Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics, and Environmental Health be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2011, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen 406 to conduct a joint hearing entitled, ``Safe Chemicals Act.''

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Competitiveness, Innovation, and Export Promotion of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Tourism in America: Moving our Economy Forward.''

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 17, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``NASA's Human Space Exploration: Direction, Strategy, and Progress.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that CPT Michael Lynch, a U.S. Army aviation officer who is currently serving as a defense fellow in Senator Reid's office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the committee- reported amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 221, H.R. 3321.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a Feinstein substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2056.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 53, S. 99.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment be considered, the Bingaman amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the committee-reported amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and the budgetary pay-go statement at the desk be read.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, as amended, be passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any related statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9 a.m. tomorrow, Friday, November 18, 2011; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of S. 1867, the Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will oppose the motion to proceed to Senator Rand Paul's resolution that would disapprove of the cross-State air pollution rule promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA's cross-State air pollution rule, also known as ``CSAPR,'' requires reductions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that contribute to smog and fine particle pollution in downwind areas. To minimize costs, EPA allows trading of air pollution permits and also provides flexibility to States for implementing the rule. The State of Michigan, in particular west Michigan, has air quality problems due to pollution from areas such as Chicago, Milwaukee, and Gary. Poor air quality not only causes a variety of health problems, such as asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory ailments, but also has a detrimental impact on economic development and job creation. It simply makes no sense for a region to be penalized with pollution and requirements that could limit economic growth when the source of pollution comes from outside of that region. For that reason, I support the goal of the EPA rule. I am pleased that EPA's cross-State air pollution rule is expected to help some Michigan counties meet the national air quality standards for smog and fine particulate matter. However, I am concerned that the rule does not appear to adequately address a number of air pollution problems in west Michigan caused by out of State sources. In 2014, Allegan County is projected to not be able to meet the national air quality standard for smog, even though Allegan County is not the source of the pollution. In fact, a 2009 EPA study concluded that smog levels in Allegan County and other areas in west Michigan are primarily due to transport of smog and smog-forming emissions from other major urban areas outside of Michigan. It is unfair for Allegan County--or any other county--to be penalized due to pollution sources outside of their control. This rule fails to remedy the kind of unfair situation Allegan County finds itself in. The Rand Paul disapproval resolution would not only overturn the EPA regulation but any substantially similar rule. The rule can be improved, e.g., establishing better linkages between the source of pollution and downwind poor air quality, and adjusting the upwind emission requirements accordingly, but enactment of this resolution would prevent that from occurring. For these reasons, I will oppose the resolution.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I will oppose the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 6 a joint resolution of disapproval of the FCC rule regarding net neutrality. This resolution of disapproval would overturn the FCC's rule that would codify and supplement existing Internet openness principles while maintaining the ability of Internet service providers to engage in reasonable network management. The rules would prohibit Internet access providers from preventing its users from sending or receiving lawful content over the Internet; prohibit Internet access providers from preventing users from connecting lawful devices to the network; and would require Internet access providers to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner. It also included additional provisions that will create an Open Internet Advisory Committee to assess and report to the FCC on developments in mobile broadband. The Internet has become an indispensable tool that has spurred innovation, provided virtually unlimited access to information and commerce, and increased communication through Web sites, e-mail, and blogs. It has become difficult to imagine life without the Internet, a system both open and unrestricted. The Internet plays a critical role in our society because it provides an equal platform for all users, allowing for the free exchange of ideas and information. It is important that the Internet remain free and open and not risk becoming a system with limited access for some of the smaller Web sites and their users.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the legislation before the Senate is the latest effort by Senate Democrats to pass portions of the President's American Jobs Act that will boost the economy and put Americans back to work. The underlying legislation will repeal a 3 percent withholding on contractors that was designed to encourage contractors to pay their taxes; and the amendment offered by my colleague from Montana, Senator Tester, will help veterans by providing hiring incentives to employers who hire our heroes and expanding education and training opportunities for older veterans. The 3 percent withholding on contractors was enacted in 2005 and, because of implementation problems, has never been put into effect. I have heard from businesses in Michigan, universities in Michigan, mayors and countless others that this withholding provision is unworkable. Because Congress and the President recognize this problem, Congress has continued to delay its effective date. The repeal of the 3 percent withholding requirement should be paid for by finding other ways to promote tax fairness and improving tax compliance. I have offered several of these proposals before. Unfortunately, rather than paying for this bill with measures to promote tax compliance and fairness, it is paid for by revising the way the modified adjusted gross income is calculated in determining eligibility for health care programs. According to the Joint Tax Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, this means that somewhere between 500,000 and a million people receiving early retiree, disability, and other social security benefits will no longer be eligible for Medicaid. If changes in income eligibility for Medicaid need to be considered, then any savings from those changes should be reinvested back into Medicaid to strengthen our health care system. I believe it is unwise to take savings from health care programs to pay for the repeal of the 3 percent withholding requirement. This legislation does do some important things to help America's veterans who continue to face big challenges even after leaving the battlefield. Veterans comprise almost 10 percent of the U.S. population. While overall employment of veterans has been at or below the national average, those veterans who have served in the past decade have seen their unemployment rate rise to above the national average. Male veterans aged 18-24 had an unemployment rate of almost 22 percent in 2010. Almost 12 percent of all homeless adults are veterans. It is a national embarrassment that we are failing to serve those who have served us. This bill will provide business tax credits for the hiring of veterans, including those with disabilities. The tax credit is scaled to increase depending on how long that veteran has been unemployed. The bill also helps unemployed veterans pay for school and provides Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Benefits for disabled veterans. And finally, the bill allows active servicemembers to begin pursuing federal employment opportunities prior to separation from the military, easing their transition from the military to jobs at the VA, Homeland Security or other federal agencies that would benefit from the experience a veteran offers. Because it will help to hire veterans, who have sacrificed so much to help our country, and repeals the 3 percent withholding requirement, I will vote for the bill although the health care eligibility changes are the wrong way to pay for. Amendment No. 928

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

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the Rebuild America Jobs Act addresses two of our most fundamental responsibilities: first, the need to respond to the urgent jobs crisis and, second, the duty to create the physical framework for economic growth now and into the future. There should be no debate about our duty to fulfill those two responsibilities. Yet, once again, we are in a situation where the refusal of our Republican colleagues to compromise, even on consideration of measures they have supported in the past, prevents us from acting on behalf of the American people. I am encouraged by reports that perhaps finally the need to act has convinced some of our colleagues across the aisle to at least consider allowing the Senate to debate this legislation. I hope for the sake of millions of people in Michigan and in every other State who are waiting for us to act that at least some of our Republican colleagues will relent and allow us to at least debate this measure. What would this bill accomplish? Simply put, it seeks to create jobs now and into the future. It does so by funding a wide array of infrastructure projects, including roads, bridges, rail transport, mass transit, airport facilities, and updated air traffic control systems. These projects would put construction workers on the job immediately. They would, according to estimates by Moody's, boost economic growth by more than a dollar and a half for every dollar we spend. And the benefits would continue into the future as American companies and American workers benefit from the increased competitiveness that modernized infrastructure provides. In my home State of Michigan, this legislation would result in more than $900 million going to infrastructure projects. It would create about 12,000 jobs. Residents of my State are keenly aware of the need to act, and to act now, on the jobs crisis, and they are keenly aware of the terrible costs we pay if we allow our economic competitors to establish advantages over our workers. In my State, nearly one-third of our bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. More than one-third of our major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. About 40 percent of our major urban roadways are congested. The people of Michigan want us to act on jobs, and they want us to act now to maintain America's competitive edge. These are not controversial ideas--at least they have not been in the past. Support for infrastructure is traditionally bipartisan. It was a Republican President--Dwight Eisenhower--who launched the Interstate Highway System. This bill includes an infrastructure bank based on a bipartisan idea once supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Every Member of this body, Democrat and Republican, fights for adequate infrastructure spending for their State. Why, when faced with the dual challenges of a jobs crisis and increasingly outdated infrastructure, would we hamper our ability to grow now and in the future by not allowing a debate on this bill and adopting this bill? Perhaps some of my Republican colleagues object to the way this bill is paid for. As has been the case with previous jobs bills, this legislation would not add a dollar to the deficit. It would pay for these much needed infrastructure efforts by asking those with incomes of more than $1 million a year to pay a fraction of a percentage point of their income above $1 million a year in additional taxes. Again, outside the Halls of Congress, this is not a controversial notion. A strong majority of Americans, including a majority of rank-and-file Republicans, support the idea of asking the wealthiest among us to contribute to solving our jobs crisis. I might say, in terms of investing in infrastructure, a recent CNN poll shows that 72 percent of Americans support investing in infrastructure to create jobs. We know from this poll that a huge majority of Americans want us to invest in infrastructure. They want us to invest in infrastructure now to create jobs. That is mirrored by other polls which show a vast majority of Americans believe the fair way to pay for this investment is for the wealthiest among us to pay a small fraction of the income they make above a level such as $1 million, which is what is provided for in this bill. Now, make no mistake, if Republicans reject this legislation because of the funding mechanism, they are voting directly in opposition to the will of the American people and against the concepts of basic fairness that should guide our actions. Finally, relative to this pay-for, there is only one group of Americans who have done well financially in the last few decades; that is, the wealthiest 1 percent. The rest of Americans, middle-income Americans, have either lost ground or gotten nowhere, but the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans have done exceedingly well, and their proportion of the national income has grown dramatically. So to say income above $1 million should not pay a small fraction of a percent in a surcharge to help pay for what this country desperately needs and would create jobs flies right against the feelings and beliefs of the vast majority of the American people. Finally, the vote we are going to take in the next couple days is not even a vote on the bill. This is a vote on ending a Republican filibuster on the motion to proceed to the bill. It is a motion which would allow us to begin to debate a bill. I have been continually surprised at the lockstep opposition of Republicans to even beginning to debate on these matters. I would make a simple request, and a number of us have done the same. Let's debate this legislation. Allow us to debate the legislation. If the legislation can be improved, offer ideas to improve it. If there is a better idea, offer the better idea. I believe Republicans would have a very receptive audience if they propose ideas for which there is strong evidence of benefits and economic growth and job creation. But until we can get a job-creation measure to the floor of the Senate, we cannot even discuss those issues in a legislative setting; we can only really hear debate as to whether we ought to be allowed to debate those issues. A bipartisan vote to begin the debate on jobs legislation would send an important signal to the people we all represent, a signal that we are ready to put aside partisanship and address the problems our people face. I hope Republicans will end their filibuster so we can adopt the motion to proceed to this jobs bill. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, John Bruce will retire as the associate director for the Support Equipment Product Support Integration Development on December 3, 2011, his 94th birthday. His retirement is particularly noteworthy because John enjoys the distinction of being the oldest and longest-serving employee of the U.S. Army. This momentous occasion will be fittingly marked by a celebration in his honor with his colleagues, family and friends in Warren. John Bruce began his service in the U.S. Army in 1942 during World War II as a member of the Army Signal Corps. He was stationed in the South Pacific as an intercept operator. After being honorably discharged in 1946, John began his civilian career at the Detroit Arsenal in Warren, MI as a cost/price analyst. In the ensuing decades, Mr. Bruce has held a number of positions of increasing responsibility at the Detroit Arsenal. He was an integral contributor to the reorganization of the Defense Department and helped to consolidate and centralize the Military Services field activities, which later became the Defense Logistics Agency. John Bruce has dedicated his life to serving our country and has accomplished much in his long and illustrious career. John's accomplishments throughout his career have been publicly recognized through a number of citations and awards, including the 1975 Secretary of the Army Award; 1983 Commanders Award for Exceptional Civilian Service; 1990 Meritorious Civilian Service Award; 1991 Achievement Medal for Superior Civilian Service; and 2002 Department of the Army Decoration for Exceptional Service. I know my Senate colleagues join me in congratulating John Bruce and honoring his distinguished record of service to our country as he retires on his 94th birthday. John has left a lasting impact on our Nation's security, and he will be deeply missed by his colleagues. I wish him the best as he embarks on the next chapter of his life.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I am pleased that Senator Crapo has withdrawn his amendment, No. 814. I would have opposed this amendment because it would have brought to a screeching halt the financial reforms Congress recently enacted to end Wall Street abuses, because it would weaken capital and margin requirements to limit risk, and because it would add to the law multiple layers of complexity. Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to put a cop back on the Wall Street beat. It ended the decades of deregulation that helped unleash the forces of self-dealing and conflicts of interest that thrust our economy into the recession from which we are still digging out. The Crapo amendment would have forced the key Federal banking, commodities and securities regulators to stop issuing all regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank law until they issued a host of studies. It would have buried financial reform under an unprecedented regulatory procedure requiring piles of new paperwork. The new procedures and studies could have required years of additional delay, when Congress has already decided that financial reforms are needed now to protect the public from high risk financial activities. That was reason enough to oppose the Crapo amendment. Second, the Crapo amendment would have weakened a key set of reforms contained in the Dodd-Frank Act, requiring capital and margin requirements to reduce risk in the shadowy market in derivatives. Now, just as rules requiring increased transparency and accountability are starting to become a reality, some have decided that they prefer the derivatives market the way it was before. Some too quickly forget exactly why we need transparency, accountability, and reduced risk. So let me remind us all about AIG. A small unit, based in London and buried within the bowels of AIG, nearly brought about the collapse of the firm, and with it, the world economy. They sold a type of derivative called a credit default swap. Lots of them. While they got paid for taking on the risk behind those swaps, they had insufficient reserves to pay off the bets if they lost. Later, when all of those swaps went bad, they simply did not have the funds to pay off their bets. And only AIG knew how much it owed to whom, because the swaps market had no transparency. Federal regulators were prohibited by law from overseeing swaps. Worse yet, Federal regulators could not just let AIG fail, because the losses to those on the other side of their bets could have brought them down as well. A global nightmare caused by one small unit of one company, allowed to run wild by selling a ton of swaps without the reserves to pay off the bets if they lost. So taxpayers bailed out AIG, and through them, the banks and companies that did business with AIG. If those banks had been allowed to collapse, the financial markets would have frozen. Companies would have been unable to get funds they needed to operate and grow. Families would have been unable to get loans to fund their educations, to buy cars and homes, and live. The Dodd-Frank Act was designed to prevent that nightmare from happening again. It would institute new capital and margin requirements for swap dealers and other major participants active in the derivative markets. Yet just as we start to restore sanity and put the financial cops back on the Wall Street beat, the Crapo amendment would have stopped the cops from doing their jobs. The amendment would have fundamentally undermined Dodd-Frank in two principal ways. First, it would have delayed any new regulations as already described. Second, the amendment would have carved out vast amounts of derivatives trades from the new protections. While the amendment was written in a complex way, it seems to prohibit the CFTC from imposing capital and margin requirements for a whole host of swaps. Let me give you an example. As I understand the amendment, it could have prohibited the CFTC from using any of its funds to regulate derivatives involving at least one party that's a favored entity. Some of the favored entities are even investment firms. Take, for example, the Hudson CDO that my Subcommittee on Investigations examined. It was a $2 billion synthetic CDO designed by Goldman Sachs and then turned over to a special purpose investment vehicle set up by Goldman Sachs in the Cayman Islands. That company issued the Hudson credit default swap that allowed Goldman Sachs to bet against the very instrument it had constructed. If one of the purchasers of this bet was a manufacturing firm or some other type of special entity, shouldn't they also be protected? For the last decade, the CFTC couldn't do anything to regulate swaps because the Commodity Futures Modernization Act explicitly exempted swaps from all government oversight. The Dodd-Frank Act reversed that ill-advised policy by making swaps once again subject to federal regulation and oversight. The Crapo amendment would have restored some of those exemptions and done it in a way that is poorly designed, and could have engendered years of litigation over what it meant. In short, the Crapo amendment would have delayed important financial reforms, reduced protections against taxpayer bailouts, and crippled the abilities of our regulators to set the new rules of the road. To me, the Crapo amendment had a pretty simple message: return to the financial deregulation that preceded, and contributed to, the financial crisis of the last few years. I am of the opposite view. I think that the collapse of AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual, and countless other firms teach us a different lesson. The findings of the bipartisan investigation conducted by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations tell a different story. Our financial system needs a cop back on the beat. I am glad that the Crapo amendment has been withdrawn.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am going to speak now against the pending amendment of Senator Ayotte, which would prohibit the prosecution of terrorists in Federal courts. We need all available tools against terrorists, including the possibility of prosecution in Federal courts or before military commissions. While there is no doubt we have made use of military commissions in the course of previous wars, we have never enacted legislation closing the Federal courts to the prosecution of our enemies. We have always left it up to the executive branch to determine which tool best suits an individual case. Indeed, both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have repeatedly used the Federal courts to bring terrorists to justice. For example, the Bush administration successfully used the Federal courts to prosecute Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, in October of 2002. The Bush administration used the Federal courts to successfully prosecute Ahmed Omar Abu, who was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in 2005. The Bush administration used the Federal courts to prosecute and sentence Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called twentieth hijacker, convicted in 2006, and sentenced to life in prison for his role in the 9/11 attacks. The Obama administration successfully used the Federal courts when they prosecuted Najibulla Zazi in 2009 for his role in the New York subway bombing plot; when they prosecuted Faisal Shahzad in 2010 in connection with the Times Square bombing; and when they prosecuted Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called underwear bomber, in 2011 in connection with the attempted Christmas Day bombing in Detroit. If the Ayotte amendment had been law, these successful court prosecutions would have been thrown into doubt. In fact, prosecution might not have been possible in any forum, because if a court determined that a military commission lacked jurisdiction and if the Ayotte amendment precluded jurisdiction of a Federal court, there couldn't be prosecution in any forum whatsoever. That could have actually been the outcome in the case of Ahmed Warsame, an accused member of the terrorist group al-Shabaab. He was indicted in Federal court earlier this year on charges of providing material support to al-Shabaab and al- Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. In the Warsame case, our national security and legal teams determined that the Federal courts provided the best forum in which to prosecute Warsame for his alleged crimes. This decision was reached for two reasons: One, Warsame is alleged to have violated a number of Federal statutes, including sections of the criminal code prohibiting trafficking in explosives, use of dangerous weapons, acts of international terrorism, providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations, and receiving military type training from foreign terrorist organizations. Only the Federal courts have jurisdiction to try violations of those sections. Those offenses are not listed as crimes under the Military Commissions Act. There is a second reason why it was decided that Warsame was best prosecuted in a Federal court, which could not happen under the amendment of Senator Ayotte. Warsame appears to have engaged in acts of terrorism and material support to terrorism, both of which are crimes under the Military Commissions Act, but--and this is the problem--only if they are committed ``in the context of and associated with hostilities'' against the United States. The administration concluded it would have been difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt before a military commission that Warsame met those jurisdictional thresholds. As a result, if the Ayotte amendment were law, it might be impossible for the United States to prosecute Warsame in any forum. Our Federal prosecutors have a proven track record of prosecuting terrorists in Federal courts. Two years ago, the Justice Department informed us that there were 208 inmates in Federal prisons who had been sentenced for crimes relating to international terrorism, and an additional 139 inmates who had been sentenced for crimes related to domestic terrorism. Those were crimes which were prosecuted in Federal courts. By contrast, only four enemy combatants have been convicted by military commissions since 9/11, two of them, by the way, as a result of plea agreements, sending them to Australia and to Canada. Critics of the decision to try Warsame in Federal court apparently would prefer that he be tried before a military commission even though he might be less likely to be convicted there due to the jurisdictional issues. The most appropriate forum for trial should be determined, as it was in Warsame, on the basis of the nature of the offense, the nature of the evidence, and the likelihood of successful prosecution. The executive branch officials who make these determinations are more likely to reach a sound conclusion after weighing those factors than would be the result of a one-size-fits-all legislative restriction that we would impose under the Ayotte amendment. Yesterday afternoon we received a letter from the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General expressing their ``strong opposition'' to the Ayotte amendment. The letter states as follows: Whether a given case should be tried in an Article III court or before a military commission is a decision that should be based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the overall national security interests of the United States. It is a decision best left in the hands of experienced national security professionals. The letter continues: If we are to safeguard the American people, we must be in a position to employ every lawful instrument of national power--including both courts and military commissions--to ensure that terrorists are brought to justice and can no longer threaten American lives. By depriving us of one of our most potent weapons in the fight against terrorism, the amendment would make it more likely that terrorists would escape justice and innocent lives would be put at risk. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter be printed in the Congressional Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. LEVIN. This issue, as the Presiding Officer may recall, came up in the Armed Services Committee during our markup of the Defense Authorization Act. Our bill expressly allows the transfer of detainees for trial by a court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. The amendment of Senator Ayotte to delete that authority was defeated in the Armed Services Committee by a vote of 19 to 7. The bottom line is that Congress has never before attempted to prevent the prosecution of terrorists in Federal court. We should not do so now. We should continue to use military commissions in cases where they are the best place for prosecution and for trial. We should not foreclose prosecution and trial in Federal courts. Exhibit 1 Hon. Harry Reid, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Leader Reid and Leader McConnell: We write to express our strong opposition to the Ayotte amendment to H.R. 2112, which would severely curtail the ability of the Executive branch to prosecute alleged terrorists in Federal court. The amendment represents an extreme and unprecedented encroachment on the authority of the Executive Branch to determine when and where to prosecute terrorist suspects. Whether a given case should be tried in an Article III court or before a military commission is a decision that should be based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the overall national security interests of the United States. It is a decision best left in the hands of experienced national security professionals. If we are to safeguard the American people, we must be in a position to employ every lawful instrument of national power--including both courts and military commissions--to ensure that terrorists are brought to justice and can no longer threaten American lives. By depriving us of one of our most potent weapons in the fight against terrorism, the amendment would make it more likely that terrorists will escape justice and innocent lives will be put at risk. Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of Defense. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment. This is a very different amendment from the one we adopted in our Armed Services Committee relative to detention. This amendment was rejected on a strong bipartisan vote in the Armed Services Committee. The reasons are set forth in a letter from the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Panetta, who wrote us: If we are to safeguard the American people, we must be in a position to employ every lawful instrument of national power--including both courts and military commissions--to ensure that terrorists are brought to justice and can no longer threaten American lives. By depriving us of one of our most potent weapons in the fight against terrorism, the Ayotte amendment would make it more likely that terrorists would escape justice and innocent lives would be put at risk. They have been successfully prosecuted. Recently in Detroit a terrorist was successfully prosecuted in an article III court. We should not deny the prosecutors this tool. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin.