for minority views, even when those protections allowed a misguided minority to obstruct our Nation's progress. This is what he said: The philosophy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is not simply to grant the majority the power to rule, but is also to set out limitation after limitation upon that power. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion: What are these but the recognition that at times when the majority of men would willingly destroy him, a dissenting man may have no friend but the law? This power given to the minority is the most sophisticated and the most vital power bestowed by our Constitution. Understand what was taking place here. Senator Inouye spoke as the Senate was debating whether to weaken the rights of the Senate minority, so that the Senate majority could end grave injustice by enacting civil rights legislation. Senator Inouye, a man who had himself felt the pain of racial discrimination, even during and after his remarkable service to this nation during World War II, used his first speech on this floor to warn against the attempts ``to destroy the power of the minority . . . in the name of another minority.'' I want to make clear to my colleagues my belief that defense of the minority's rights in the Senate is not defense of the current use, and abuse, of those rights. It is not a defense of a few who threaten routinely to prevent consideration of judicial nominees unanimously approved in committee, or to prevent debate on legislation. We need to act so that the Senate can function again. But we can't save the Senate by destroying its very nature and role. In the past, Senators strongly committed to reforming the Senate rules have been equally committed to preserving its institutional strengths. Listen to the words of Senator Mansfield, who, in 1967, worked to reform the cloture rule so the Senate would function more normally-- but, importantly, urged his colleagues not to pursue those reforms by the destructive means of establishing simple majority cloture to end debate on a rules change. While arguing strongly for reform, Senator Mansfield said, ``[The] urgency or even wisdom of adopting the three- fifths resolution does not justify a path of destruction to the Senate as an institution and its vital importance to our scheme of government. And this, in my opinion, is what the present motion to invoke cloture by simple majority would do.'' Senator Mansfield added: ``I simply feel the protection of the minority transcends any rule change, however desirable. . . . The issue of limiting debate in this body is one of such monumental importance that it reaches, in my opinion, to the very essence of the Senate as an institution. I believe it compels a decision by more than a majority.'' In 1975, Senator Byrd argued in favor of the rule change reducing the number of votes needed to end debate from 67 to 60. But he strongly opposed using simple-majority cloture of the debate on that rules change. ``I feel that a three-fifths cloture vote would protect the minority, protect the uniqueness of this institution, and preserve a fair and equitable way to close debate. But I am not for destroying the Senate as a unique institution in an effort to reach that end.'' In 2010, in testimony before the Rules Committee on this subject, Senator Byrd said: During this 111th Congress, in particular, the minority has threatened to filibuster almost every matter proposed for Senate consideration. I find this tactic contrary to every Senator's duty to act in good faith. I share the profound frustration of my constituents and colleagues as we confront this situation. The challenges before our nation are too grave, too numerous, for the Senate to be rendered impotent to address them, and yet be derided for inaction by those causing the delays. . . . Does the difficulty reside in the construction of our rules, or does it reside in the ease of circumventing them? A true filibuster is a fight, not a threat, not a bluff. . . . Now, unbelievably, just the whisper of opposition brings the `world's greatest deliberative body' to a grinding halt. . . . Forceful confrontation to a threat to filibuster is undoubtedly the antidote to the malady. There have without question been times when a self-interested or hide-bound minority in the Senate has frustrated American progress. But there have also been times when a Senate majority has attempted to impose its will in ways that would have been harmful. Those instances resonate far less loudly when one is a supporter of a frustrated majority. But those of us who have served in the minority in this body, as I have for nearly half my time in the Senate, remember them well. In the recent past, Senate Democrats in the minority used the protections afforded the minority to block a series of bills that would have unwisely restricted the reproductive rights of American women. We beat back special-interest efforts to limit Americans' ability to seek justice in our courts when harmed by corporate wrongdoing. We used those protections to seek an extension of unemployment benefits for millions of Americans. We used them to oppose the nomination of nominees to the Federal courts who we thought would do great harm to the law. Progressives distressed that the recent fiscal cliff agreement raised the estate tax exemption to more than $5 million should recall that without the protections afforded the Senate minority, a total repeal of the estate tax would have passed the Senate in 2006. Forty- one Senators prevented that from happening. Over the history of this body, giants of the Senate have repeatedly warned us against the danger of damaging, even with the best of intentions, the Senate's protections for minority rights and extended debate. Time and again, the Senate has heeded those warnings. While it is necessary to reasonably preserve those minority rights, it also is urgent that we restore the Senate's ability to function. Unless we do that, the Senate's character and function within our system of government will remain threatened by constant gridlock. The bipartisan proposal before us holds the promise of restoring the Senate's deliberative and legislative process, without going down a ``nuclear'' path that might severely damage the Senate in an attempt to save it. This proposal holds the promise of demonstrating to a nation hungering for bipartisan cooperation that we are capable of providing it. I urge my colleagues to embrace a bipartisan approach that will allow us to end the gridlock of which we have seen too much, and to do so with the bipartisan spirit of which our people have seen too little.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote in support of the legislation before us because we have a responsibility to help our fellow Americans who have lost homes and businesses through no fault of their own. Natural disasters are something we can attempt to prepare for, but the destructive force of nature can overwhelm us, even when efforts are made in advance of devastating storms, floods, droughts, or other disasters. Further, the bill provides permanent reforms to the Stafford Act that will help to eliminate bureaucratic roadblocks that have caused problems for local communities in rebuilding after a disaster and in mitigating risks from future disasters. Hurricane Sandy was one of those disasters that overwhelmed us with its damage. Over 125 people lost their lives, thousands of people were displaced, millions lost power, and fuel deliveries were disrupted. Tens of thousands of homes and businesses were destroyed, and public infrastructure was devastated. The storm is estimated to have caused such damage that it is projected to be the second or third most costly disaster in U.S. history. We need to provide the assistance to those impacted by Hurricane Sandy. Other natural disasters have also pummeled the U.S. this year, including the wildfires in the West and Hurricane Isaac in the Gulf Coast region. The bill includes some funding for these other natural disasters, which I support. While Hurricane Sandy was most devastating, we also should be responsive to these other disasters. One of these disasters had impacts on my great State of Michigan. This year, the Midwest experienced extreme weather including one of the worst droughts in history, causing tremendous damage to crops. Michigan also experienced unusually warm weather in March that resulted in an early bloom for many fruit crops, including tart cherries. These crops were then heavily damaged by a series of freezes during April and May. The drought, coupled with a warm winter, has resulted in near-historic low water levels in the Great Lakes, which is also a natural disaster. The Army Corps of Engineers reports that Lakes Michigan and Huron are more than two feet below their long-term average. Lake Superior is more than one foot below its long-term average. These low water levels threaten harbors with closure, hamper boaters from getting to safe harbor, and require vessels to light-load, causing shippers to lose millions of dollars of freight shipments and hampering our economic competitiveness. The bill includes $821 million in funding for dredging needs related to natural disasters. I entered into a colloquy with the bill manager to ensure that Great Lakes projects would be eligible for this funding. I am pleased Senator Leahy assured me that in fact Great Lakes harbors and channels impeded as a result of drought and low water levels would be eligible for this funding. When the Army Corps makes determinations as to how to allocate funds, I hope the Corps will prioritize funding for Great Lakes projects which are estimated to require $35 million to address the low water levels. With respect to crop damage, the bill includes an amendment sponsored by Senator Merkley that reauthorizes several expired disaster assistance programs to assist ranchers and farmers, including an extension of the noninsured crop assistance disaster program. This program will provide critical assistance to farm producers, including Michigan tart cherry growers who are currently ineligible to purchase crop insurance for their crops. I hope this bill will soon be passed by the House and be signed by the President. The people impacted by Hurricane Sandy and other disasters should not be kept waiting for their Nation to provide assistance. I hope we will be able to provide the funds for those in need.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee who will be retiring at the end of this session of Congress. Her name is Christine Cowart, and for the past 6 years, she has served as the Chief Clerk of the Committee. She had previously served a term of 8 years as Chief Clerk under Senator Sam Nunn. I know that 14 years sounds like a lot of time to most people, but that barely scratches the surface of Chris' service to the Senate. In fact, Chris holds a special place in the record books. In an organization like the Senate, known for some long-serving members, Chris would fall within the top ten list of longevity for senators, and no member currently serving has been here in the Senate longer than Chris. The mere fact that she will be completing almost 41 years of service to the Senate is truly a remarkable accomplishment, especially in today's world where changing jobs has become the norm. And if that were all of her record, that would be amazing. But that is only part of the story. Chris made invaluable contributions to getting each of 41 of the 51 total National Defense Authorization Acts we have done annually since 1961. As Chief Clerk, it was her duty to shepherd the Armed Services Committee's annual set of hearings, meetings, and briefings that lead up to the DOD Authorization Act each year. Her duties also included showing the ropes to new senators and new staffers alike. Chris took to heart the ideals of service she dedicated almost all of her adult life to service to her country and to the Senate. I remember Chris recounting how her father had escorted her here to the Russell Senate Office Building for her first interview with the Committee in the summer of 1972, shortly after she graduated from college. She said she didn't have any difficulty in deciding what to do after her father told her, ``Take the job.'' Chris' father was a career Navy man, having flown maritime patrol aircraft for the Navy during World War II and thereafter. He instilled in Chris the value of patriotism and service to country that she so exemplifies in her life. During her service to the Committee, she served as mentor, confidant and advisor to the staff as they experienced weddings, divorces, births and deaths. Chris has been a rock for the Committee, and I know I speak for all of the members and staff when I say, ``Chris, thank you for your service to the Armed Services Committee, to the Senate and to the country. You have set a standard of dedication and professionalism for all of us, and we will miss you!''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am pleased to bring to the Senate, along with Senator McCain, the conference report on H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. This conference report, which was signed by all 26 Senate conferees, all the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, contains many provisions that are of critical importance to our troops. This will be the 51st consecutive year in which a national defense authorization act will be enacted into law. I thank my dear friend Senator McCain, our ranking minority member, for all that he did to bring us to this conclusion and for the years of great leadership on our committee. I have been lucky to have Senator McCain as a partner. I know both of us are grateful to the chairman and the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon and Adam Smith, for their hard work on reconciling the many differences between the House and Senate bill and for helping to produce a solid bill to support the men and women of our Armed Forces. The conference report contains many important provisions that will improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform. It will provide needed support and assistance to our troops who are deployed. It will make the investments we need to meet the challenges of the 21st century. First and foremost, the bill authorizes a 1.7-percent across-the- board pay raise for all members of the uniformed services, consistent with the President's request. The conference report contains strong additional sanctions on Iran. The Iran sanctions provisions will designate certain persons in Iran's energy, port, shipping, and shipbuilding sectors as entities of proliferation concern, subjecting many more transactions with such entities to sanctions. It will impose sanctions on persons selling or supplying or diverting to Iran a defined list of materials relevant to the aforementioned sectors, to certain Iranian specially designated nationals and blocked persons, or to be used in connection with certain Iranian military programs. It is going to impose sanctions on any insurance or reinsurance provider or underwriter that knowingly provides underwriting service, insurance, or reinsurance for activities for which sanctions have been imposed to any person in the energy, shipping, or shipbuilding sector in Iran. It will designate the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting and its president as human rights abusers for their broadcasting of forced confessions and show trials, blocking their assets and preventing other entities from doing business with them and banning any travel to the United States. The administration requested three modifications. In particular, one was additional time to implement the provision following enactment; the second was additional time between waiver renewals; and third was a modification of the exceptions clause from nondesignated Iranian ``financial institutions'' in the Senate-passed version to a broader term that would have incorporated nondesignated Iranian ``persons.'' That conference report provides two of the three modifications--the additional time requested. It does not make a change in terms of the exceptions clause. The conference report contains a few provisions addressing detainee issues. These provisions extend existing limitations on the transfer or release of Gitmo detainees for another year. We did not adopt the permanent limitations in the House bill. We also provided new flexibility for dealing with detainees who cooperate with U.S. intelligence and law enforcement authorities pursuant to pretrial agreements. The report establishes new congressional notification requirements for military detainees held on naval vessels and for third-country nationals who are released from military detention in Afghanistan, but the report does not place any conditions or limitations on such transfers. The conference report does not include the Senate language regarding military detention inside the United States. The House conferees would simply not accept this provision. Instead, we included a provision that says and states the following: Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force, (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or such rights in the absence of such laws. The provision in the fiscal year 2012 act, which is referred to in the language I just read--it is already law--that section in the 2012 act is section 1021. That section said the following: Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested inside the United States. The language in this conference report reflects my view that Congress did not restrict or deny anyone's Constitutional rights in either the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force or the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. The Statement of Managers accompanying this conference report points out that ``constitutional rights may not be restricted or denied by statute.'' On the Alternative Fuel provision, the conference report does not include a provision of the House-passed bill that would have prohibited fiscal year 2013 funding for the production or purchase of alternative fuel if the cost of producing or purchasing the alternative fuel exceeds the cost of traditional fossil fuel. The conference report does contain a provision that limits DOD's fiscal year 2013 Defense Production Act--DPA--funding for the construction of a biofuel refinery until--that is the key word--the DOD receives the promised contributions from the Departments of Energy and Agriculture for the same purpose. We do not limit Phase I of the DPA project, nor does the conference report limit the use of FY12 funds for biofuel refinery construction. On ``cyber,'' the conference report requires the Secretary of Defense to create a process requiring defense contractors that use or possess classified or sensitive DOD information to report successful cyber penetrations of their networks or information systems. Additionally, if the Department is concerned about a particular event and feels the need to determine what DOD information may have been lost from such penetration, the provision would authorize DOD to conduct its own forensic analysis, upon request, and subject to limitations. I know the Presiding Officer has a special interest in this area of cyber security. This provision in the Defense authorization bill represents a major breakthrough in the Nation's need to protect cyber-- our information systems and cyber security. There are a lot of other sensitive areas where we are threatened with cyber attacks, such as financial, police, transportation sectors, which obviously we could not touch; they are not within our jurisdiction. They need similar action. The conference report provides that the Secretary of Defense will evaluate, by the end of 2013, at least three possible future missile defense interceptor deployment locations in the United States--at least two of which would be on the East Coast--and then to prepare an environmental impact statement for the locations evaluated. It would also require the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to prepare a contingency plan for deployment of an additional interceptor site in case the President decides to proceed with such a deployment. However, it does not mandate or authorize deployment of any missile defense site, and does not require the Defense Department to submit a deployment plan to Congress. For Afghanistan, the conference report includes a sense of Congress in support of the President's plan for the transition of lead responsibility for security to the Afghan security forces in 2013 and the drawdown of most U.S. forces by no later than the end of 2014. Specifically, the sense of Congress provides in part that the President should seek to ``. . . take all possible steps to end such operations at the earliest possible date consistent with a safe and orderly draw down of United States troops in Afghanistan.'' The conference report also calls for an independent assessment of the size and structure requirements of the Afghan National Security Forces necessary for those forces to be able to ensure that their country will not again serve as a safe-haven for terrorists that threaten Afghanistan, the region, and the world. On TRICARE, the conference report establishes modestly increased cost-sharing rates under the TRICARE pharmacy benefits program for fiscal year 2013 in statute, and in fiscal years 2014 through 2022, limits any annual increases in pharmacy copayments to increases in retiree cost of living adjustments. The Administration's proposal would have tripled beneficiary copayment rates over the next 10 years. The conference report also requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 5-year pilot program to refill prescription maintenance medications for TRICARE for Life beneficiaries through TRICARE's national mail-order pharmacy program, resulting in savings to the government of $1.1 billion over the next decade. Regarding Air Force force structure, the conferees adopted language establishing a commission, which would consist of eight members, four appointed by the President and four appointed by leadership of the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Commission would be required to report to the Congress by February 1, 2014, in time to inform congressional action on the fiscal year 2015 budget request, on an Air Force force structure that would, among other things, meet the current and anticipated requirement of the combatant commanders while achieving an appropriate balance between the regular and reserve components of the Air Force, taking advantage of the unique strengths and capabilities of each. The conference report would provide that during fiscal year 2013, the Air Force would be required to maintain the alternative force structure proposed by the Air Force on November 2, 2012, after Congress clearly indicated it would reject the original plan. We modified the November plan to add an additional 32 fixed-wing, intra-theater airlift aircraft (C-27s and/or C-130s) beyond the number proposed by the Secretary. This addition will help us provide sufficient aircraft to meet the Army's fixed-wing, direct support/time sensitive airlift mission requirements. Once again, I want to thank Senator McCain. As I said before, I have been honored, pleased, and lucky to have Senator McCain as my partner in leading the Armed Services Committee. I know how indebted we both are to our staffs as well as to all of the members who work so well together on a bipartisan basis. Our majority and minority staffs were led by Rick Debobes and Ann Sauer. They have done amazing work on this bill. They did a month's worth of work in weeks. They did a week's worth of work in days, and they did a day's worth of work in hours. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a full list of the majority and minority staff, who gave so much of themselves and their families, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. I would note that the committee's chief clerk Chris Cowert will be retiring at the end of this year after completing more than 41 years on the committee staff. She has been a driving force behind the staff support of the annual Defense Authorization Act, and she will be sorely missed. I yield the floor.