[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 78 (Wednesday, May 20, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5650-S5683]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2346, which the clerk will 
report by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2346) making supplemental appropriations for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Inouye-Inhofe amendment No. 1133, to prohibit funding to 
     transfer, release or incarcerate detainees detained at 
     Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United States.
       McConnell amendment No. 1136, to limit the release of 
     detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pending a report on the 
     prisoner population at the detention facility at Guantanamo 
     Bay.
       Cornyn amendment No. 1139, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that the interrogators, attorneys, and lawmakers who 
     tried in good faith to protect the United States and abide by 
     the law should not be prosecuted or otherwise sanctioned.
       Brownback amendment No. 1140, to express the sense of the 
     Senate on consultation with State and local governments in 
     the transfer to the United States of detainees at Naval 
     Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


                           Amendment No. 1133

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 2 hours of debate, equally divided and controlled between the 
leaders or their designees, with respect to amendment No. 1133, with 
the first 30 minutes under the control of the Republican leader, the 
second 30 minutes

[[Page S5651]]

under the control of the majority leader, and the final 60 minutes 
divided equally, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes, 
with the final 5 minutes under the control of the Senator from Hawaii, 
Mr. Inouye.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.
  No. 1, I would like to associate myself with the comments of the 
minority leader about Guantanamo Bay. It is a location that does 
protect our national interests in terms of a location. It is probably 
the best run military prison in the world. I have been there several 
times.
  To the guard force and those who are serving at Guantanamo Bay, in 
many ways, you are the unsung heroes in this war because it is tough 
duty. You have to go through a lot to be a member of the Guantanamo Bay 
guard team.
  They do a wonderful job. It is a very Geneva Conventions-compliant 
jail, and there are some pretty bad characters down there who make life 
miserable for our guard force. But those who serve at Guantanamo Bay do 
so with dignity and professionalism. Their motto, I believe, is ``honor 
bound.'' That certainly reflects upon them well.

  The idea of the Congress saying we want to plan before we appropriate 
money to close Guantanamo Bay makes a lot of sense to me. We see a 
bipartisan movement here to make sure we know what we are going to do 
with the detainees who are housed at Guantanamo Bay. The American 
people should be rightly concerned about how we dispose of these 
prisoners. Quite frankly, they are not common criminals accused of 
robbing a liquor store; they are accused of being a member of al-Qaida 
or allied groups that have taken up arms against the United States. 
Their mission and their purpose is to destroy our way of life and to 
put our allies and friends in the Mideast into the dark ages. So if you 
do not want to go back to the dark ages in terms of humanity; if you 
want young girls to grow up without having acid thrown in their face; 
if you want a young woman to be able to have a say about the future of 
her children in the Mideast, then we need to come up with a rational 
policy regarding fighting al-Qaida and, once we catch them, how to 
dispose of their cases and make sure they are not only fairly treated 
but their mission and their goals are defeated and they do not return 
to the fight.
  We have seen in Iraq that there are Muslim populations that do not 
want to be part of the al-Qaida agenda. Al-Qaida followed us to Iraq 
because they understood if we were successful there in creating a 
democracy in the heart of the Mideast, it would be a threat to their 
agenda. Iraq has a way to go, but I am very proud of the Iraqi people. 
They have come together. They are making political reconciliations. 
Their army and police forces are getting stronger. The story of the 
surge is that the Iraqi people joined with our forces and coalition 
forces and delivered a mighty blow against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida is, quite 
frankly, in the process of being defeated by the Iraqi people with our 
help. Now the fight goes to Pakistan and Afghanistan. I cannot think of 
a more noble cause than to take up arms and fight back against these 
terrorists who wish the world ill, who will do anything in the name of 
their religion to have their way, and who would make life miserable for 
parts of this world and eventually make life miserable for us.
  Imagine a caliphate being established in Baghdad, which was their 
plan, to put the Mideast in constant turmoil. We would not be able to 
travel freely in this world. We could not interact or do business with 
the people in the Mideast. It is a very oil-rich region, so it is in 
our national security interests to stand with moderate people in the 
Mideast and other places where al-Qaida attempts to take over, and 
fight back. But when we fight back, we don't have to be like them. 
Quite frankly, if we are like them when we fight back, we will lose.
  This is an ideological struggle. There is no capital to conquer. 
There is no navy to sink or air force to shoot down. We cannot kill 
enough of the terrorists to win the war. What we have to do is contain 
them, fight them, and empower those who live in the region who want to 
live in a different way, give them the capacity to defend themselves 
and bring about a stable life in their countries. That is what we are 
trying to do in Iraq. If we win in Iraq, we will have a democracy in 
the heart of the Arab world that will be an ally to this country in 
perpetuity. We will have replaced a dictator named Saddam Hussein, and 
we will have a place where we can show the world that there are Muslims 
who do not want to be governed by the al-Qaida agenda, and to me that 
is a major win in the war on terror. Now we are in Afghanistan. We have 
lost ground, but we are about to recapture that ground from the 
Taliban, which are al-Qaida sympathizers and, quite frankly, allowed 
them to operate in Afghanistan late in the last century and early in 
this century to plan the attacks of 9/11.
  So that is why we are fighting. That is why we are in this 
discussion. That is why we are concerned about releasing these 
prisoners within the United States, and that is why we are concerned 
about Guantanamo Bay. We have every right and reason to be concerned as 
to how we move forward.
  I want to move forward. We need a plan to move forward. We should not 
close Guantanamo Bay until we have a comprehensive, detailed, legal 
strategy as to what we will do with these prisoners. Where we put them 
is only possible if people know what we will do with them. So we have 
to explain to the American people and our allies the disposition plan. 
What are we going to do with these detainees? Then where you put them 
becomes possible. Without what to do, we are never going to find where 
to put them.
  I do believe the President and our military commanders are right when 
they say it is time to start over. It is a shame we are having to start 
over, because Guantanamo Bay is a well-run jail. But as I mentioned 
before, this ideological struggle we are engaged in, the enemy has 
seized upon the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the mistakes at Guantanamo Bay, 
and they use that to our detriment. They inflame populations in the 
Mideast based on our past mistakes. Our commanders have told me to a 
person that if we could start over with detention policy and show the 
world that we have a new way of doing business--a better way of doing 
business--it would improve the ability of our troops to operate in the 
regions in question where the conflict exists; it would undercut the 
enemy; it would help our allies be more helpful to us. Our British 
friends are the best friends we could hope to have, and they have had a 
hard time with our detainee policy. So we have every reason in the 
world to want to start over, but the Congress is right not to allow us 
to start over until we have a plan. The Congress, in a bipartisan 
fashion, is absolutely right to keep Guantanamo Bay open until we have 
a complete plan. I do believe this President understands how to move 
forward with Guantanamo Bay.
  The best way to move forward, in my opinion, is to collaborate with 
the Congress, to look at the military commission system, which I think 
is the proper venue to dispose of any war crimes trials. Remember, 
these people we are talking about have been accused of taking up arms 
against the United States. They are noncitizen, enemy combatants who 
represent a military threat. Military commissions have been used to try 
people such as this for hundreds of years. We did trials with German 
saboteurs who landed on the east coast of the United States for the 
purpose of sabotaging our industries. They were captured and tried in 
military commissions. So there is nothing new about the idea of a 
military commission being used against an enemy force.
  I do think the President is right to reform the current commission. 
I, along with Senator McCain, Senator Warner, and others--Senator Levin 
particularly--had a bill that set up a military commission process that 
received complete Democratic support on the Armed Services Committee, 
and four Republicans. I think that document is worth going back to. The 
ideas the President has put on the table about reforming the 
commission, quite frankly, make a lot of sense to me.
  So we do need to move forward. We do need to start over. If we could 
start over with a new detention policy that is comprehensive, it would 
help our war effort, it would help operations in the countries in 
question and in the

[[Page S5652]]

Mideast at large, and it would repair damage with our allies. Quite 
frankly, we have lost a lot of court decisions. It would give us a 
better chance to win in court.
  What do I mean by starting over? Come up with a disposition plan that 
understands that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay represent a military 
threat and apply the law of armed conflict in their cases. That means 
we have to treat them humanely. The Geneva Conventions now apply to 
detainees under Common Article 3 held at Guantanamo Bay based on a 2006 
Supreme Court decision. We are bound by that convention because we are 
the leader of the convention. We have signed up to the convention. As a 
military lawyer for 25 years, I hold the Geneva Conventions near and 
dear to my heart, as every military member does, because it will 
provide protections to our troops in future wars. Yes, I know al-Qaida 
will not abide by the conventions but, quite frankly, that is no excuse 
for us to abandon what we believe in. When you capture an enemy 
prisoner, it becomes about you, not them. They don't deserve much, but 
we have to be Americans to win this war. There are plenty people in 
this world who would cut your head off without a trial. I want to show 
the world a better way. How we dispose of these prisoners can help us 
in the overall ideological struggle.

  What I am proposing is that we come up with a comprehensive plan that 
will reform the military commissions and that the President come back 
to the Congress and we have another shot at the commissions to make 
them more due process friendly but we realize that the people we are 
trying are accused of war crimes and we apply the law of armed 
conflict.
  I have been a military lawyer, as I said, for 25 years. The judges 
and the jurors and the lawyers who administer justice in a military 
commission setting are the same people who administer justice to our 
own troops. It is a great legal forum. You have rights in the military 
legal system. You get free legal counsel. Usually cost is not an 
object. The men and women who wear the uniform who serve as judge 
advocates take a lot of pride in their job. They are great Americans. 
They are great officers. They believe in justice. We have seen 
verdicts, and the few verdicts we have had at Guantanamo Bay indicate 
that our juries are rational. Our military jurors do hold the 
prosecution to the standards of proof and they balance the interests of 
all parties. As I say, I have never been more impressed with the legal 
system than within our military justice system. Military commissions 
need to be as much like a court-martial as possible, but practicality 
dictates some differences.
  The one thing this body needs to understand is that it is illegal 
under the Geneva Conventions to try an enemy prisoner in civilian 
court. Why is that? You are afraid that civilian justice, jurors and 
judges, will have revenge on their mind. They are not covered by the 
Geneva Conventions. Participants in a military commission are covered 
by the convention--every lawyer, every judge, every juror. They have an 
obligation to hold to the tenets of the convention and any misconduct 
on their part in a trial could actually result in prosecution to them 
or disciplinary action, and that would not be true in the legal world. 
So having these trials in a military commission setting is the proper 
venue because they are accused of war crimes. Having the trials in 
military commissions is consistent with the Geneva Conventions. It is a 
world-class justice system. Quite frankly, it is the best place to 
balance our national security interests.
  But to the hard part. We can do that. We can reform the commissions. 
Some of these detainees can be repatriated back to third countries in a 
way I think is rational and will not hurt our national security 
interests. But there is going to be a group of detainees--maybe half or 
more--where the evidence is sound and certain that they are a member of 
al-Qaida, but it is not of the type that you would want to go to a 
criminal trial with. It may have third country intelligence service 
information where the third country would not participate in a criminal 
trial because it would compromise their operations. Some type of 
evidence would be such that you would not disclose it in a criminal 
trial because it would compromise national security. You have to 
remember, when you try someone criminally, you have to prove the case 
beyond a reasonable doubt. You have to share the evidence with the 
defendant. You have to go through the rigors of a criminal prosecution. 
Under a military commission people are presumed innocent, and that is 
the way it should be. But I want America to understand that we are not 
charging everyone as a war criminal; we are making the accusation that 
you are a member of al-Qaida. In military law what you have to do if 
you are accusing someone of being part of the enemy force is prove by a 
preponderance of the evidence that you are, in fact, a part of the 
enemy force.
  So what I would propose is to set up a hybrid system. For every 
detainee once determined to be an enemy combatant by our military or 
CIA, there will be a process to do that, a combat status review 
tribunal, and we need to improve that process--but you run each 
detainee through that process and if the military labels them as an 
unlawful enemy combatant, a member of al-Qaida, then we will do 
something we have never done in any other war, and that is allow that 
detainee to go into Federal court.
  Under article 5 of the Geneva Conventions, status decisions are made 
by the military, not by civilian judges. It is usually done by an 
independent member of the military in an administrative setting. These 
are administrative hearings. But this war is different. There will 
never be an end to this war. We will never have a signing on the 
Missouri as we did in World War II. I realize that. An enemy combatant 
determination could be a de facto life sentence. So I am willing to 
build in more due process to accommodate the nature of this war.
  What I have proposed is that every detainee determined to be an enemy 
combatant by our military would go to a group of military judges with 
uniform standards where the Government would have to prove to an 
independent judiciary by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
person is, in fact, an enemy combatant, and if our civilian judges who 
are trained in reviewing evidence agree with the military, that person 
can be kept off the battlefield as long as there is a military threat. 
About 12 percent of the detainees released from Guantanamo Bay have 
gone back to the fight. The No. 2 al-Qaida operative in Somalia is a 
former Gitmo detainee. It is true we put people in Gitmo, in my 
opinion, where the net was cast too large and they were not properly 
identified. You are going to make mistakes. What I want to do is have a 
process that our Nation can be proud of: transparent, robust due 
process, an independent judiciary checking and balancing the military, 
but never losing sight that the goal is to make sure that the 
determination of enemy combatant is well founded and, if it is, not to 
release people back to the fight knowing they are going to go back and 
kill Americans. That doesn't make us a better nation, to have a process 
where you have to let people go when the evidence is sound and clear 
they are going to go back to the fight. That does not make us a better 
people. You do not have to do that under the law of armed conflict. 
Let's come up with a new system that will give every detainee a full 
and fair hearing in Federal court. If they are tried for war crimes, 
put them in a new military commission, and every verdict would be 
appealed to civilian judges. Let the trials be transparent. Balance 
national security against due process. But never lose sight of the fact 
that we are dealing with people who have taken up arms against the 
United States. Some of them are so radical and their hearts have been 
hardened so much, they are so hate-filled, it would be a disaster to 
this country and the world at large to let them go in the condition 
that exists today.

  Where to put them. Mr. President, 400,000 German and Japanese 
prisoners were housed in the United States during World War II, and 15 
to 20 percent, according to the historical record, were hardened Nazis. 
A hardened Nazi is at the top of the pecking order when it comes to 
mass murder. The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 
250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational. We have 
done this before. They are not 10 feet tall.

[[Page S5653]]

  It is my belief that you need a plan before you close Gitmo, and when 
you look at a new facility, it needs to be run by the military because 
under the Geneva Conventions you cannot house enemy prisoners in 
civilian jails.
  I look forward to working with the President of the United States to 
start over, but we need a plan to start over--a plan to try these 
people, consistent with the law of armed conflict, in a military 
commission that is reformed, that will administer justice fairly and 
balanced and will realize that these people present a military threat. 
We need a system to allow for keeping the detainees off of the 
battlefield--who are committed jihadists--that will allow them to have 
their day in court with an independent judiciary but also will allow a 
process that will keep them off the battlefield as long as they are 
dangerous. If the judges agree with the military on the enemy 
combatant, you should have an annual review process to determine 
whether they present a military threat. No one should be held without a 
pathway forward, but no one should be released because you think this 
is a crime we are dealing with.
  If you criminalize this war and do not use the law of armed conflict, 
you are going to make a huge mistake. There are countries that have 
terror suspects in jail right now that are about to have to release 
them because under criminal law you cannot hold them indefinitely. 
Under military law, you can hold the enemy force off the battlefield if 
they are properly identified as part of that force, as part of the 
military threat. That has been the law for hundreds of years, and it 
ought to be the law we apply. Where we put them is important, but what 
we do with them is more important, how we try them and detain them.
  We have a chance to show the world that there is a better way, a 
chance to showcase our values. Yes, give them lawyers and put the 
evidence against them under scrutiny. Put burdens on ourselves, make us 
prove the case--not just say it is so, prove it in a court that is 
appropriate for the venue we are talking about, appropriate for the 
decisions we are about to make. Put that burden on us, and treat them 
humanely because that is the way we are. That may not be the way they 
are, but that is the way we are. That makes us better than they. The 
fact that we will do all these things and they won't is a strength of 
this Nation, not a weakness. Some people in the past have lost sight of 
that. The fact that we give them lawyers and a trial based on the 
evidence, not prejudice and passion, makes us stronger.
  We will find a better way to do what we have been doing in the past. 
We will find a way to close Gitmo, and we will come up with a new plan 
because we are Americans and we are committed to our value system and 
committed to beating this enemy.
  I look forward to working with the Members of this body to come up 
with a comprehensive disposition plan that will find a new way to try 
these people, a new process to hold them off the battlefield, and 
always operating within our values, which will allow our commanders the 
chance to start over in the region. Every military commander I have 
talked to said it would be beneficial to this country to start over 
with detainee policy. They also understand that we are at war and we 
need to have a national security system.
  As to where we put them, there were six prison camps in South 
Carolina during World War II. There is a brig near the city of 
Charleston, a naval brig. It is not the location, because it is near a 
population center. The place I have in mind is an isolated part of the 
United States--if necessary--that will be run by the military, with a 
secure perimeter, that will be operating within the Geneva Conventions 
requirement, that will have a justice system attached to it, that will 
be transparent and open where we can administer justice and reattach 
our Nation to the values we hold so dear.
  Part of war is capturing prisoners. That is part of war. We know what 
the other side does when they capture a prisoner. Let the world know 
that America has a better way, a way that will not only make us safe 
but help us win this war.
  In conclusion, the goal of this effort to start over is to undermine 
the enemy's propaganda that has been used against us because of our 
past mistakes, allow our allies to come join us in a new way forward, 
and protect us against a vicious enemy that needs to be held off the 
battlefield, maybe forever. Some of these people are literally going to 
die in jail, and that is OK with me because I think the evidence 
suggests that if we ever let them out, they would go back to killing 
Americans, our friends, and our allies. I will not shed a tear. The way 
to avoid getting killed or going to jail forever is, not to join al-
Qaida. If you have made that decision to do so, let it be said that 
this Nation is going to stand up to you and fight back, within our 
value system. Some of these people will never see the light of day, and 
that is the right decision. Some of them can be released.
  Let's have a process that understands what we are trying to do as a 
nation. Make sure it is national security oriented, make sure it is 
within our value system but also that everything we do is as a result 
of a nation that has been attacked by these people. They have not 
robbed a liquor store; they have tried to destroy our way of life. The 
legal system I am proposing recognizes that distinction.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the 
Inouye-Inhofe amendment and suggest to my colleagues that this should 
not be a controversial amendment. In fact, I commend my colleagues on 
the Democratic side for recognizing the futility of trying to put 
funding in the bill that we are debating here without having a plan 
with which to close Guantanamo Bay.
  It seems to me, at least, that a lot have gotten up and argued that 
having Guantanamo Bay open as a detention facility makes our country 
less safe. I argue the contrary. That didn't exist prior to 9/11, and 
we were attacked anyway. The people who want to attack us don't need an 
excuse; they are going to attack us anyway. They are going to attack us 
because they hate us and they hate our way of life and the things we 
stand for and because that is what they do. They have hate in their 
hearts. I believe we need to have a place where we can detain people 
like that. It seems to me at least that the Guantanamo Bay facility 
fits perfectly within the definition of what makes sense. It is a 
state-of-the-art facility, a $200 million facility. Nobody has ever 
escaped from it. It is a very secure facility. It is hundreds of miles 
away from American communities.
  One thing I point out to my colleagues is that we have already 
expressed our view here in the Senate about whether these detainees 
ought to be transferred somewhere here into American society and into 
facilities in American communities and neighborhoods. In July of 2007, 
we took a vote in the Senate, and by a vote of 94 to 3, the Senators 
voted in favor of a resolution that would prevent these detainees from 
coming here--being released into American society or transferred into 
facilities in American communities and neighborhoods. Those in favor of 
that resolution at the time included both the current Vice President of 
the United States and the current Secretary of State.

  My hope would be that this amendment offered by the Senator from 
Oklahoma and the Senator from Hawaii will receive that same measure of 
support that was accorded to the amendment adopted in the Senate in 
July of 2007 by a vote of 94 to 3. This amendment should receive that 
same measure of support.
  As I noted last week in a speech on the floor, President Obama told 
us, when he issued his January 22 Executive order to close Guantanamo, 
that he would work with Congress on any legislation that might be 
appropriate. Instead of consulting Congress, the President asked for 
$80 million to close Guantanamo, with no justification or indication of 
any plan.
  I believe any plan to close Guantanamo that includes bringing these 
terrorists into the United States is a mistake. We don't want the 
killers who are held there to be brought here into our communities.
  It is deeply troubling that not only does the Obama administration 
wish to hold open the possibility that some detainees might be 
transferred to facilities in American communities, it is

[[Page S5654]]

even considering freeing some of them into American society. These are 
the 17 Chinese Uighers whose Combat Status Review Tribunal records were 
deemed insufficient to support the conclusion that they are enemy 
combatants but who cannot be returned to China because of fear that the 
Chinese Government will torture or kill them.
  At a press conference on March 26, ADM Dennis Blair, the Director of 
National Intelligence, said this:

       If we are to release them [the Uighers] in the United 
     States, we need some sort of assistance for them to start a 
     new life.

  It is hard to believe that this administration is seriously 
considering freeing these men inside the United States and, most 
outrageous of all, paying them to live freely within American 
communities and neighborhoods. The American people don't want these men 
walking the streets of America's neighborhoods.
  The American people don't want these detainees held in a military 
base or a Federal prison in their backyard either. These are not common 
criminals; these are hardened killers bent on the destruction of the 
United States. They are resourceful, these people are innovative, and 
they understand the strategic vulnerabilities of the United States and 
how to exploit those very vulnerabilities. Who would have predicted 
that this group of people would basically be able to steal a fleet of 
planes and cause death and destruction on the scale and magnitude of 
Pearl Harbor? It is hard to imagine a more dangerous set of 
circumstances to put upon an American community.
  Since President Obama seems set on a course to bring terrorists into 
the United States, I strongly support the efforts of Senators Inhofe 
and Inouye to introduce this amendment. The amendment would prevent any 
funding in the bill from being used to transfer detainees held at 
Guantanamo Bay to any facility in the United States or to construct, 
improve, modify, or otherwise enhance any facility in the United States 
for the purpose of housing any Guantanamo detainees.
  If we must close Guantanamo Bay, it should not result in Americans 
being less safe. Bringing these detainees to the United States would 
make Americans less safe, and we should not do it.
  Transferring these detainees would also stress the civilian 
governments in the communities where the detainees would be placed. 
They would be faced with overwhelming demands, from roadblocks to 
identification checks, along with having the increased security 
personnel necessary to deal with what is an obvious threat. The value 
of homes and businesses would decline.
  I can tell you that South Dakotans definitely don't want these 
detainees in their State. I hope my support of the Inouye-Inhofe 
amendment will help to ensure that they will not be transferred to 
South Dakota or to anywhere else in the United States.
  My view is that no Guantanamo detainee should be brought to this 
country to be incarcerated and certainly should not be brought into the 
United States and freed. The Senate has clearly spoken on that front, 
as I said, by a vote of 94 to 3 on a resolution, in July 2007, that 
detainees housed at Guantanamo Bay should not be released into American 
society and not transferred stateside into facilities in American 
communities and neighborhoods.
  Guantanamo is secure. The facility is a $200 million state-of-the-art 
prison. No one has ever escaped, and the location makes it extremely 
difficult to attack. Best of all, it is located hundreds of miles from 
American communities. If the President wants to close Guantanamo, he 
must do so in a way that keeps America safe. In my view, America is 
less safe if Guantanamo detainees are brought into the United States.
  I appreciate the hard work of Senator Inhofe and Senator Inouye on 
this issue. I hope when we have the vote today, my colleagues will 
adopt this amendment with the same level of support that we adopted the 
resolution back in July of 2007 by a vote of 94 to 3, stating very 
clearly that it is the view of the Senate that these detainees should 
not be brought into American communities, into American neighborhoods. 
I would argue they ought to be held right where they are, in a place 
that is safe, that is secure, that is state of the art, where they 
receive the very best of treatment, where no one has ever escaped, 
hundreds of miles away from American communities and neighborhoods.
  I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the quorum call be charged equally to both 
sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are on the 
supplemental appropriations bill at this point.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want the record to show that I support 
President Obama's supplemental request for the remainder of fiscal year 
2009. This supplemental provides critical funding for military and 
security efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. A small portion is 
for international programs, including assistance to Jordan, one of our 
important allies in the Middle East. Jordan is struggling with a huge 
influx of Iraqi refugees that strains its national services and 
particularly its water resources. Jordan has been a friend and ally, 
and it is right that in the supplemental bill we give them a helping 
hand because the war in Iraq has created a situation which we should 
address in Jordan.
  It also provides additional support to the Global Fund which partners 
with other nations to tackle AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. I have 
worked with my colleagues for years to provide adequate funding for the 
Global Fund. I am glad this supplemental request from the Obama 
administration continues critical food assistance to help meet urgent 
needs of the world's poorest, which is also included. Funding is 
provided to help stem the flow of drugs and violence across our border 
in Mexico.
  At home, the supplemental includes money to prepare and to respond to 
a global disease pandemic, including the recent H1N1 virus. This $1.5 
billion went through my subcommittee and is money well spent so the 
President can have resources to respond quickly to any outbreak of 
disease or pandemic; that we would have adequate money for 
vaccinations, as well as providing medications, should people be 
stricken. We are looking ahead, planning ahead, thinking ahead, hoping 
the H1N1 will disappear from the world scene before the next flu season 
but being prepared if it does not or if something else threatens us.
  This bill also provides funds critical to helping President Obama 
meet a key campaign promise--bringing an end to the war in Iraq. In 
late February, President Obama made an important announcement to 
thousands of marines at Camp Lejeune: bringing an end to the war in 
Iraq. After only 5 weeks into office, he delivered on his major 
campaign promise to end one of the longest wars in American history.
  The President's plan is measured, thoughtful, and will bring an end 
to this costly and unnecessary war. The supplemental also wisely shifts 
resources to the real sources of the September 11 attacks on America--
Afghanistan. For too long, this war in Afghanistan did not receive 
adequate civilian and military resources as they had been diverted to 
the war in Iraq. The supplemental corrects this mistake.
  It also focuses resources on Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation 
struggling with insurgents based in the border area with Afghanistan. 
It provides pay and allowances to our brave men and women in the U.S. 
military. These are some of the many important needs which deserve our 
support.
  The President should be commended for recently presenting a budget 
for 2010 which moves away from repeated supplementals. This got to be a 
habit around here. We didn't go through an orderly debate on the budget 
about wars. Every time President Bush wanted money for a war, he said: 
I am declaring this an emergency. It will not be considered in the 
ordinary budget process. Here it is.
  An emergency is defined as something unanticipated. After 5 or 6 
years

[[Page S5655]]

of emergencies, you begin to realize you can anticipate next year we 
are going to have another unanticipated emergency.
  This President, President Obama, wants to change that so that we go 
to an orderly budget process. This supplemental bill will be the last 
of the requests, and I think it is one we should honor as he tries to 
tackle some situations that were given to him when he took office just 
a few months ago. The President inherited many challenges at home and 
abroad, and I hope, on a bipartisan basis, we can help him address 
them.
  This supplemental appropriations bill will provide critical funding 
for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I hope Congress passes it.
  Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
decided to use this legislation to open a debate about the future of 
Guantanamo. They have filed a number of amendments related to this 
issue. I am sure it is not their intention, but these amendments will 
have the effect of slowing down delivery of critical funding for our 
troops. Nevertheless, it is their right to offer these amendments, and 
though they are not germane to this legislation, they raise policy 
questions which we can debate.
  Senator Inouye, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, has 
offered an amendment, which has broad support on both sides of the 
aisle, that will eliminate any funding in this bill for closing 
Guantanamo and make clear that none of the funds in this bill can be 
used to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the United States.
  Here is the bottom line: There will not be any Guantanamo funding in 
this bill. So for the Republicans to bring up a series of Guantanamo 
amendments tells me they are more intent on raising an issue than on 
responding to the critical need this supplemental addresses.
  These amendments are also premature. President Obama has not yet 
presented his plan for closing Guantanamo to the Congress and the 
American people. When he does, we will have plenty of opportunity to 
debate it. This bill, which will provide critical funding for our 
troops, is not the right place for this debate. This is not the right 
time. In fact, some of the amendments would have the effect of tying 
President Obama's hands, preventing him from moving forward with the 
closure of Guantanamo before he has even had the chance to present his 
plan.
  There is a great irony here. For 8 long years, Republicans opposed 
congressional oversight of the Bush administration's counterterrorism 
efforts. When Democrats in the minority during the Bush years would ask 
for oversight by congressional committees so that we could get more 
information about a variety of issues relative to terrorism, we were 
told: No, the President has an important job to do and don't bother 
him, Congress; leave him alone.

  For 8 years, Republicans criticized Democrats who asked questions 
about the misguided war in Iraq and controversial policies related to 
interrogation, detention, and warrantless surveillance.
  For 8 years, they claimed congressional oversight was nothing more 
than micromanaging the important and critical work of the Commander in 
Chief.
  Now, after 8 long years, the Republicans are unwilling to give 
President Obama a few short months to formulate and present a plan for 
closing Guantanamo.
  Let's take one example. The distinguished minority leader, Senator 
McConnell, has offered an amendment that would require the President to 
submit a detailed report to Congress on each detainee at Guantanamo 
Bay, including a summary of the evidence against each detainee.
  For many years, the Bush administration refused to provide Congress 
with even a list of the names of the detainees at Guantanamo. They 
claimed that a disclosure of those names would threaten national 
security. I don't recall Senator McConnell or anyone from his side of 
the aisle protesting this lack of disclosure by the previous 
administration.
  Yesterday, Senator McConnell said his amendment is designed to 
prevent released Guantanamo detainees from getting involved in 
terrorism. He said:

       Recidivism is of great concern for those of us who have 
     oversight responsibilities here in Congress.

  I do not recall Senator McConnell, or any other Republican, 
protesting when the Bush administration, over the course of many years, 
released hundreds of Guantanamo detainees, some of whom have actually 
been involved in acts of terrorism since they were released.
  So during the Bush years, while Guantanamo was churning hundreds of 
detainees, some being released and returned to their countries, there 
was not a whimper or a peep from the Republican side of the aisle. Now 
that President Obama has said the days of Guantanamo are numbered, they 
are coming in asking for detailed accounting of every single detainee. 
It is clearly a double standard.
  There is also concern that the McConnell amendment could taint 
prosecutions of Guantanamo detainees by requiring the Obama 
administration to turn over critical evidence to Congress. Imagine for 
a moment that we gathered evidence that can be used successfully to 
either detain or prosecute one of the detainees, and Senator McConnell 
insists that it be shared with Members of Congress. Is that in the 
interest of national security? I don't think so.
  For 7 years after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration failed to 
convict any of the terrorists who planned these attacks. At President 
Obama's direction, career prosecutors are now reviewing the files of 
each Guantanamo detainee and gathering evidence to determine if each 
detainee can be prosecuted. Isn't that what we want, an orderly process 
looking at each detainee to determine whether they are guilty of 
wrongdoing, deciding whether they can be prosecuted, whether they 
should be detained and doing this with the understanding that a lot of 
the information is classified and most of it should be carefully 
guarded so as not to jeopardize the prosecution?
  The McConnell amendment would say: Let Congress take a look at each 
detainee and all the evidence. That does not make sense, and I hope 
Members of the Senate will reject it.
  The last thing Congress should do is interfere with the efforts of 
the Obama administration to gather evidence against terrorists that 
could ultimately bring them to justice.
  There is another amendment. Senator John Cornyn of Texas has an 
amendment that has 18 detailed findings about the Bush administration's 
use of abusive interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding.
  Among other things, the Cornyn amendment claims these techniques 
``accomplished the goal of providing intelligence necessary to defeat 
additional terrorist attacks against the United States.'' To say the 
least, we could debate that proposition for quite some time.
  Former Vice President Cheney has been burning up the cable channel 
airwaves in recent weeks. He claims waterboarding produced valuable 
intelligence in the interrogation of al-Qaida leader Abu Zubaydah. But 
back in 2004, Vice President Cheney also told us the Bush 
administration had learned from interrogations at Guantanamo that the 
Iraqi Government had trained al-Qaida in the use of biological and 
chemical weapons. We now know there was no such link between al-Qaida 
and Iraq. This was part of the justification for the invasion of Iraq, 
and Vice President Cheney told us the interrogation at Guantanamo was 
producing the information to confirm a link that never existed.
  What about Abu Zubaydah? Just last week in the Judiciary Committee we 
heard testimony from a former FBI agent who actually interrogated him. 
He testified under oath in our committee that he obtained valuable 
intelligence from Abu Zubaydah using traditional interrogation 
techniques and that abusive techniques, such as waterboarding, are 
``harmful, slow, ineffective, and unreliable.''
  Senator Cornyn does not serve on the Intelligence Committee. I don't 
know the basis for his claim that waterboarding produced intelligence 
that prevented terrorist attacks. I do know the Intelligence Committee, 
under Senator Dianne Feinstein's leadership, is now conducting a 
detailed, thoughtful, and thorough investigation into the Bush 
administration's detention and interrogation practices. 

[[Page S5656]]

I have said publicly--others have said it as well, including the 
majority leader, Senator Reid--that before we talk about creating an 
outside commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee should be allowed 
to do its work so Members of Congress can at least learn, through open 
and classified information, what did happen. But Senator Cornyn can't 
wait. Senator Cornyn wants to pass out ``get out of jail free'' cards 
to the previous administration before we even have a thorough 
examination of what happened.

  One of the things the Intelligence Committee is reviewing is the 
effectiveness of these techniques in obtaining useful intelligence. The 
Senate is certainly not in a position today to go on record with 
conclusions such as those in Senator Cornyn's amendment before the 
Intelligence Committee even completes its investigation. It is not only 
premature, it certainly is questionable as to whether we should be 
engaged in this debate until their work is done.
  I might remind Senator Cornyn, and those following this debate, that 
the Intelligence Committee is a bipartisan committee. It works in a 
bipartisan fashion. Senator Bond and Senator Feinstein and others can 
continue to work together to come to good conclusions, to provide the 
Senate with good evidence, before we jump at the Cornyn amendment, 
which reaches conclusions not based on fact.
  Senator Cornyn's amendment would also express the sense of the Senate 
that no one involved in authorizing the use of abusive interrogation 
techniques, such as waterboarding, should be prosecuted or sanctioned. 
It is inappropriate for Congress to interfere in ongoing investigations 
by the Justice Department.
  During the Bush administration, political interference significantly 
undermined the credibility and effectiveness of the Justice Department. 
Attorney General Holder has pledged to restore the integrity and the 
independence of that department.
  There are two ongoing investigations into the Bush administration's 
interrogation practices. One investigation is looking into the CIA's 
destruction of evidence of interrogation videotapes. The other is an 
investigation of Justice Department attorneys who authorized abusive 
techniques such as waterboarding.
  Here is the reality: Both of these investigations didn't begin under 
President Obama. They began under the Bush administration. Both are 
being conducted by Department of Justice attorneys. So the suggestion 
that this is some partisan witch hunt is obviously false.
  You wonder, with these two Department of Justice investigations 
underway and with the Senate Intelligence Committee doing a thorough 
investigation of this subject, why does Senator Cornyn want to come to 
the floor and have the Senate go on record saying that nothing possibly 
could have been done that was illegal or wrong? That would be the 
height of irresponsibility, should we pass that amendment.
  Decisions about whether crimes were committed should be made by 
career prosecutors based on the facts and the laws, not political 
considerations or statements made by Senators on the floor without 
evidence to back them up. I urge my colleague from Texas to withdraw 
his amendment and allow the Justice Department to do its work.
  There is an organization which I like and respect very much called 
Amnesty International. When you take a look at John Cornyn's amendment, 
he would qualify for some amnesty award because he wants the Senate to 
go on record offering amnesty when it comes to the interrogation of 
detainees by not only--and let me go through the list--any person who 
relied in good faith on those opinions at any level of our Government, 
but also it includes Members of Congress who were briefed on the 
interrogation program.
  To offer this kind of a statement ahead of time, without any 
gathering of evidence or fact, is, in my mind, an indication of how 
nervous some people are on the other side of the aisle. We should let 
this run its course in a professional manner. We shouldn't make a 
political decision, and we should defeat the Cornyn amendment.
  Several of my Republican colleagues came to the floor yesterday to 
criticize President Obama's intention to close Guantanamo and argue it 
should remain open. I listened carefully to their arguments, and, 
frankly, there were enough red herrings to feed all the detainees at 
Guantanamo.
  One of my colleagues said President Obama wants to close Guantanamo 
``to be more popular with the Europeans.''
  Well, I know President Obama. I served with him. He was my colleague 
in the Senate. His first interest is the United States and its safety. 
But the safety of the United States also involves being honest about 
what has happened. What happened at Abu Ghraib and what happened at 
Guantanamo has sullied the reputation of the United States and has 
endangered alliances which we have counted on for decades. President 
Obama is trying to change that. By closing Guantanamo and responsibly 
allocating those detainees to safe and secure positions, he is going to 
send a message to the world that it is a new day in terms of America's 
foreign policy.
  The American people want to see that. They want a safer world and 
believe that if the United States can work closely with our allies 
around the world who are opposed to terrorism, we will be safer. That 
is what President Obama is setting out to do. Some of those allies may, 
in fact, be European. They may be African or Asian. They could be from 
all corners of the Earth. But if they share our values and want to work 
for common goals, President Obama wants to work with them.
  GEN Colin Powell and many other military leaders have said for some 
time that closing Guantanamo will make America safer. Experts say 
Guantanamo is a recruitment tool for al-Qaida and hurts our national 
security. That is why President Obama, like President Bush, Senator 
John McCain, and many others, wants to close Guantanamo.
  Some of my Republican colleagues argued that Guantanamo is the only 
appropriate place to hold the detainees because ``we don't have a 
facility that could handle this in the United States'' and American 
corrections officers would ``have no idea what they are getting into.'' 
Well, I would say to my colleagues who made those statements that they 
ought to take a look at some of our secured facilities in the United 
States and they ought to have a little more respect for the men and 
women who are corrections officers, who put their lives on the line 
every single day to keep us safe and who make sure those who are 
dangerous are detained and incarcerated.
  The reality is, we are holding some of the most dangerous terrorists 
in the world right now in our Federal prisons, including the mastermind 
of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the ``shoe bomber,'' the 
``Unabomber,'' and many others.
  Senator McConnell said yesterday, ``No one has ever escaped from 
Guantanamo.'' Well, that is true, to the best of my knowledge. But it 
is also true that no prisoner has ever escaped from a Federal 
supermaximum security facility in the United States.
  In fact, the Bureau of Prisons is currently holding 347 convicted 
terrorists. Is Senator McConnell going to come to the floor and say 
they should be moved from these Federal correctional facilities because 
they pose a threat to the United States being incarcerated in the 
continental United States? I haven't heard that. But in his efforts to 
keep Guantanamo open at any cost, he wouldn't even consider allowing a 
detainee to be brought to the United States for trial and being held, 
even temporarily, in any type of secure facility.
  Republicans are criticizing the President, but the reality is, they 
do not have a plan themselves to deal with Guantanamo. I assume, from 
Senator McConnell's statements, he would leave it open. He doesn't care 
about the impact this might have on the United States around the world. 
If he has a plan to close it, I would like to hear it. I think he ought 
to come forward and join with President Bush, join with President 
Obama, join General Powell, join Senator McCain, Senator Graham, and 
others who have said Guantanamo should be closed. Otherwise, 
unfortunately, he is being critical of the President's intentions 
without producing his own approach.
  The Bush administration had many years to deal with Guantanamo, but 
they didn't follow through. President

[[Page S5657]]

Obama has taken on the challenge of solving one of the toughest 
problems his administration faces, beyond the state of our economy. The 
President is taking the time to carefully plan for the closing of 
Guantanamo, with the highest priority being the protection of America's 
national security.
  I urge my Republican colleagues to withdraw these Guantanamo 
amendments. These amendments don't fit in the supplemental 
appropriations bill. They tie the President's hands and keep him from 
making the necessary decisions to keep us safe and to make sure 
terrorists do not, in any way, threaten the United States. They also 
slow down our efforts to provide critical funding for our troops in 
Afghanistan and Iraq.

  I hope when this matter comes before the Senate in the hours ahead, 
my colleagues will read carefully and closely, particularly the 
amendments by Senator Cornyn and by Senator McConnell. The amendment by 
Senator Cornyn, which grants a sense-of-the-Senate amnesty to those who 
were involved in interrogation techniques, is not consistent with a 
nation that is guided by the rule of law. For that Senator to make 
conclusions in his amendment that have not been supported by evidence 
and fact should be grounds enough for us to reject his amendment.
  I don't know where these investigations in the Department of Justice 
or the Intelligence Committee will lead, but if we are truly sworn to 
uphold the Constitution and the laws of our land, we should allow them 
to run their course with the facts and law being honestly considered by 
those different panels.
  Senator McConnell's amendment, which asks for more detailed 
information about detainees at Guantanamo than any Republican ever 
dared ask under the Bush administration, could jeopardize the 
prosecution of terrorists. Is that a good idea? It is certainly not. I 
certainly hope my colleagues will join me in opposing the McConnell 
amendment as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak with 
respect to an amendment I have filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I have filed an amendment to this 
supplemental appropriations bill which is designed to put more 
transparency and more measurable control factors into the way we are 
spending these appropriations with respect to the situation in 
Pakistan.
  I would begin by saying I have a great deal of concern, as do many 
Members of this body, with respect to the achievability of some of the 
strategic objectives that have been laid out by the new administration. 
We are still looking for clear and measurable end points to the 
strategy itself. At the same time, I believe the new administration 
deserves an opportunity to attempt to bring a greater sense of 
stability into that region. It is a big gamble.
  As I mentioned to General Petraeus when he was testifying, and as I 
mentioned to other witnesses before the Armed Services and the Foreign 
Relations Committee, the biggest gamble we face with respect to the 
policies that have been announced in Afghanistan and Pakistan are that 
we are basically allowing ourselves to be measured by unknowns, over 
which we have no real control. In Afghanistan, this is very clear, when 
we put as one of our objectives the creation of an Afghani national 
army. I asked General Petraeus if he could tell me at what point in the 
Afghan history has there ever been a viable national army, and the 
answer is, except for a period of about 30 years when the Afghanis were 
sponsored by the Soviets, there was no viable national army. And even 
there it was not one you would measure in the same context of what we 
are saying we are going to attempt to achieve. So that puts our success 
in the hands of a rather speculative venture but one I hope we can 
achieve in some form.
  I would also point out an article in the New York Times today, which 
points out there was a good bit of American weaponry ammunition found 
in the aftermath of battle between the Taliban and American forces, 
which shows there are munitions that were procured by the Pentagon that 
now seem to be in the hands of the troops who are fighting against 
Americans. I would point out that is not unusual for this region. When 
I was Secretary of the Navy more than 20 years ago, one thing we were 
seeing in the Persian Gulf, with the Iranian boghammers attempting to 
attack our vessels, was that some of the rocket-propelled grenades that 
were found in these boghammers actually could be traced back to weapons 
we had given the Afghani anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan. It is a 
common occurrence in this region.
  The question is, How we can minimize those sorts of occurrences?
  With respect to Pakistan, the situation is even more difficult.
  We have very few control factors in Pakistan in terms of where our 
money goes when we send it in or what happens to our convoys that go 
through Pakistan on the way to Afghanistan. Eighty percent of the 
logistical supplies that go to Afghanistan go by ground through 
Pakistan. We cannot defend those convoys. We have had many occurrences 
since last summer where they have been interrupted, where they have 
been attacked, trucks have been destroyed, and other vehicles have been 
stolen, et cetera.
  In Pakistan there are a number of reputable observers who point out 
that some elements in the Pakistani military, particularly in their 
intelligence services, actually have continued to assist the Taliban. 
Because of--No. 1, the vulnerability of our supply routes; No. 2, the 
instability of the Government itself, obviously which we are attempting 
to assist; and No. 3, the focus of Pakistan in terms of its principal 
national security objectives as being India rather than Afghanistan 
itself--that leads to a situation where we must have a measurable 
source of control and accountability over the money we are going to 
appropriate to assist the situation in Pakistan as it relates to 
international terrorism, the future stability of Pakistan, and 
attempting to defeat al-Qaida.
  With all that in mind, I asked a series of questions last week in the 
Armed Services Committee to Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff. This basically was the line of questioning. First, do 
we have evidence that Pakistan is increasing its nuclear program in 
terms of weapon systems, warheads, et cetera? Admiral Mullen gave me a 
one-word answer--yes. I declined to pursue that answer because I didn't 
believe that was the appropriate place to have a further discussion. 
But I did say, and I believe now, this should cause us enormous concern 
at a time when we are having so much discussion in this country about 
the potential that Iran would obtain nuclear weapons, where Pakistan, 
an unstable regime in a very volatile part of the region, not only 
possesses nuclear weapons but is increasing its nuclear weapons 
program.
  I then asked Admiral Mullen: Can you tell me what percentage of the 
$12 billion that has gone to Pakistan since 9/11 has gone toward its 
defense measures related to India or to other areas that are not 
designed to address directly the terrorist threat or the activities of 
the Taliban? The answer was we do not know. No. We cannot measure those 
with any degree of validity because of the opaqueness in the Pakistani 
Government.
  I then asked him: Do we have appropriate control factors, in terms of 
where future American money will go? Secretary Gates indicated there 
were improved control factors, but we do not have the control factors 
in Pakistan as now exist even in countries such as Afghanistan, with 
all the difficulties in that country.
  With all of that in mind, I drafted a simple amendment. I hope this 
can go into the managers' package. I believe all of us who are going to 
step forward right now and attempt to assist the administration can 
agree that what we should have is a simple statement from the Congress, 
from the appropriators, that none of the funds we are appropriating 
could be used for either of these two purposes--No. 1, to support, 
expand, or in any way assist the development or deployment of the 
nuclear weapons program of the Government of Pakistan; or, No. 2, to 
support programs for which these funds in the appropriations act have 
not been identified.

[[Page S5658]]

  It is a very simple amendment. It simply says no money will go 
directly or indirectly to assist Pakistan's nuclear weapons program; 
No. 2, no money will be spent in any way other than the way we have 
identified it in this program and that the President must certify this 
and must come back every 90 days and recertify whether any funds have 
been appropriated for those purposes.
  I hope the managers of this bill can accept this amendment. If not, I 
will seek a vote on the floor.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1144

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to speak about amendment No. 
1144, the Protecting America's Communities Act, which I am offering to 
H.R. 2346, the supplemental appropriation bill.
  Before I begin my comments, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Coburn as an original cosponsor of S. 1071, which is a collateral 
stand-alone bill, as well as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1144.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this amendment amends immigration law 
to prohibit any detainee held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Facility from 
being transferred or released into the United States. It is a little 
bit different from the vote we are going to be taking at 11:30.
  There are over 240 terrorists in U.S. custody at the military 
detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Let me just describe some 
of the individuals who reside at Guantanamo. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--or 
KSM--is the self-proclaimed, and quite unapologetic, mastermind of the 
9/11 attacks. KSM admitted he was the planner of 9/11 and other 
planned, but foiled attacks against the U.S. In his combatant status 
review board, he admitted he swore allegiance to Osama bin Ladin, was a 
member of al-Qaida, was the military operational commander for all 
foreign al-Qaida operations, and much more. KSM and four other 
detainees, who are charged with conspiring to commit the terrible 9/11 
attacks, remain at Guantanamo.
  In addition, Gitmo uses Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri who was responsible 
for the October 2000 USS Cole bombing which murdered 17 U.S. sailors 
and injured 37 others. Also residing a Gitmo are Osama bin Ladin's 
personal bodyguards, al-Qaida terrorist camp trainers, al-Qaida 
bombmakers, and individuals picked up on the battlefield with weapons 
trying to kill American soldiers--our young men and women who 
patriotically serve their country. The detainees at Guantanamo are some 
of the most senior, hardened, and dangerous al-Qaida figures we have 
captured.
  These are exactly the type of individuals we hope never get past our 
front lines and enter into the United States. However, as one of his 
very first acts in January, President Obama ordered the closure of 
Guantanamo, but 4 months later he still does not have a plan to 
accomplish this. Officials in his administration have stated publicly 
that some of these detainees could be brought to the U.S., and some 
could even be freed into the United States.
  The disposition of the detainees at Gitmo is not a new issue. Over 
the past several years, the military has transferred the majority of 
detainees held at Gitmo to other countries. However, the success of 
these transfers is mixed at best. According to a Defense Intelligence 
Agency report from December 2008, 18 former detainees are confirmed and 
43 are suspected of returning to the fight after being released from 
Guantanamo. This represents a recidivism rate of over 11 percent. Just 
two months later this rate rose to 12 percent. These individuals do not 
even represent the most serious and dangerous terrorists we have 
captured. The most dangerous detainees remain at Gitmo. This data has 
likely risen since December, but the Department of Defense refuses to 
release the information under instructions from the administration. If 
we start to release or transfer the most hardened terrorists left at 
Gitmo, these numbers will only increase further.
  One thing that is clear: we know that these detainees have remained 
loyal to al-Qaida and Osama bin Ladin despite being captured and remain 
a danger to our national security. We have statements from detainees 
avowing it is their goal to kill Americans, claiming that they ``pray 
every day against the United States.'' Al-Qaida searches every day for 
operatives who can evade our enhanced security mechanisms in its quest 
to commit another attack against our homeland. It is important to 
remember that most detainees held at Guantanamo were captured on the 
battlefields in Afghanistan or Iraq and were determined to be a threat 
to our Nation's security. Whatever their ties to terrorists groups or 
activities, these individuals should never be given the privilege of 
crossing our borders, even if incarcerated. To do so would be nothing 
short of an invitation for al-Qaida to operate inside our homeland. KSM 
and other high value detainees at Gitmo are no different, and do not 
conceal their intent to harm Americans if given the chance.

  My amendment would prevent those terrorists at Gitmo from having that 
chance. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the 
right to ``establish a uniform rule of naturalization.'' The Supreme 
Court has determined that the power of Congress ``to exclude aliens 
from the United States and to prescribe the terms and conditions on 
which they come in'' is absolute. My legislation capitalizes on the 
clear and absolute authority of Congress to determine who enters our 
borders by first adding to the list of those inadmissible to the United 
States those detained at Gitmo as of January 1 of this year.
  However, because Congress delegates to the executive branch parole 
authority, this administration could still bring those terrorists 
detained at Gitmo into the United States. Parole authority is granted 
to the Attorney General to allow aliens, who are otherwise not 
qualified for admission to the U.S., permission to enter our country on 
a case-by-case basis--essentially a waiver for those otherwise 
inadmissible. Although aliens paroled into the U.S. are not considered 
``admitted'' for purposes of our immigration laws, they are within the 
borders of our country and therefore become eligible to apply for 
asylum or seek other legal protections.
  To deal with this, my legislation also eliminates parole authority 
for the executive branch as it pertains to those individuals detained 
at Gitmo as of January 1, 2009. As such, there is no basis for 
President Obama to allow these detainees to be transferred to U.S. 
soil.
  The Protecting America's Communities Act also provides protections 
for American citizens in the event President Obama decides to try to 
exercise some other authority to bring these Gitmo detainees to the 
U.S., such as the authority granted to him via Article II of our 
Constitution. Again, we know that if the detainees were transferred to 
the U.S., they would seek legal protection under the generous legal 
rights our Constitution grants our citizens. However, our courts and 
our legal system were not established to try individuals detained on 
the battlefield. Because of the nature of the global war on terror and 
evidence gathered against them from the battlefield or through 
intelligence, the detainees are unlikely to be suitable for prosecution 
within the U.S. criminal courts. There is no ``CSI Kandahar'' in which 
evidence picked up off the battlefield is carefully marked and the 
chain of custody is observed.
  There is too much at stake to grant the unprecedented benefit of our 
legal system's complex procedural safeguards to foreign nationals who 
were captured outside the United States during a time of war. Allowing 
these terrorists to escape conviction--or worse yet, to be freed into 
the U.S. by our courts--because of legal technicalities would tarnish 
the reputation of our legal system as one that is fair and just. 
Prohibiting the detainees from entering into the U.S., as the 
Protecting America's Communities Act does, is one small step in the 
right direction.
  Further, if these individuals were to be brought to the U.S. by 
President Obama to be tried on our Article III courts and not 
convicted, the only mechanism available to our Government to continue 
to detain these individuals would be via immigration law. However, the 
current immigration laws

[[Page S5659]]

on our books are insufficient to ensure that these detainees would be 
mandatorily detained and continued to be detained until they can 
successfully be removed from our borders.
  Although I am adamantly opposed to bringing any of these detainees to 
the U.S., and I do not believe the President has independent authority 
to do so, I believe we need legislation to safeguard our citizens and 
our communities in the event they are brought here. To that end, my 
legislation makes mandatory the detention of any Gitmo detainees 
brought to the U.S.
  It also strengthens and clarifies the authority of the Secretary of 
the Department of Homeland Security to detain any of the Gitmo 
detainees until they can be removed. This statutory fix is needed 
because in 2001, the Supreme Court decided the case of Zadvydas v. 
Davis, holding that unless there is a reasonable likelihood that an 
alien being held by the Government will actually be repatriated to 
their government within a given period of time, that alien must be 
released and cannot be detained by the U.S. Government for more than 6 
months.
  We all know a major issue facing our country in dealing with those 
folks detained at Gitmo is finding a country to take them. For example, 
there are 17 Chinese Uighurs being held at Gitmo who have been cleared 
for transfer to another country. However, the United States will not 
send them back to China for fear they might be treated unfairly by the 
Chinese Government. No other country to date is willing to take them. 
Therefore, my legislation provides authority to the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to continue to detain these individuals and provides 
for a periodic review of their continued detention until they can 
safely be removed to a third country.
  In addition, my legislation prohibits any of those individuals 
detained at Gitmo from applying for asylum in the event they are 
brought here. Now, there are a number of other proposals to prohibit 
funding from being used to transfer to or detain the Gitmo terrorists 
in the United States--I am going to support those provisions--but those 
are not permanent. Those will have to be renewed annually. Congress 
would have to maintain this prohibition in all future spending bills.
  Although I do believe this is a good short-term solution, and I 
support those measures, I want to be confident that Congress does not 
drop the ball in the future. We need a more permanent solution to this 
problem, and the Protect America's Communities Act provides exactly 
that.
  I urge the President to develop a policy that would allow closure for 
the families of the victims of 9/11 that will prevent terrorists from 
stepping foot on U.S. soil and will keep them off the battlefield where 
they will attempt to kill our men and women in future combats.
  However, we cannot wait for the President to assure us that none of 
these detainees will be brought to America. The stakes are too high, 
and in order to maintain the highest degree of security and safety in 
our country, we need to adopt the Protect America's Communities Act to 
ensure that they never step foot inside of our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to give some views on 
Guantanamo. I have had the privilege of serving with the distinguished 
Senator who has just concluded his remarks on the Intelligence 
Committee of the Senate. But I strongly disagree with him. I would like 
to have the opportunity to make the case.
  First of all, Guantanamo is not sovereign territory of the United 
States. Under a 1903 lease, however, the United States exercises 
complete jurisdiction and control over this naval base.
  In December 2001, the administration decided to bring detainees 
captured overseas in connection with the war in Afghanistan and hold 
them there outside of our legal system. That was the point: To hold 
these detainees outside of the U.S. legal system.
  This was revealed in a December 2001 Office of Legal Council 
memorandum by John Yoo of the Justice Department.
  He wrote this:

       Finally, the Executive Branch has repeatedly taken the 
     position under various statutes that [Guantanamo] is neither 
     part of the United States nor a possession or territory of 
     the United States. For example, this Office [Justice] has 
     opined that [Guantanamo] is not part of the ``United States'' 
     for purposes of the Immigration and Naturalization Act . . . 
     Similarly, in 1929, the Attorney General opined that 
     [Guantanamo] was not a ``possession'' of the United States 
     within the meaning of certain tariff acts.

  The memo concludes with this statement:

       For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that a district 
     court cannot properly entertain an application for a writ of 
     habeas corpus by an enemy alien detained at Guantanamo Bay 
     Naval Base, Cuba. Because the issue has not yet definitively 
     been resolved by the courts, however, we caution that there 
     is some possibility that a district court would entertain 
     such an application.

  This set the predicate for Guantanamo: Keep these individuals outside 
of the reach of U.S. law, and set up a separate legal system to deal 
with them.
  Now, was this right or wrong? It was definitively wrong, because 
since then the Supreme Court has rejected this position in four 
separate cases.
  First, in Rasul v. Bush in 2004, the court ruled that American 
courts, in fact, do have jurisdiction to hear habeas and other claims 
from detainees held at Guantanamo.
  Second, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, also in 2004, the Court upheld the 
President's authority to detain unlawful combatants, but stated that 
this authority was not ``a blank check.'' In particular, the Court 
ruled that detainees who were U.S. citizens, such as Yasser Hamdi, had 
the rights that all Americans are guaranteed under the Constitution.
  Third, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in 2006, the Court declared invalid the 
Pentagon's process for adjudicating detainees and extended to 
Guantanamo detainees the protection from cruel, inhuman, and degrading 
treatment found in Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions.
  The administration responded by pushing through Congress the Military 
Commissions Act. This legislation expressly eliminated habeas corpus 
rights and limited other appeals to procedure and constitutionality, 
leaving questions of fact or violations of law unresolvable by all 
Federal courts. This happens nowhere else in American law. But this 
Military Commissions Act was enacted in the fall of 2006.
  That law was then challenged through the courts and overturned in the 
final Supreme Court decision in this area, Boumediene v. Bush, decided 
in 2008.
  In Boumediene, the Supreme Court stated that the writ of habeas 
corpus applied to detainees even when Congress had sought to take away 
jurisdiction. It stated that detainees must be allowed access to 
Federal courts so that a judicial ruling on the lawfulness of their 
detention could be made.
  Writing for the majority in the Boumediene decision, Justice Kennedy 
wrote the following:

       The laws and the Constitution are designed to survive, and 
     to remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and 
     security can be reconciled; and in our system they are 
     reconciled within the framework of the law.

  Several habeas petitions have been filed and reviewed in the DC 
Circuit since the Boumediene decision, and that process is ongoing 
today.
  In sum, these four Supreme Court rulings make one thing exceedingly 
clear: The legal rights of these detainees are the same under the 
Constitution, whether they are kept on American soil or elsewhere.
  Attempts to diminish or deny these legal rights have only served to 
delay the legal process at Guantanamo Bay.
  In fact, only 3 of the roughly 750 detainees held at Guantanamo have 
been held to account for their actions.
  One is David Hicks, an Australian. He pled guilty to charges and has 
since been released by the Australian Government.
  Salim Hamdan, Bin Laden's driver, was found guilty of providing 
material support for terrorism by his military commission. He was 
sentenced to 5.5 years, but having already served 5 years in 
Guantanamo, he was released to Yemen in November of 2007.
  Ali Hamza al Bahlul, a Yemeni who was al-Qaida's media chief, was 
found guilty of conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism 
in November of 2008. He refused to mount a defense on his own behalf 
and was given a life sentence.
  Today, there are approximately 240 detainees incarcerated at 
Guantanamo.

[[Page S5660]]

  In 2007, nearly 2 years ago, I introduced an amendment to the Defense 
authorization bill to close Guantanamo Bay within 1 year and transition 
all detainees out of that facility.
  The amendment was cosponsored by 15 Senators. Unfortunately, it was 
not allowed to come up for debate.
  Within 2 days of his inauguration, President Obama issued an 
Executive Order announcing the closure of Guantanamo within 1 year and 
ordering a review of each detainee.
  Let me say this: I believe closing Guantanamo is in our Nation's 
national security interest. Guantanamo is used not only by al-Qaida but 
also by other nations, governments, and individuals, people good and 
bad, as a symbol of America's abuse of Muslims, and it is fanning the 
flames of anti-Americanism around the world.
  As former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora said in 2008:

       Serving U.S. flag-rank officers . . . maintain that the 
     first and second identifiable cause of U.S. combat deaths in 
     Iraq--as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting 
     insurgent fighters into combat--are, respectively the symbols 
     of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

  I deeply believe closing Guantanamo is a very important part of the 
larger effort against terror and extremism. It is a part of the effort 
to show that Americans are not hypocritical, that we do not pass laws 
and then say that there is a certain group of people who are exempt 
from these laws.
  Detentions at Guantanamo have caused tension between the United 
States and our allies--the allies we try to get to contribute more 
forces and other support for the war in Afghanistan, and they are a 
rallying point for the recruitment of terrorists.
  So, closing it is a critical step in restoring America's credibility 
abroad, as well as restoring the value of the American judicial system.
  The executive branch task force responsible for ensuring that 
Guantanamo closes within the year is reviewing the evidence on each of 
the roughly 240 detainees to determine the following:
  Who can be charged with a crime and be prosecuted; who can be 
transferred to the custody of another country, like the 500 or so 
detainees who have already left Guantanamo; who poses no threat to the 
United States but cannot be sent to another nation; and, finally, who 
cannot be released because they do pose a threat but cannot be 
prosecuted, perhaps because the evidence against them is the 
inadmissible product of coercive interrogations.
  Let me be clear. No one is talking about releasing dangerous 
individuals into our communities or neighborhoods as some would have us 
believe.
  The best option is to prosecute the terrorists who plotted, 
facilitated, and carried out attacks against the United States.
  Let's look at the record for a moment.
  The United States has prosecuted individuals in Federal court for the 
bombings of U.S. Embassies and the 1993 World Trade Center attack. It 
has prosecuted individuals plotting to bomb airplanes, for attending 
terrorist training camps, and for inciting violent acts against the 
United States.
  According to a report, ``In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism 
Cases in the Federal Courts,'' issued in May of last year, more than 
100 terrorism cases since the beginning of 2001 have resulted in 
convictions.
  The individuals held at Guantanamo pose no greater threat to our 
security than these individuals convicted of these crimes, who are 
currently held in prison in the United States and are no danger to our 
neighbors, to our communities. The Bush administration had estimated 
that out of the 240 detainees at Guantanamo, 60 to 80 could be 
prosecuted for crimes against the United States or its allies. Current 
efforts to try these cases are ongoing.
  In the event that detainees cannot be tried in Federal court or in 
standard courts martial, the Obama administration has recently proposed 
revisions to military commissions. This is an issue we are going to 
have to look at very closely in the coming weeks.
  Our system of justice is more than capable of prosecuting terrorists 
and housing detainees before, during, and after trial. We have the 
facilities to keep convicted terrorists behind bars indefinitely and 
keep them away from American citizens.
  The Obama administration will determine which civilian and military 
facilities are best to accomplish these goals. One example is the 
supermax facility in Florence, CO.
  It is not in a neighborhood or community. It is an isolated supermax 
facility. It has 490 beds. They are reserved for the worst of the 
worst. This facility houses not only drug kingpins, serial murderers, 
and gang leaders, but also terrorists who have already been convicted 
of crimes in the United States.
  There have been no escapes, and it is far, as I said, from America's 
communities and neighborhoods, as are just about all the maximum and 
supermax facilities.
  This facility has housed terrorists such as Ramzi Yousef, the 
mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and at least six of 
his accomplices; Omar Abdel-Rahman, known as the ``Blind Sheikh,'' who 
was behind a plot to blow up New York City landmarks, including the 
United Nations; Richard Reid, the al-Qaida ``shoe bomber,'' who tried 
to blow up an airliner in flight; four individuals involved in the 1998 
bombings of Embassies of the United States in Kenya and Tanzania; Ahmed 
Ressam, the ``Millennium Bomber,'' who was detained at the Canadian 
border with explosives in his car as he was headed to the Los Angeles 
airport; Iyman Faris, the al-Qaida operative who plotted to blow up 
bridges in New York City; Jose Padilla, the U.S. citizen held for 3\1/
2\ years as an enemy combatant based on allegations that he had wanted 
to detonate a dirty bomb inside the United States and was later 
convicted of material support to terrorism; 9/11 conspirator Zacarias 
Moussaoui; the ``Unabomber,'' Theodore Kaczynski; and Oklahoma City 
bombers, one of whom is now deceased, Timothy McVeigh and Terry 
Nichols.
  These 20 are just an example of terrorists who have been or are being 
held inside the United States.
  So there is ample evidence that the United States can and, in fact, 
does hold dangerous convicts securely and without incident.
  As I said earlier, I believe that not all detainees can be 
prosecuted.
  The Bush administration had identified a second group of 60 to 80 who 
could be transferred out of Guantanamo, if another nation could be 
found that would accept them.
  Again, the Obama administration is finding some success in moving 
these detainees abroad.
  Since January of this year, there have been stories indicating that 
certain European nations may accept some of the detainees. A few days 
ago, France accepted an Algerian detainee from Guantanamo. These 
countries recognize that closing Guantanamo is in the best interests of 
everyone, and are willing to be part of the solution. We sincerely 
thank them.
  Finally, let me address the third category of detainees, which 
presents the thorniest problem.
  The Executive Order Task Force will likely determine that there are 
some detainees who can neither be tried, nor transferred, nor released. 
Secretary Gates recently testified that there were 50 to 100 of these 
detainees.
  The President has the authority to detain such people under the laws 
of armed conflict, and he very well may need to exercise that 
authority. I would support his doing so.
  In my view, this authority should be constrained and in keeping with 
the Geneva Conventions. Detainees should only be held following a 
finding by the executive branch that this action is legal under 
international law.
  These detainees should have the right to have a U.S. court review 
this determination, much as the Boumediene decision guaranteed that 
habeas petitions of detainees will, in fact, be heard. That judicial 
determination should be reviewed periodically to determine whether the 
detainee remains a threat to national security and should continue to 
be detained.
  In this, there is a protocol that I believe will stand court scrutiny 
and enable the President to continue the detention of everyone who 
remains a national security threat to the United States.
  Guantanamo, despite all the rhetoric on this floor, has been a symbol 
of abuse and disregard for the rule of law

[[Page S5661]]

for too long. Four Supreme Court decisions should convince even the 
most recalcitrant of those among us; it is in our own national security 
interests that Guantanamo be closed as quickly and as carefully as 
possible.
  The fact is, no Member of Congress wants to see, or advocates, the 
reckless release of terrorists, or anyone who is a threat to our 
national security, into our communities. It does not have to, and it 
will not be done that way.
  Of the 240 detainees at Guantanamo right now, some can be tried. Some 
have been declared not to be enemy combatants. Others may need to be 
detained in the future, but only in a way that is consistent with our 
laws and our national security interests.
  I believe we should close Guantanamo. I support the President in this 
regard. This is a very important decision we are going to make. I very 
much regret that this amount was in the supplemental bill without a 
plan, and I think that is the key. The plan was not there. How would 
the money be used? Nobody knew. So it fell smack-dab into the trap that 
some want to spring throughout the United States: That this 
administration or this Senate would release detainees into the 
neighborhoods and communities of the United States.
  As shown on this chart, this supermax facility is not in a 
neighborhood or a community. Yes, we have maximum security prisons in 
California eminently capable of holding these individuals as well, and 
from which people do not escape.
  I believe this has been an exercise in fear-baiting. I hope it is not 
going to be successful because I believe American justice is what makes 
this country strong in the eyes of the world. American justice is what 
people believe separates the United States from other countries. 
American justice has to be applied to everyone because, if it is not, 
we then become hypocrites in the eyes of the world.
  We should return to our values. One of the largest symbols of 
returning to these values is, in fact, the closure of the facility at 
Guantanamo Bay.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 15 minutes 56 seconds.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
notified after 10 minutes and that the approximately 6 minutes be 
reserved for Senator Inhofe.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I do 
not think I will object--I did not hear the request the Senator made. 
Will the Senator repeat it, please.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. It is to reserve the 10 minutes I had scheduled and 
to reserve 6 minutes for you, I say to the Senator.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, that 6 minutes would be immediately prior 
to Senator Inouye's closing; is that right?
  I do not object. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to 
prohibit funds from the supplemental being used for relocation of 
Guantanamo Bay prisoners.
  President Obama has asked for $100 million in the regular 2010 
Defense appropriations bill for his proposal to close Guantanamo Bay. 
As Congress considers that plan for 2010, it is reasonable for us to 
ask the President to come to Congress with his plan so we can consider 
the funding requirements as part of the normal oversight process. But 
right now, I think it is clear, from all the debate we have heard, the 
President does not have a plan. Instead, he is proceeding with a 
decision to close Guantanamo Bay, even though there is no viable 
alternative for the detainment of terrorist combatants.
  On September 11, 2001, we know the United States peered into the face 
of evil, when 19 foreign terrorists brought the violence of extremism 
to our soil, claiming the lives of nearly 3,000 Americans.
  That day changed the course of American history. In the 8 years 
since, America has boldly waged the global war on terror in an effort 
to prevent terrorism from ever reaching American shores again.
  This conflict has presented our Nation with operational challenges 
which we had not seen before. It is where to and how to detain captured 
terrorists who are enemy combatants but do not represent legal 
combatants of a country. They are not an organized military. They do 
not have the honor code that any military of a country has. No. They 
are terrorists. They do not have an honor code. Therefore, how and 
where we detain them has been a unique situation for our country.
  Included in the detainees at Guantanamo Bay is the self-confessed 
mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Since just after 9/11, 
these enemy combatants have been at a prison facility that is a U.S. 
Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. I have been there. Conditions are 
good. Medical service and food is good. Customs of the combatants are 
recognized and respected.
  My colleagues are discussing Guantanamo, saying it is divisive. They 
are talking about the whole issue of what is torture. I think it is 
very important that we separate what is torture from detaining enemy 
combatants who must be detained because they have information and 
because they are either suspects or known terrorists or are self-
confessed terrorists who want to harm and kill Americans and our 
allies.
  So as we are discussing the issue of where they are detained, I think 
we should put aside the issue of what is torture, which is a legitimate 
issue for discussion but not in where these prisoners are housed. This 
issue should be: Is this a secure facility? Are conditions clean? Does 
it meet the standards of any American prison? Does it protect Americans 
by holding the detainees in a secure place from which it would be very 
difficult for them to escape?

  One other point, because it has been brought out that we have secure 
prisons in America. Well, there is a difference here because we are 
putting these enemy combatants who do not have an honor code on 
American soil, if that is the choice that is made, and we are also 
allowing people from the outside to then start plotting for their 
escape into America's neighborhoods.
  I believe the President's initiative saying we would close Guantanamo 
Bay within a year is premature, and I am extremely concerned that this 
deadline, when there is no alternative and no plan for these dangerous 
terrorists, is taking precedence over the plan that must be put forward 
for the security of Americans.
  There are five scenarios that have been outlined here on the floor 
about what we would do with these detainees: hand them over to their 
home countries for incarceration, transfer them to a neutral country, 
transfer them to prisons in America, send them to U.S. facilities 
abroad, or release them outright. Unfortunately, every one of these 
options heightens the threat to the lives of Americans.
  Let's talk about putting them in America. That is the worst of these 
options. By taking this action, we allow people to plot the takeover of 
a prison or the escape of these detainees, put them in cell phone range 
where they could be talking to the outside. That would be the worst 
option.
  In 2007, the Senate voted 94 to 3 expressing its firm opposition to 
any plans to release Guantanamo detainees into American society or to 
house them in American facilities. So what about other countries? What 
about putting them out into other countries? That, too, is very 
dangerous. In January, it was reported that former Guantanamo detainee 
Said Ali al-Shihri, who had been released into the custody of Saudi 
Arabia, has subsequently resurfaced as a terrorist operative. Today, he 
is one of the al-Qaida leaders in Yemen and is charged with planning 
and executing acts of violence against the United States and its 
allies. He is not the exception. According to the Pentagon, as many as 
61 enemy combatants released from Guantanamo have since reconnected 
with terrorist networks and renewed their commitment to destroying 
America and our way of life. Even more frightening, these 61 former 
prisoners came from the group of 500 who were deemed ``less dangerous'' 
and thus were released. That means the approximately 270 detainees 
currently housed in Guantanamo represent the most nefarious of 
prisoners.

[[Page S5662]]

  Clearly, a viable alternative to Guantanamo has not been identified. 
Expediting closure of this detention facility without absolutely 
assuring that American lives would be safe, not endangered by this act, 
would place misguided foreign policy goals above the protection of our 
homeland and our people. Moreover, it signals a dangerous return to the 
pre-9/11 mindset.
  Before setting a deadline to close this facility at Guantanamo Bay--a 
U.S. naval base where they have been secured and from which there have 
been no escapes and no attempts to escape--before setting that 
deadline, the American people must be assured that the transfer or 
release of these detainees will not increase the risk to American 
citizens at home or abroad. As it stands, the administration cannot 
give that assurance today. We must require a plan before this order is 
executed. Not doing so is a pre-9/11 mentality that we cannot afford to 
adopt.
  We must remember what happened on 9/11. We were complacent. We were a 
people who never thought we would be attacked on our homeland by people 
even within this society who were helping to plot this destruction. We 
cannot go back to the mentality of ``everything is going to be OK and 
we won't be attacked again.'' There are people in Guantanamo and all 
over the world today who are plotting to undo the freedom in America 
and the ability to live with diversity and in peace, and we must hold 
up that flag of America and what it represents for the world. That is 
what will make America good in the eyes of the world--not releasing 
terrorists to harm other people and our allies.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to inquire how much time we have 
before the Senator from Hawaii wraps it up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 5 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me just say that on 
February 2, I was in Guantanamo Bay. It was one of several trips I have 
made down there. I wish to suggest that one of the trips I made was 
right after 9/11. At that time, I did quite a bit of research to try to 
understand why people have this obsession about closing Guantanamo. I 
looked at the resources down there, and I couldn't figure it out. That 
was several years ago. Now, as recently as 2 months ago, I still have a 
hard time figuring that out.
  I wish to suggest to my colleagues--and I have been listening to some 
of those who are objecting to the action we are about to take today--
there cannot be a case at all that there are human rights abuses in 
Guantanamo Bay.
  Eric Holder, the new Attorney General, went down there just a short 
while ago. He came back, and he witnessed the same thing I did--he was 
down there about the same time--that during the recent visit, the 
military detention facilities at Gitmo meet the highest international 
standards and are in conformity with article 3 of the Geneva 
Convention.
  Then, on February 20, a short time after that, Vice Chief of Naval 
Operations Admiral Walsh went down and issued a detailed report 
following a 2-week review. I go down for 1 day at a time; he was down 
there for 2 whole weeks with a whole team. The team conducted multiple 
announced and unannounced inspections of all of the camps, in daylight 
and at nighttime, keeping in mind that there are six different levels 
of security down there, which is a resource we can't find in any of our 
other installations to which we have access. Anyway, they talked to all 
of the detainees in the yards and everyone else, and they found that 
their conditions were in conformity with article 3 of the Geneva 
Convention.
  So this shouldn't even be controversial. This is something on which 
we all agree.
  I would suggest that we don't have any cases where people are being 
neglected. Right now, they have better health care than they have ever 
had before. There is a medical practitioner, a doctor, a nurse, for 
every two detainees there. There is even a lawyer for each detainee who 
is there. From their own statements to me, these individuals are eating 
better, living better than they have at any other time of their lives.
  The big problem is, if we did close it, we would have to do something 
with these people. I heard one of the Senators who is on the opposite 
side of this issue say a few minutes ago: Well, that is fine because 
right now they are disposing of them.
  They have only, in the last 3 months, found one place. It has dropped 
down from 241 to 240. If that is a success story, I am not sure I 
understand what success is.
  The bottom line is, there are things down there that we can't 
replicate anywhere else, and they are being well cared for.
  One thing that hasn't been talked about enough is the existence of 
the expeditionary legal complex that is in Gitmo. This took 12 months 
to build. It cost $12 million. This is where they can have tribunals.
  One of the things people say is: Well, they can be put into our 
justice system.
  We can't do that because these are detainees, and tribunals have a 
different set of procedures they use and it has to be a special type of 
a court that is set up. We do have that provision down there. We do 
have that court that is set up. We are in the process of trying these 
people.
  So if you don't do this, there are a couple of choices--only three 
choices--on getting rid of these people. One is, you either leave them 
there and try them and try to adjudicate them or you can send them out 
someplace. Well, we have already tried that. Countries won't receive 
these people, and I can't blame them. The third choice would be to 
somehow have them intermingled into our system here, set up in some 17, 
as they suggested, places for them. So none of the options are good, 
but this is one resource that has served America well. We have had it 
since 1903.
  I would ask my good friend, the senior Senator from Hawaii, if he 
knows of any deal that America has that is better than this. It is 
$4,000 a year. That is all it costs. So it is a resource we need to 
keep, we have to keep.
  The only argument I hear against it is: Oh, the Europeans don't want 
them. Where are the Europeans? I am getting a little bit tired of 
having them dictate what we do in the United States. What if they came 
forward and said: You have to close the Everglades tomorrow. Would we 
roll over and close the Everglades? No, we wouldn't. So I think there 
are a lot of options out there, and this is the best option.
  Quite frankly, I go a lot further than this amendment. I think we 
need to keep this resource open. It has served us well in the past, and 
it should serve us well in the future. I urge my colleagues to support 
the Inouye-Inhofe amendment.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, starting from his very first days in 
office, President Obama has taken bold action to demonstrate to the 
world that the United States will lead by example, particularly in the 
area of protecting and promoting human rights. I am especially proud 
that Congress is working with him to help restore faith in the United 
States as a friend, ally, and leader in the global community. I believe 
American leadership is still sorely needed in the world today. I am 
privileged to chair the Helsinki Commission, which is one of the key 
tools available to help this administration engage like-minded nations 
who have made a common commitment to promoting democracy, human rights, 
and the rule of law.
  I want to make it clear that I fully support President Obama's 
decision to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In 
recent years, no other issue has generated as much legitimate criticism 
of the United States as the status and treatment of detainees at 
Guantanamo Bay. Having said that, I think the amendment offered by the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the senior Senator from 
Oklahoma to strip the Guantanamo funding from the underlying bill makes 
sense. We are not ready to move forward just yet. Reviewing the status 
of and transferring or releasing the detainees is an extremely 
complicated matter. It wouldn't be appropriate for any Congress to give 
any administration the funding to do this absent a detailed plan on how 
to proceed. President Obama is working on such a plan

[[Page S5663]]

and I am confident he will provide it to Congress in a timely fashion, 
at which point I am optimistic Congress will indeed provide this 
administration with the funding it needs to close the detention 
facility at Guantanamo Bay and begin to address the abuses and excesses 
of the previous administration and repair our badly damaged reputation 
abroad, which is critical to enlisting other nations in the continuing 
struggle against global terrorism.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The Senator's time has 
expired.
  The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the Guantanamo 
amendment which I offered along with Senator Inhofe. As all of my 
colleagues know, the amendment would strip the funding from the 
supplemental that was requested to begin the process of closing 
Guantanamo.
  Let me say at the outset that despite some of the rhetoric concerning 
this issue, this amendment is not a referendum on closing Guantanamo. 
Instead, it should serve as a reality check since, at this time, the 
administration has not yet forwarded a coherent plan for closing this 
prison.
  In the committee markup, I included language which would have delayed 
the obligation of funding for Guantanamo until the administration 
forwarded such a plan. I also included provisions which would not have 
allowed prisoners to be relocated to the United States or released if 
they still pose a threat to our Nation. But after listening to the 
debate and reading media reports, it became clear that this message was 
not getting through. Rather than cooling the passions of those who are 
justifiably concerned with the ultimate disposition of the prisoners, 
the funding which remained in the bill became a lightning rod far 
overshadowing its impact and dwarfing the more important elements of 
this critically needed bill.
  Instead of letting this bill get bogged down over this matter, as 
chairman of the committee, I determined that the best course was to 
eliminate the funds in question. The fact that the administration has 
not offered a workable plan at this point made that decision rather 
easy.
  But let me be very clear: We need to close the Guantanamo prison. 
Yes, it is a fine facility, state of the art, and I too have visited 
the prison site. Yes, the detainees are being cared for, with good 
food, good service, and good medical care. Our service men and women 
are doing great work. But the fact is that Guantanamo is a symbol of 
the wrongdoings that have occurred, and we must eliminate that 
connection.

  Guantanamo serves as a sign to many in the Arab and Muslim world of 
the insensitivities that some under our command demonstrated at the Abu 
Ghraib prison. It is a constant reminder that what we call ``enhanced 
interrogation techniques'' is referred to nearly universally elsewhere 
in the world as torture. Yes, we should not kid ourselves; the fact 
that Guantanamo remains open today serves as a powerful recruiting tool 
for al-Qaida.
  We Americans have short memories, but that is not so in other 
cultures. For example, when the Japanese Prime Minister visited 
Yasukini shrine, which commemorates Japanese soldiers from World War 
II, the Chinese were outraged. This controversy was for events that are 
now more than 65 years old.
  In Korea, the name of the dictator Toyotomi Hideyoshi is still 
remembered today for the thousands of ears and noses which were cut off 
Koreans and sent to him to prove to him how many Koreans his soldiers 
had killed. That atrocity is still remembered today by millions of 
Koreans, even though it occurred more than 400 years ago.
  The dehumanizing photographs of detainees at Abu Ghraib are no longer 
fresh in our minds, but that is not true in the Middle East, where the 
populace remembers the degradation with disgust. When they think of 
Guantanamo, they remember those photos. Those images are still crystal 
clear to them. The wrongdoing has not been forgotten.
  The closure of Guantanamo is a requirement for this country to help 
overcome some of the ill will still felt by Muslims around the world. 
To many, Guantanamo is considered an affront to the Muslim religion. 
Stories of improper respect for the Koran by prison officials, even 
though inaccurate, serve as a reminder to millions of Muslims that this 
prison must be closed.
  Many of our colleagues are justifiably concerned about how the 
terrorists at Guantanamo will be handled. They deserve answers. But so 
too we must begin planning to close this prison. That work needs to 
begin soon for the good of our Nation and the men and women still 
serving in harm's way.
  It is up to the administration to fashion a plan that can win the 
support of the American people and its congressional representatives. 
As we approach the fiscal year 2010 budget, this will be a key element 
of our continued review of this matter.
  I support the amendment for the reasons I have stated and urge its 
adoption.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the amendment No. 1131.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 196 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--6

     Durbin
     Harkin
     Leahy
     Levin
     Reed
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Kennedy
     Rockefeller
  The amendment (No. 1133) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I voted in favor of the amendment 
offered by Senator Inouye, No. 1133, because I believe it makes sense 
for Congress to review the administration's plan to close Guantanamo 
before providing funding. I continue to believe that President Obama 
made the right decision to close Guantanamo, and I look forward to 
reviewing his plan to do so. While closing Guantanamo may not be easy, 
it is vital to our national security that we close this prison, which 
is a recruiting tool for our enemies.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Georgia.


                           Amendment No. 1144

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to 
temporarily set aside the pending amendment and to call up my 
amendment, No. 1144, which is at the desk.

[[Page S5664]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss], for himself, Mr. 
     Isakson, Mr. Burr, and Mr. Coburn, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1144.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To protect the national security of the United States by 
    limiting the immigration rights of individuals detained by the 
          Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base)

       On page 7, line 25, strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``and, in order for the Department of Justice to carry out 
     the responsibilities required by Executive Orders 13491, 
     13492, and 13493, it is necessary to enact the amendments 
     made by section 203.''

     SEC. 203. IMMIGRATION LIMITATIONS FOR GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL 
                   BASE DETAINEES.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Protecting America's Communities Act''.
       (b) Ineligibility for Admission or Parole.--Section 212 of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(3), by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(G) Guantanamo bay detainees.--An alien who, as of 
     January 1, 2009, was being detained by the Department of 
     Defense at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, is inadmissible.''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or (5)(B)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (5)(B), by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The Attorney General may not parole any alien 
     who, as of January 1, 2009, was being detained by the 
     Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.''.
       (c) Detention Authority.--Section 241(a) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Attorney General'' each place it appears, 
     except for the first reference in paragraph (4)(B)(i), and 
     inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Guantanamo bay detainees.--
       ``(A) Certification requirement.--An alien ordered removed 
     who, as of January 1, 2009, was being detained by the 
     Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, shall be 
     detained for an additional 6 months beyond the removal period 
     (including any extension under paragraph (1)(C)) if the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security certifies that--
       ``(i) the alien cannot be removed due to the refusal of all 
     countries designated by the alien or under this section to 
     receive the alien; and
       ``(ii) the Secretary is making reasonable efforts to find 
     alternative means for removing the alien.
       ``(B) Renewal and delegation of certification.--
       ``(i) Renewal.--The Secretary may renew a certification 
     under subparagraph (A) without limitation after providing the 
     alien with an opportunity to--

       ``(I) request reconsideration of the certification; and
       ``(II) submit documents or other evidence in support of the 
     reconsideration request.

       ``(ii) Delegation.--Notwithstanding section 103, the 
     Secretary may not delegate the authority to make or renew a 
     certification under this paragraph to an official below the 
     level of the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement.
       ``(C) Ineligibility for bond or parole.--No immigration 
     judge or official of United States Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement may release from detention on bond or parole any 
     alien described in subparagraph (A).''.
       (d) Asylum Ineligibility.--Section 208(a)(2) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Guantanamo bay detainees.--Paragraph (1) shall not 
     apply to any alien who, as of January 1, 2009, was being 
     detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay Naval 
     Base.''.
       (e) Mandatory Detention of Aliens From Guantanamo Bay Naval 
     Base.--Section 236(c)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in each of subparagraphs (A) and (B), by striking the 
     comma at the end and inserting a semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``, or'' and inserting 
     a semicolon;
       (3) in subparagraph (D), by striking the comma at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (4) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
       ``(A) as of January 1, 2009, was being detained by the 
     Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.''.
       (f) Statement of Authority.--
       (1) In general.--Congress reaffirms that--
       (A) the United States is in an armed conflict with al 
     Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces; and
       (B) the entities referred to in subparagraph (A) continue 
     to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both 
     domestically and abroad.
       (2) Authority.--Congress reaffirms that the President is 
     authorized to detain enemy combatants in connection with the 
     continuing armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and 
     associated forces until the termination of such conflict, 
     regardless of the place at which they are captured.
       (3) Rule of construction.--The authority described in this 
     subsection may not be construed to alter or limit the 
     authority of the President under the Constitution of the 
     United States to detain enemy combatants in the continuing 
     armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated 
     forces, or in any other armed conflict.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, later today, or at some point in time, 
with respect to the supplemental, there will be an amendment that will 
seek to strike funds that have been put in this supplemental for the 
purpose of providing additional loan money to the IMF. I would like to 
talk about that for a moment because this is a proposal of the 
President which has the bipartisan support of members of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, and it has serious implications with respect to 
the health of the world's economy. It also has serious implications 
with respect to America's leadership.
  Madam President, everybody understands that the United States of 
America is not alone in wrestling with an economic crisis that is 
global at this point. We all understand how it began. We understand the 
implications of our own irresponsibility with respect to the regulatory 
process and the greed and other excesses that drove what happened on 
Wall Street and what has affected the lives of millions of Americans, 
but it has also affected the lives of people around the globe. The fact 
is, what started in the United States has now spread to countries 
around the world, and it continues to reverberate beyond our financial 
systems into all of our economies. The global economic crisis is in 
fact seriously affecting emerging markets and developing countries, and 
they are now experiencing severe economic declines and massive 
withdrawals of capital.
  We don't know yet where this crisis will end, but we know we do have 
an ability to be able to address this crisis in various ways. One of 
the most powerful instruments, one of the most powerful tools available 
to the leaders of the governmental financial marketplace, is the IMF 
itself. President Obama understood early on that our actions on the 
global stage in response to this financial and economic crisis would be 
a very important test of America's leadership. That is why in his first 
major meeting abroad at the G-20 leader summit in London, the President 
called for an expansion of the IMF's new arrangements to borrow. It is 
often referred to just as the NAB--the new arrangements to borrow. The 
President proposed expanding that up to about $500 billion in order to 
help the world's economies avoid collapse.
  This crisis of the last months has offered us a vivid illustration of 
how the increasing interconnectedness of our global economic financial 
system actually comes with a greater susceptibility to systemic risk. 
The IMF contains risk, deals with risk, minimizes risk by serving as a 
bulwark against rolling financial failures, and it addresses volatility 
in the global financial system. The result of that is actually to help 
everybody. The NAB is a contingency fund to which many countries 
contribute, and today other countries are looking to the United States 
to deliver on our earlier commitment.
  Japan has committed $100 million, the European Community members have 
already committed $100 billion, and may well commit up to $160 billion. 
In the last few weeks, countries such as Canada, Switzerland, China, 
South Korea, Norway, Australia, the Czech Republic, India, and others 
have all offered commitments in the billions of dollars in order to 
support the IMF. The President's promise helped to galvanize this 
global response, and it is critical that we, the United States, having 
galvanized this response, having helped to lead people to the watering 
hole, now fulfill our obligations ourselves. We need to do our part, 
and we need to approve the President's request for up to $100 billion 
of authority. In fact, in terms of the budget authority here, this is 
scored at about $5 billion. Why? Because this is a loan process, and it 
is a loan process over which the United States continues to have input 
and the ability, in fact, to help make decisions.
  The reasons to support the President's request frankly go far beyond

[[Page S5665]]

the need of other countries at their moment of economic vulnerability. 
A fortified IMF is in our interest also. There are real national 
security concerns about the way this crisis could trigger a political 
crisis around the world. It is, in fact, a crisis which has already 
brought down the Governments of Iceland and several east European 
countries. It has helped to spark riots in Europe and Southeast Asia, 
and it will very likely be a driving political force for a long time to 
come.
  For all the volatility that we have seen, Madam President, we value 
our investment in the IMF all the more for the things we have not seen. 
The fund has been able so far to act swiftly to stave off balance of 
payment crises in countries such as Pakistan. Obviously, whatever we 
can do to avoid economic crisis in Pakistan right now is critical to 
the survival of that democracy and to the ultimate success, we hope, 
against the insurgencies the Government of Pakistan and the people of 
Pakistan are fighting.
  We are also seeing the steps taken by the IMF thus far are also 
lending strong support to key U.S. allies, including Mexico, Poland, 
and Colombia. These are vulnerable nations with very important American 
interests at play. Successes obviously don't make headlines the same 
way that failures do, but make no mistake; IMF financing has helped to 
stabilize several potentially volatile situations in this crisis 
already.
  Madam President, I am not alone in warning of the security threat 
that is posed by this crisis. Back in March, the Director of National 
Intelligence, ADM Dennis Blair, testified before Congress about the 
risks in front of our Nation. This is what he said:

       The primary near-term security concern of the United States 
     is the global economic crisis and its geopolitical 
     implications.

  That is a remarkable statement coming from a person who is in the 
middle of struggling with potential dirty bombs and terrorism and 
counterterrorism and the threat of al-Qaida in various parts of the 
world. He nevertheless still emphasizes that the primary threat is a 
global economic crisis, and I believe we need to understand the full 
implications of it.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a letter signed by 14 former National Security Advisers and 
Secretaries of State, Defense, and Treasury, all urging us to move 
expeditiously to live up to the President's commitment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  The Bretton Woods Committee,

                                     Washington, DC, May 14, 2009.
       Dear Madam Speaker and Majority Leader Reid: We are writing 
     to express support for the Administration's request for 
     prompt enactment of additional funding for the International 
     Monetary Fund.
       As you well know, the global economic crisis has had a 
     severe impact on emerging markets and developing countries. 
     As conditions deteriorate in these countries, they endanger 
     America's own growth along with U.S. jobs and exports. The 
     IMF is the best instrument to provide these countries with 
     the short term loans that will enable them to weather the 
     crisis.
       At the April G-20 Leaders Summit, the President urged other 
     nations to provide additional resources for the IMF. The 
     legislation increases the size and membership in the New 
     Arrangements to Borrow--a contingency facility that will 
     permit continued international lending when the IMF's 
     existing resources are drawn down. The new agreement also 
     opens the way for greater participation by major emerging 
     market countries who will contribute for the first time to 
     this facility.
       It is important to note that other governments are 
     providing more than 80% of the new funding required, and 
     Japan, China and countries in Europe have already approved 
     their new IMF contributions. As the global economic leader, 
     it is now incumbent on the United States to promptly to meet 
     its obligations.
       A stronger and more responsive IMF is essential to the 
     restoration of confidence in the global economy and financial 
     system and thus to our own economic recovery. We urge 
     Congress to move expeditiously on the President's request.
           Respectfully yours,
         James A. Baker, III; Nicholas F. Brady; Frank C. 
           Carlucci; Henry Paulson; Lee H. Hamilton; Colin L. 
           Powell; Henry Kissinger.
         Condoleezza Rice; W. Anthony Lake; Robert Rubin; Robert 
           McFarlane; Brent Scowcroft; Paul H. O'Neil; Paul A. 
           Volcker.

  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I emphasize that the signatures on this 
letter come from both sides of the aisle, from respected public 
servants and admired strategists, such as GEN Brent Scowcroft, Henry 
Kissinger, Colin Powell, James Baker, Robert Rubin, Lee Hamilton, and 
Paul Volcker. All of them urge us to complete the task of providing the 
support funding for the IMF.
  If there is one lesson we should take away from the worst impacts of 
this global crisis, it is that we should never underestimate the 
severity of these economic challenges or the urgency of tackling them 
head on rather than deferring the tough decisions. The IMF needs a 
robust contingency fund. Let me emphasize this is a contingency fund. 
This is a fund that doesn't represent money that is transferred to the 
IMF, and then they take on some spending spree, nor does it represent 
money that goes to the IMF and is used for IMF expenses. This is a 
direct loan program--loan only--and in the past the United States has 
actually made money when we have made these loans.
  The fact is that this financial crisis is still brewing. For example, 
in central and Eastern Europe, in this part of the world where we saw 
the Berlin Wall and a repressive Communist regime of Eastern Europe 
crash down 20 years ago, we see the risk that if we don't act, it is 
possible that the economies of Eastern Europe will come crashing down 
too. Then we will replace an era of promise and progress in Eastern 
Europe with one of soaring unemployment, instability, and a 
retrenchment of the influence and ideals that we have been investing in 
and helping those countries to put more permanently in place.
  The IMF is the best channel for providing balance of payment 
assistance to emerging and developing markets that are currently 
suffering as a consequence of their economies and banking systems. In 
some cases, political systems are collapsing around them. The 
alternative to having a legitimate and robust IMF to deal with 
countries at risk is, frankly, not a pretty one. IMF loans come with 
strings attached, but they are mainly financial strings not strategic 
strings.
  As we balance the domestic and global demands of this crisis, we need 
to be warned that in cutting corners for short-term savings, we risk 
creating far greater costs down the road. As it stands now, the large 
and urgent financing needs projected for emerging markets and 
developing countries cannot be met from existing IMF lending reserves. 
There is no cost-free, risk-free option, and lendings to the new 
arrangements for borrowing allows us to leverage our contribution 
toward a global capacity to manage economic risks. Managing those risks 
benefits all of us.
  The reasons to act, in fact, go well beyond foreign policy interests. 
This is not a foreign policy issue. In fact, our domestic economic 
interests are also vulnerable if we fail to stem economic crises in 
other countries.
  Why is that? Well, for a very simple reason. Expanding the IMF's NAB 
resources is actually essential to our overall strategy for restoring 
the health of the U.S. economy, for our exports, and it helps us to 
secure U.S. jobs.
  Some in America might take the short-term view. We have heard that 
before. Some in America may try to appeal to the lowest common 
denominator and say to people: Well, why on Earth are we sending money 
to some fund that might, in fact, help a foreign country, when we ought 
to be just focused on the bailout at home? Well, the reality is that is 
a completely, totally false choice. The truth is, America's economic 
recovery depends not just on our own stimulus package and on spending 
here, and not just on fiscal and monetary policy and programs that 
sustain domestic demand, but we also need to sustain demand abroad. We 
sell to those countries. We have millions of Americans making products 
that go to those countries and, in fact, those emerging markets in 
developing countries have been, up until now, some of the best growth 
opportunities for American investment and for American jobs to be able 
to supply goods.
  Economic growth abroad helps us to kick economic growth into gear at 
home. That is why we need the IMF to help protect the markets we export 
to and from which they import American products.

[[Page S5666]]

  Let me just be specific about that. Between 2003 and 2008, U.S. 
exports grew by 8 percent per year in real terms. Since 2000, our 
exports show a 95-percent correlation to foreign country growth rates. 
In large part, our economy was benefiting from the rapid growth of 
other economies in other parts of the world. During that period, the 
role of exports in driving American economic growth actually increased. 
The share of all U.S. growth attributable to export growth rose from 25 
percent in 2003 to almost 50 percent in 2007, and then almost 70 
percent in 2008.
  Now, unfortunately, our exports peaked in July of last year, and they 
have been falling ever since then. Most of our partners are in 
recession. In the first quarter of 2009, our real exports were 23 
percent lower than in the first quarter of 2008.
  Our export decline is now contributing to the recession in the United 
States. With an export share in GDP of 12 percent, a 23-percent decline 
of that share of GDP, if you sustain that 23 percent over the course of 
the year it actually makes a negative contribution to the GDP of the 
United States of 2.5 percent. In other words, if our domestic demand 
were stagnant, our GDP would fall by nearly 3 percent. With that, we 
lose a lot of jobs and a lot of the struggle to get our economy back 
into gear just becomes that much more complicated and that much more 
delayed.
  Congress passed, and the President signed, a stimulus plan that is 
designed to boost domestic demand. But if we fail to act, all the money 
we have spent to stimulate our own economy could actually be offset 
completely by the decline in exports.
  We need to help these foreign countries lift themselves out of 
recession. Our recovery now depends on many of these countries that are 
now at risk. Some foreign countries can take care of themselves with a 
stimulus of their own and in cleaning up their own banking sectors. But 
many other countries, especially emerging market economies, have been 
so hard hit that they need a helping hand.
  Some countries have been cut off abruptly from capital markets and 
shut out of the credit markets by the banking problems originating in 
the United States and Europe. Let me give an example. We exported to a 
lot of countries our notions about how one ought to bank and how you, 
in fact, use banks to leverage and to go out and create jobs by 
investing in businesses. The fact is that many banks in Western Europe 
practiced that so effectively that they bought up banks in Eastern 
Europe, and so banks in parts of Eastern Europe, when they stopped 
lending, stopped lending because the banks in the western part of 
Europe are taking care of their immediate home-based problems and their 
capital problems, and the result is those eastern economies are 
particularly hard hit. This crisis actually started with us, and it is 
reverberating because of this and these systemic failures, and it will 
hurt more if it reverberates back to us because we failed to help some 
of those countries to hold up the export demand as well as to sustain 
their political systems which we have invested in very deeply since the 
end of the Cold War.
  As countries recover, the United States is going to gain. We are 
going to be spared the risk of an even more precipitous decline in our 
exports, with greater job loss. In time, our export growth will resume 
and people in export industries across our country are going to be able 
to go back to work.
  While we take part in a global effort to increase the NAB, we also 
have to shore up our influence inside the IMF and give greater voice to 
the emerging markets. The President is looking to increase by 
approximately $8 billion America's quota subscription to the IMF. These 
quotas actually determine how the IMF assigns voting rights, and it 
decides on access to IMF funding. This increase in the U.S. quota is 
part of a larger practice to address long overdue governance reform and 
create greater legitimacy for the IMF.
  It is also part of a two-way street. If we want major exporting 
companies to step up and contribute for the first time to, amongst 
other things, this expanded NAB facility, then we need to show that 
they can have a larger voice in the IMF itself. It also makes certain 
the United States can keep its current voting weight in order to 
maintain our leadership in the IMF so we have the ability to shape the 
future of the institution.
  Before I finish, I would like to directly speak to two misconceptions 
that I think are involved in the amendment that will seek to strike 
this particular portion. The first is a very important point, and I 
wish to emphasize it. I spoke about it a moment ago, but I really wish 
to emphasize it.
  The United States, in providing lending money to the New Arrangements 
to Borrow, to the IMF, is not giving away money. We are not spending 
money. This is a deposit fund. It goes into an account, and we get an 
IMF interest-bearing asset in exchange for those funds. It actually can 
turn out to be a good investment because, while we participate in the 
IMF because of the enormous benefit it brings to the United States and 
to the world in terms of emerging countries and their markets, in fact, 
the United States has earned money historically on its participation in 
the IMF. According to the Treasury Department's most recent report to 
Congress, the fact is, we have been on the plus side. This is not a 
payout, therefore, of the IMF; it is an exchange of assets. We put 
assets in the fund, and we get an interest-bearing asset in exchange 
for those funds. This is a particular arrangement that has worked out 
very sufficiently for the U.S. Treasury in the past.
  Second, let me be very clear on what is being asked here. The NAB, 
the New Arrangements to Borrow, is a contingency fund to be used only 
when other resources of the IMF are exhausted. The United States and 
other members of the NAB have control over these funds, and the IMF 
needs to get approval from the NAB providers in order to draw down on 
these funds. So we have to think of this as an insurance fund over 
which the United States continues to have control.
  We have before us legislation to replenish the IMF's resources just 
in time for it to be able to stand up and help fight this crisis. With 
this money, the IMF will be able to help many countries revive their 
economies. With this money, the IMF will be ready in case the crisis 
deepens and creates more victims. With this money, America is able to 
lead at a moment of crisis and keep the promise of the President and 
help us to sustain the viability of emerging markets and countries, 
which is vital in the context of the struggle against extremism and 
religious fanaticism and terrorism, which we see has its prime targets 
in places that are failing. The ability to be able to prevent that 
failure is in the strategic as well as in the economic interests of our 
country. The world is looking to us to keep our word.
  I urge support for the request of the President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator form Georgia is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1164

  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 1164, which is at the 
desk, be pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Isakson], for himself, Mr. 
     Dodd, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Chambliss, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1164.

  Mr. ISAKSON. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the 
      application of the homebuyer credit, and for other purposes)

       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. 504. CREDIT FOR CERTAIN HOME PURCHASES.

       (a) Elimination of First-Time Homebuyer Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 36 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``who is 
     a first-time homebuyer of a principal residence'' and 
     inserting ``who purchases a principal residence''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Subsection (c) of section 36 of such Code is amended by 
     striking paragraph (1) and by redesignating paragraphs (2), 
     (3), (4), and (5) as paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4), 
     respectively.
       (B) Section 36 of such Code is amended by striking ``FIRST-
     TIME HOMEBUYER

[[Page S5667]]

     CREDIT'' in the heading and inserting ``HOME PURCHASE 
     CREDIT''.
       (C) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 36 and inserting the following 
     new item:

``Sec. 36. Home purchase credit.''.

       (D) Subparagraph (W) of section 26(b)(2) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``homebuyer credit'' and inserting ``home 
     purchase credit''.
       (b) Elimination of Recapture Except for Homes Sold Within 3 
     Years.--Subsection (f) of section 36 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Recapture of Credit in the Case of Certain 
     Dispositions.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the event that a taxpayer--
       ``(A) disposes of the principal residence with respect to 
     which a credit was allowed under subsection (a), or
       ``(B) fails to occupy such residence as the taxpayer's 
     principal residence,

     at any time within 36 months after the date on which the 
     taxpayer purchased such residence, then the tax imposed by 
     this chapter for the taxable year during which such 
     disposition occurred or in which the taxpayer failed to 
     occupy the residence as a principal residence shall be 
     increased by the amount of such credit.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--
       ``(A) Death of taxpayer.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to 
     any taxable year ending after the date of the taxpayer's 
     death.
       ``(B) Involuntary conversion.--Paragraph (1) shall not 
     apply in the case of a residence which is compulsorily or 
     involuntarily converted (within the meaning of section 
     1033(a)) if the taxpayer acquires a new principal residence 
     within the 2-year period beginning on the date of the 
     disposition or cessation referred to in such paragraph. 
     Paragraph (1) shall apply to such new principal residence 
     during the remainder of the 36-month period described in such 
     paragraph as if such new principal residence were the 
     converted residence.
       ``(C) Transfers between spouses or incident to divorce.--In 
     the case of a transfer of a residence to which section 
     1041(a) applies--
       ``(i) paragraph (1) shall not apply to such transfer, and
       ``(ii) in the case of taxable years ending after such 
     transfer, paragraph (1) shall apply to the transferee in the 
     same manner as if such transferee were the transferor (and 
     shall not apply to the transferor).
       ``(D) Relocation of members of the armed forces.--Paragraph 
     (1) shall not apply in the case of a member of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States on active duty who moves pursuant 
     to a military order and incident to a permanent change of 
     station.
       ``(3) Joint returns.--In the case of a credit allowed under 
     subsection (a) with respect to a joint return, half of such 
     credit shall be treated as having been allowed to each 
     individual filing such return for purposes of this 
     subsection.
       ``(4) Return requirement.--If the tax imposed by this 
     chapter for the taxable year is increased under this 
     subsection, the taxpayer shall, notwithstanding section 6012, 
     be required to file a return with respect to the taxes 
     imposed under this subtitle.''.
       (c) Expansion of Application Period.--Subsection (h) of 
     section 36 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     striking ``December 1, 2009'' and inserting ``June 1, 2010''.
       (d) Election to Treat Purchase in Prior Year.--Subsection 
     (g) of section 36 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by striking ``December 1, 2009'' and inserting ``June 
     1, 2010''.
       (e) Elimination of Income Limitation.--Subsection (b) of 
     section 36 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(b) Dollar Limitation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, the credit allowed under subsection (a) shall not 
     exceed $8,000.
       ``(2) Married individuals filing separately.--In the case 
     of a married individual filing a separate return, paragraph 
     (1) shall be applied by substituting `$4,000' for `$8,000'.
       ``(3) Other individuals.--If two or more individuals who 
     are not married purchase a principal residence, the amount of 
     the credit allowed under subsection (a) shall be allocated 
     among such individuals in such manner as the Secretary may 
     prescribe, except that the total amount of the credits 
     allowed to all such individuals shall not exceed $8,000.''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to residences purchased on or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. ISAKSON. I know the Senator from Iowa wishes to speak, but first 
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd, Senator Lieberman, and 
Senator Chambliss be added to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, this amendment is very simple. You 
heard me many times come to the floor to talk about the housing tax 
credit. The tax credit we finally amended to repeal the payback 
provision of $8,000 for first-time home buyers has brought an 
improvement in home sales of 40 percent at the entry level.
  This amendment merely removes the means test of a maximum income of 
$150,000 for a couple and $75,000 for an individual, and it removes the 
means test that they have to be a first-time home buyer, which means 
any home buyer buying a home for their principal residence would 
receive an $8,000 tax credit and there would be no limitation to their 
income to disqualify them.
  I have always fought on this floor for a maximum tax credit of 
$15,000, and I know how difficult that has been. But in the evidence of 
what has happened with the current $8,000 with the means test, by 
removing it I am confident we will have a significant improvement in 
the housing market in America, which in turn will cause a significant 
improvement in the economy of the United States of America, as happened 
in 1968, 1974, 1981, 1982 and 1990 to 1991. Housing took America into a 
recession, and it was only when it recovered that America began to come 
out.
  This improvement in that amendment, with this amendment, will be 
better for the people of the United States of America and better for 
our economy. I encourage my colleagues at an appropriate time to cast a 
favorable vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.


                    Amendment No. 1140, as Modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I have a unanimous consent request that 
has been cleared. I ask unanimous consent that the pending Brownback 
amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of title III, add the following:
      Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
     Secretary of Defense should consult with State and local 
     government officials before making any decision about where 
     detainees at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, might be 
     transferred, housed, or otherwise incarcerated as a result of 
     the implementation of the Executive Order of the President to 
     close the detention facilities at Naval Station Guantanamo 
     Bay.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I wish to speak about the effort that 
seems to be underway here now--and I guess we will be having some more 
amendments this afternoon from the other side of the aisle--to prevent 
the President from addressing a serious national security problem: the 
continued operation of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
  It is long past time we close this facility. On May 23, 2007, almost 
exactly 2 years ago, I introduced legislation to close that detention 
center. Since that time, unfortunately, it has only become more 
imperative that we act. It remains the case that there is simply no 
compelling reason to keep the facility open and not to bring the 
detainees to maximum-security facilities here in the United States.
  This Nation has long been a beacon of democracy, a champion of human 
rights throughout the world. Over the past 8 years, however, we have 
repeatedly betrayed our highest principles. Torture was authorized in 
direct violation of the law, and we intentionally put detainees beyond 
the most basic rules of law, including secret tribunals where detainees 
lacked opportunities to challenge their confinement and lacked 
sufficient due process.
  These errors are manifest in the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, 
where the very purpose was to avoid providing legal safeguards that are 
enshrined in our Constitution and the Geneva Conventions to detainees 
and to prevent independent courts from reviewing the legality of the 
administration's actions. That was the purpose of Guantanamo as a 
detention center. Now that the Supreme Court has definitively ruled 
that constitutional protections apply at Guantanamo, it truly serves no 
purpose.
  Closing the facility, however, does not just follow from a commitment 
to our most cherished values and constitutional principles; rather, 
closure is essential for our national security. As long as the 
detention center at Guantanamo Bay is open, it remains a recruiting 
tool for those who wish to do us harm and provides ammunition for our 
enemies.

[[Page S5668]]

  This is not just my view but is the view of military and foreign 
policy officials. The Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, 
has said:

       The detention center has become a damaging symbol for the 
     world . . . it is a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment 
     and harmful to our national security, so closing it is 
     important for our national security.

  That is from Dennis Blair, our Director of National Intelligence.
  Former Navy general counsel Alberto Mora has said:

       There are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that 
     the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat 
     deaths in Iraq--as judged by their effectiveness in 
     recruiting insurgent fighters into combat--are, respectively, 
     the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

  Retired Air Force MAJ Matthew Alexander, who led the interrogation 
team that tracked down Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in 
Iraq, said:

       I listened time and time again to foreign fighters, and 
     Sunni Iraqis, state that the number one reason they had 
     decided to pick arms and join al-Qaida was the abuses at Abu 
     Ghraib and the authorized torture and abuse at Guantanamo 
     Bay.

  Let me repeat that. Matthew Alexander, a retired Air Force major who 
led the interrogation team who tracked down the leader of al-Qaida in 
Iraq said this.

       I listened time and time again to foreign fighters, and 
     Sunni Iraqis, state that the number one reason that they had 
     picked up arms and joined al-Qaida was the abuse at Abu 
     Ghraib and the authorized torture and abuse at Guantanamo 
     Bay.

  It cannot get much clearer than that. Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, 
Madeline Albright, James Baker, Warren Christopher have all called for 
Guantanamo to be closed, as has Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen.
  As former Secretary of State Colin Powell said:

       Guantanamo has become a major, major problem . . . if it 
     were up to me, I would close Guantanamo not tomorrow but this 
     afternoon.

  That was Colin Powell.
  Indeed, even President Bush repeated time and time again his desire 
to shut down Guantanamo, I am sure because of all the information that 
was given to him by his Joint Chiefs of Staff and by his intelligence 
services. So President Obama should be applauded for taking a step that 
military and foreign policy officials insist will directly and 
immediately improve our national security.
  The President has set up a special task force to review the status of 
the detainees remaining at Guantanamo and to make recommendations on 
what to do with these individuals. The administration faces some 
difficult decisions it inherited from the previous administration.
  Guantanamo was conceived--Guantanamo as a detention center, I should 
say, was conceived outside the law. And bringing detainees back into 
our legal system, as the Supreme Court has rightly found necessary, 
involves some very difficult policy issues.
  I, myself, greatly look forward to the President's plan, and I will 
judge it carefully. Closing Guantanamo and simply replicating the same 
deficient legal process in the United States would be purely symbolic 
and meaningless.
  As the administration undertakes its review of the detainees at 
Guantanamo and considers the most appropriate way to close the 
facility, the last thing Congress should do is handcuff the President.
  What I am hearing are some arguments on the other side of the aisle 
basically saying, through these amendments they are offering, 
Guantanamo Bay should remain open. That is the thrust of the 
amendments: Guantanamo should remain open.
  Make no mistake, if these amendments become law, the President's 
ability to take the step that military and foreign policy officials--
Republicans and Democrats and Independents alike--have all said is 
needed will be very difficult. It will be difficult for the President 
to take the steps necessary to close Guantanamo Bay. Al-Qaida and those 
who wish to cause us harm will continue to have a major recruiting tool 
at their disposal.
  I would not say this is the intention of the people offering those 
amendments, but listen to what our intelligence officers have said and 
what our military officers have said, that the biggest recruiting tool 
for those in Afghanistan and the Taliban and al-Qaida is a continued 
detention center at Guantanamo Bay.
  So while it may not be the intention of those people offering the 
amendments to have this as a recruiting tool for al-Qaida and the 
Taliban, those who have been in our intelligence service tell us that 
is, in fact, what is happening. It is the biggest recruiting tool for 
those who wish to do us harm. While it may not be the intention of 
those offering the amendments, that is what is going to be the 
practical effect, if those amendments are adopted.
  One other thing. President Obama's decision to close Guantanamo Bay 
is already starting to pay some dividends. Countries such as Portugal 
and Ireland have made offers to join Albania in accepting detainees who 
cannot be returned to their home countries.
  Just last week, France accepted Lakhdar Boumediene, an Algerian 
suspected in a bomb plot against the Embassy of the United States in 
Sarajevo. The assistance of our allies is critical. Yet to obtain that 
assistance will only be more difficult if we, ourselves, are unwilling 
to do what we ask our allies to do; that is, to accept detainees on our 
own soil in secure detention facilities.
  We say: Oh, no, we cannot take them here but, France, you can take 
them and, Ireland, you can take them, and Portugal. They will say what 
kind of fairness is there in that?
  Indeed, I feel the statements and the arguments of many on the other 
side of the aisle are simply to scare the American people, unduly scare 
the American people, and spread this kind of fear and misinformation by 
suggesting that closing the facility at Guantanamo Bay will somehow 
mean the terrorists will be walking Main Street or, as the junior 
Senator from Arizona claimed: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his partners 
will be our neighbors--will be our neighbors if they are in secure 
detention facilities.
  This is the kind of language that rightfully gets Americans fearful 
that they are going to be our neighbors. Well, the fact is, those 
individuals who can be tried in Federal court can and will be 
vigorously prosecuted. Federal courts have successfully prosecuted 
terrorists in the past. In fact, between September 12, 2001, and the 
end of 2007, 145 terrorists were convicted in American courts. How many 
American people know that, that 145 were convicted in American courts.
  Likewise, U.S. prisons are already holding some of the world's most 
dangerous terrorists in the United States. Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind 
of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, is in jail in the United 
States.
  Zacarias Moussaoui, the 9/11 coconspirator, is in jail in the United 
States; Richard Reid, the ``shoe bomber,'' in jail in the United 
States. Several al-Qaida terrorists responsible for bombing Embassies 
in Kenya and Tanzania are in jail in the United States.
  The men, women, and military officials who run these facilities have 
a proven track record. I ask those who are saying that Khalid Shaikh 
Mohammed and his partners will be our neighbors, I ask them: Can you 
point to any prisoner who has escaped from a Federal maximum security 
facility? Point to one. Just point to one.
  Well, we have no greater duty than to protect the American people. 
That is the oath we all take. National security is our first job. In 
this regard, the President is undertaking a process that will result in 
the closing of a national stain on our character and a recruiting tool 
for those who wish to do us harm.
  He is taking a step our military and foreign policy officials make 
clear will make us safer. The President should not be handcuffed and 
should not be prevented from improving our national security, as the 
other side in those amendments wish to do.
  Finally, we must never forget that people around the world know we 
are right and the terrorists are wrong. Of the 5 or 6 billion people 
who live in the world, only a handful think the terrorists are right. 
All the rest are on our side. They know we are right and the terrorists 
are wrong.
  If we wish to defeat the terrorists, therefore, we should remain 
faithful to our ideals and our values. We will not win this war with 
secret prisons, with torture chambers, with degrading treatment, with 
individuals denied basic human rights.

[[Page S5669]]

  Rather, we will win this by upholding our values and insisting on 
legal safeguards that are the very basis of our system of Government 
and democracy. It is time to close Guantanamo Bay. There is no reason 
to keep it open and every reason, for our national security, to shut 
its doors.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                           Amendment No. 1173

  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that we call up amendment No. 1173.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Corker], for himself, Mr. 
     Graham, and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1173.

  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for the development of objectives for the United 
            States with respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan)

       On page 97, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:


                    afghanistan and pakistan policy

       Sec. 1121.  (a) Objectives for Afghanistan and Pakistan.--
     Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the President, based on information gathered and 
     coordinated by the National Security Council, shall develop 
     and submit to the appropriate committees of Congress the 
     following:
       (1) A clear statement of the objectives of United States 
     policy with respect to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
       (2) Metrics to be utilized to assess progress toward 
     achieving the objectives developed under paragraph (1).
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than March 30, 2010 and every 90 
     days thereafter, the President, on the basis of information 
     gathered and coordinated by the National Security Council and 
     in consultation with Coalition partners as appropriate, shall 
     submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report 
     setting forth the following:
       (A) A description and assessment of the progress of United 
     States Government efforts, including those of the Department 
     of Defense, the Department of State, the United States Agency 
     for International Development, and the Department of Justice, 
     in achieving the objectives for Afghanistan and Pakistan 
     developed under subsection (a)(1).
       (B) Any modification of the metrics developed under 
     subsection (a)(2) in light of circumstances in Afghanistan or 
     Pakistan, together with a justification for such 
     modification.
       (C) Recommendations for the additional resources or 
     authorities, if any, required to achieve such objectives for 
     Afghanistan and Pakistan.
       (2) Form.--Each report under this subsection may be 
     submitted in classified or unclassified form. Any report 
     submitted in classified form shall include an unclassified 
     annex or summary of the matters contained in the report.
       (3) Appropriate committees of congress defined.--In this 
     subsection, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (A) the Committees on Armed Services, Appropriations, 
     Foreign Relations, Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs, and the Judiciary and the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the Senate; and
       (B) the Committees on Armed Services, Appropriations, 
     Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security, and the Judiciary and the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives.

  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Lugar, Isakson, Collins, and Bennett be added as cosponsors to this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I am pleased to offer this amendment 
with my colleagues, Senator Graham of South Carolina and Senator 
Lieberman. This amendment would basically do two things.
  Today, we have before us a supplemental appropriations bill. A large 
amount of the money in this bill is for our military operations and 
other operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This amendment is being 
offered without criticism. But, in fact, what we have today is a major 
shift in our policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I doubt that there 
is a person in this body who can clearly articulate what our mission is 
in these two countries, to the standpoint of actually laying out 
objectives.
  I think many Senators were part of a luncheon we had 2 weeks ago 
where, when the President of Afghanistan was asked what our mission was 
in Afghanistan, he could not articulate in any way that was 
comprehendible what our mission was in that country.
  I do not offer those comments again in criticism. I realize there are 
a lot of changes underway. I realize there is going to be a new general 
on the ground; possibly it will take until August for that confirmation 
to take place.
  I realize this administration is working with many agencies in trying 
to develop a plan that will be effective in this country. If one were 
to listen to the state of the mission, one would think our mission is 
very similar in Afghanistan to that of Iraq, minus actually having a 
democratically functioning government.
  I know all of us have had some concerns about some of the issues 
within Government in both countries and where Government funding 
actually ends up. So this is an amendment, a bipartisan amendment, that 
is being put forth asking the administration to do two things: Asking 
that we, in essence, all understand this policy so that, in fact, we 
have a policy that is equal to the tremendous sacrifice our men and 
women in uniform are putting forth on our behalf and do so daily.
  First of all, the amendment would require the President to submit to 
Congress a clear statement of objectives for Afghanistan and Pakistan 
and the benchmarks that will be used to quantify progress toward 
achieving those objectives.
  Again, this is not tying their hands. There are no timetables that 
say certain things have to happen by a certain time. This is, in 
essence, asking the administration to lay out to us so we all know and 
can articulate those and, hopefully, even our men and women in the 
field can articulate these, to lay those out in a way by which we can 
understand the benchmarks.
  Then, secondly, it asks that they come before us and actually give us 
quarterly updates, after a period of time, toward those objectives and 
how they are actually progressing. I would hope that actually, at some 
point, the managers of the bill might be able to even accept this by 
unanimous consent because I cannot imagine why anybody in this body 
would want to vote the billions and billions of dollars toward these 
efforts that we rightfully are supporting today--do not get me wrong, 
but I cannot imagine not wanting the administration to come back to us 
with these benchmarks and these objectives so we all can measure our 
progress there.
  We have been there 8 years. Our men and women in uniform have given 
and given and given; many have lost their lives, many have lost limbs. 
It would seem to me that everyone in this body, regardless of which 
side of the aisle they are on, would want to clearly understand what 
our mission is there and our way of evaluating that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1156

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1156.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], for himself, 
     Mr. Graham, Mr. Begich, Mr. Thune, and Mr. Burris, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 1156.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

[[Page S5670]]

   (Purpose: To increase the authorized end strength for active duty 
                         personnel of the Army)

       At the end of title III, add the following:
       Sec. 315. (a) Increase in Fiscal Year 2009 Authorized End 
     Strength for Army Active Duty Personnel.--Paragraph (1) of 
     section 401 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417; 
     122 Stat. 4428) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) The Army, 547,400.''.
       (b) Increase in Permanent Active Duty End Strength Minimum 
     Level for Army Personnel.--Paragraph (1) of section 691 of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) For the Army, 547,400.''.
       (c) Funding.--
       (1) Military personnel, army.--The amount appropriated by 
     this title under the heading ``Military Personnel, Army'' is 
     hereby increased by $200,000,000, with the amount of such 
     increase to be available for purposes of costs of personnel 
     in connection with personnel of the Army on active duty in 
     excess of 547,400 personnel of the Army.
       (2) Operation and maintenance, army.--The amount 
     appropriated by this title under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Army'' is hereby increased by $200,000,000, with 
     the amount of such increase to be available for purposes of 
     costs of operation and maintenance in connection with 
     personnel of the Army on active duty in excess of 547,400 
     personnel of the Army.
       (3) Limitation on availability.--Amounts appropriated by 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be available only for the 
     purposes specified in such paragraph.
       (4) Emergency requirement.--For purposes of Senate 
     enforcement, the amounts appropriated by paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) are designated as an emergency requirement and necessary 
     to meet emergency needs pursuant to section 403 of S. Con. 
     Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2010.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I am very pleased to rise now to 
offer this amendment on behalf of a bipartisan group: Senators Thune, 
Begich, Graham, and Burris, all of us members of the Armed Services 
Committee.
  I take the floor today to speak on their behalf and mine for a 
constituency that every Member of the Senate represents; and that is, 
the men and women who serve in the U.S. Army.
  On September 11, 2001, the Army's active-duty strength was just 
480,000, after a decade in which we in Congress cut it nearly in half 
after the Cold War ended.
  In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, many Members of 
Congress urged a major expansion of the military and the Army for the 
years of war that were clearly ahead. But, unfortunately, that did not 
happen. We watched with growing concern as our soldiers--members of a 
force too small for the missions we had assigned to them--served 
through repeated deployments, heroically, but under increasing stress.
  Finally, 3 years ago, the administration and Congress increased the 
size of the active-duty component of the U.S. Army from 480,000--the 
level on 9/11--to 547,400. That was to be realized over a period of 
years.
  In February of this year, the Army reached that goal well ahead of 
the schedule that had been originally anticipated, fortunately, because 
every man and woman who joined the Army is necessary and has been 
critically necessary. So now we actually have 549,000 active-duty 
soldiers.
  Recall that I said the statutory end strength of the Army is 547,400. 
So the Army now is literally at a strength greater than its current 
authorization. This achievement expresses the patriotic commitment of 
the American men and women who have answered the call of duty. In other 
words, recruitments and reenlistments have been so high that there are 
more people in the Army than the statutory end strength.
  But there is still not enough. I will explain why.
  Growing the force was clearly necessary to support our troops in the 
Army, our soldiers who are bearing the major responsibility for the 
wars we have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. But these increased 
numbers simply have not proved sufficient to relieve the continued 
strain on our soldiers. That is what this amendment intends to do 
during the remainder of this fiscal year, covered by this supplemental 
appropriations bill.
  I want to talk about dwell time. It is a term the military uses. What 
is ``dwell time''? It is down time but not R&R time. It is time that is 
spent back here at home in the bases, with the families, not just 
recovering from the last deployment, but also, obviously, preparing and 
training and upgrading for the next. And perhaps most significantly to 
the men and women of the Army, it is precious time for our soldiers to 
spend with their families.
  Today, dwell time of members of the U.S. Army is about slightly more 
than 1 to 1. That means for every year of deployment, they are back 
home at the base, training, preparing, spending time with their family, 
for a year--1 to 1.
  General Casey said--and everybody in our military says--that is 
simply inadequate; too much duty, too quickly, too much stress on our 
men and women in the U.S. Army, in the military.
  General Casey said he has the goal to get the ratio to 1 to 2--2 
years at home for every 1 year out at war--and to do so by 2011. In 
fact, he would like to take it higher than the 1 to 2--beyond that--
hoping that our conflicts we are in in Iraq and Afghanistan do not 
require that many American military by that time.
  Incidentally, the dwell-time ratio is particularly dire for a 
category in our Army called ``enablers.'' They are involved as Army 
aviators, engineers, people involved in intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance work. They really are under dwell-time pressure.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, the Obama administration is 
implementing what I consider to be a very responsible strategy, and a 
correct strategy, for drawing down our force in Iraq. But if you 
combine the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the planned increase in Army 
presence in Afghanistan, as we slowly decrease in Iraq, Army 
deployments will actually increase for the rest of this year.
  This is what General Casey, the Army Chief of Staff, said to the 
Armed Services Committee the other day: It is a simple question of 
supply and demand. If the supply of the Army stays only constant or 
even goes down, and yet the demand--which is the increasing deployments 
for at least the remainder of this year, and probably well into next 
year--goes up, the dwell time--the time these soldiers of ours, heroes 
of ours, have to spend away from the war zone back at base--will not 
rise from the unacceptable level it is at now.
  Our military leadership has made clear in public statements that 
things are going to get worse before they get better.
  Army Chief of Staff Casey recently warned that the number of deployed 
soldiers will actually, as I said, rise through the rest of the year. 
Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate 
Armed Services Committee last week that the Army faces a ``very rough 
time'' over at least the next 2 years before it reaches what Admiral 
Mullen called the ``light at the end of the tunnel.''
  Keep in mind, these predictions do not reflect or absorb the 
possibility of a new crisis or new crises elsewhere in the world 
outside of Iraq and Afghanistan--what such a crisis would place in the 
way of additional demands on our soldiers--a possibility that recent 
experience warns us to at least keep in mind as a possibility.
  So we are in a situation now where we have a constant level of 
soldiers on Active Duty, demand in the short term going up, and, 
therefore, dwell time--time away from the battlefield--not rising. This 
equation leads to strain and stress on our soldiers. Unfortunately, 
there are facts that show this strain and stress. The Army is on track 
this year to overtake the grim record of suicides of our Active-Duty 
Army personnel that we saw last year, in 2008. The murder a week or two 
ago of five soldiers by a fellow soldier in Baghdad was a devastating 
example, I fear, of the stress on our deployed force. We hear 
increasingly stories of the stress on the families back home. Any of us 
who have visited military bases, spoken to the families, hear this 
constantly as a growing appeal to do something to increase the dwell 
time. The fact is, we are not, and that really does hurt.
  I think we can say--as was said the other day at an Armed Services 
Committee hearing by witnesses before us from the Defense Department 
who were talking about all we are doing to improve the quality of life 
of our men and women in uniform, including housing for their families, 
health care, childcare, et cetera, et cetera--benefits--all true. So we 
are improving the benefits to our men and women in the

[[Page S5671]]

U.S. Army, but so long as there are not enough of them, which there are 
not today, the major factor of stress, which is how often, how many 
times are they going to be sent back to Iraq and Afghanistan, or how 
frequently, will not change. That is what this amendment aims to do 
something about.
  I wish to make clear what is obvious to everyone: that our Army is 
not broken. This is the greatest--this is the next greatest generation 
of the American military, performing with unbelievable skill, heroism, 
resilience, agility, and personal compassion in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
Our Army is not broken, but it is, as General Casey said the other day, 
out of balance. Secretary of the Army Geren said--summarizing this part 
of his testimony before the Armed Services Committee--the U.S. Army is 
``busy, stretched, and stressed.'' And he is right. We have to give 
those heroes in uniform some help, and the best help we can give them 
is more people in uniform fighting alongside them.
  Here is a strange twist. In the face of the current crisis in 
manpower, the administration has been forced to effectively direct the 
Army to not only stop growing but to actually shrink by the end of the 
year as deployments overseas increase, dropping back from over 549,000 
soldiers to the statutory limit of 547,400. In other words, this 
supplemental appropriations bill closes a gap that existed in the 
Army's ability to pay for the 547,400 they are entitled to, but they 
are still over by 1,600 soldiers. Therefore, there is a guidance out 
that directs the Army to take drastic measures to cut back; in fact, 
reducing their recruiting goals this year by 13,000 soldiers, which the 
Army knows it can meet, and cutting its retention goal by 10,000 
troops, which the Army also knows it can meet. So here we have this 
ironic--really worse than that--moment where we need more troops and 
more soldiers and the Army is going to be forced to cut back.
  I must tell my colleagues that I think it is going to be hard to 
shrink the Army in this way by the end of this year because so many of 
our troops are reenlisting, which is quite remarkable--so committed to 
the cause, proud of their service, want to keep fighting for the United 
States alongside the others in their unit. Obviously, some are affected 
by the economy and the instability and difficulty in finding job 
opportunities in the economy.
  So I think it would be a terrible mistake to order the Army to cut 
its ranks at this time, which would mean less dwell time for our 
soldiers. That is why Senators Graham, Begich, Thune, Burris, and I 
introduced this bipartisan amendment which would enable the Army to 
maintain its current strength and continue to grow for the remainder of 
this fiscal year as the Secretary of Defense determines. No compulsion 
here.
  Current law forces the Army to get smaller before the end of the 
year. This amendment would say it can grow beyond the 547,400 within 
the limit of the waiver that the Army has, and it provides the money to 
do that, which is an additional $400 million for the remainder of this 
fiscal year--frankly, a small price. It is a significant amount of 
money, but when we think about the impact it will have on the lives of 
just about every man and woman wearing the proud uniform of the U.S. 
Army, it is more than worth it.
  I wish to explain, while I have a moment and while I see no one else 
on the Senate floor, that the amendment literally will increase the 
minimum end strength for the Active-Duty Army from the statutory level 
it is at now up to 547,400. When that point is reached, it gives the 
Secretary of the Army a 2-percent waiver, and that means that working 
with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army could actually 
raise the Army as high as 558,000 by the end of the fiscal year. I 
don't expect that to be possible in the next few months, but it gives 
that latitude and the money to back it up.
  The second part of the amendment provides additional funds to help 
the Army cover the immediate personnel shortfall it faces because of 
the toll the ongoing conflicts are taking on the force.
  If I may add just this final argument of reality. The Vice Chief of 
Staff, Peter Chiarelli, told the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on 
Readiness last month that the Army has about 30,000 soldiers among that 
current 549,000 who are, for one reason or another--three reasons, 
actually--not available to meet the requirements of the Army, not able 
to be directly involved.
  For example, nearly 10,000 soldiers now either serve as Wounded 
Warriors or support their recovery, while thousands more are not 
deployable because of injuries they have suffered, often not in 
conflict, but that are, nonetheless, though less severe, disabling 
enough that they can't be deployed. So the truth is, there already is a 
30,000-gap beneath the 549,000 that is on the books as actively 
deployed.
  The best way to honor the sacrifice and service of these soldiers 
will be to ensure that their brothers and sisters in arms go to battle 
with reinforcements who can take their place; to guarantee that the 
Army can build those enabler units I talked about that the service 
needs most now on the front lines in Afghanistan and Iraq--and both 
battlefields are now beginning to compete for those uniquely trained 
enablers; and to provide the Army leadership with the flexibility it 
needs to have the manpower for the theater while giving our troops more 
time at home.
  I wish to go to two final questions. Would growing the force today 
relieve the strain on the force when it matters most? And is this a 
proposal we can afford? In terms of the first, we know the greatest 
demand in the theater falls upon our most junior soldiers, such as the 
Army's privates and specialists who face the most difficult dwell time 
ratios in the force and keep going back and forth.
  If we commit to growing the force now, these are the types of troops 
we can recruit, train, and deploy in this time of greatest need, and we 
can retain them. In short, if provided the additional personnel, the 
U.S. Army can definitely use them and use them well.
  In terms of the second question, of course, I am concerned about the 
long-term costs of increasing the size of the force. The price of 
military personnel has risen over the past decade because we better 
recognize the service of our soldiers, and we are taking better care of 
them. Nonetheless, I don't see how we can explain to our soldiers and 
their families that we in Congress decided that we could not afford 
reinforcements at a time when the force is so stressed under the strain 
of war and still performing so brilliantly.
  The Army is not broken, I wish to stress. It is out of balance, and 
it needs our support to come into balance. This amendment would provide 
the funds to give the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of 
Defense the option--not mandatory--to raise the number of Active-Duty 
military personnel, from now until the end of this fiscal year, to a 
level above--slightly above--the 547,400 now statutorily authorized.
  I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join us in 
giving this amendment unanimous support. I honestly think it is just 
about the best thing we can do for the heroes of the U.S. Army who 
serve us every day to protect our security and our freedom.
  I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I call up the Lieberman-Graham amendment 
No. 1157.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I will talk about the amendment, if I 
may.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for that purpose.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I wished to thank Senator Lieberman for 
his leadership on this issue. We have been working together on what I 
think is a very big deal for the American people in the overall war 
effort. As many of you know, particularly our colleagues and the public 
at large, we have had a discussion in this Nation about whether we 
should release more

[[Page S5672]]

photos showing detainee abuse in the past.
  The President of the United States has decided to stand for the 
proposition that releasing these photos would jeopardize the safety of 
our men and women serving overseas and Americans abroad, as well as 
civilians serving in the war zones. He has indicated the photos don't 
add anything to the past debate about detainee abuse. They are more of 
the same. No new person is implicated. These photos, again, were taken 
by our own folks, detailing abuse, and a lot of that has been dealt 
with already and prosecuted.
  The President, I think rightfully, has determined, after consulting 
with his combat commanders, that if we release these photos, it would 
not help us understand any more about detainee problems in the past 
than we already know. But it would be a tremendous benefit to the 
enemy. The enemy used these photos in the past to generate resentment 
against our troops. It has been a propaganda tool. The President is 
rightfully concerned that to release more photos would add nothing to 
the overall knowledge base we have regarding detainee abuse, and it is 
simply going to put American lives in jeopardy. I applaud the 
President, who stood for our troops and men and women and the civil 
servants overseas.
  There are a lot of mysteries in this world, but there is no mystery 
on what would happen if we release those photos. I can tell you, beyond 
a shadow of a doubt, that if these photos get into the public domain, 
they will inflame populations where our troops are serving overseas and 
increase violence against our troops.
  What we have done--Senator Lieberman and myself--is we came up with 
an amendment that addresses the lawsuit before our judicial system 
about the photos. This amendment says any detainee photos that are 
certified by the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with others, 
that would result in harm to our men and women serving overseas, 
jeopardize the war effort, and put our troops in harm's way, with 
Presidential approval, those photos cannot be released for a 5-year 
period of time. To me, that is a reasonable compromise. It doesn't 
change FOIA, in its basic construct, but it provides congressional 
support to the President's decision that we should not release these 
photos.
  Senator Lieberman and myself have been to the theater of operations 
many times. We have met with al-Qaida operatives who have switched 
sides, basically, and they have told us firsthand how at prison camps 
in Iraq, the Abu Ghraib photos were used in the past to recruit new 
members to al-Qaida and generate resentment against our troops.
  I applaud the President. This legislation will help the 
administration in court. I thank Senator Lieberman, who, above all 
else, puts his country and the security of our men and women ahead of 
any political calculation. For that, I very much appreciate his 
leadership and his friendship. I wish to recognize what he did.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend from South Carolina 
for his kind words, first, but also for working together on this in a 
bipartisan way. Senator Graham serves in the Senate, but he also serves 
in the U.S. Air Force. When we travel with him, he usually remains 
behind to do some time and be of service in the battle zones. That is 
the kind of person he is. He is an extremely skilled lawyer.
  We approached this trying to do what was right from a legal point of 
view but also understanding what the President, to his great credit, 
understood and expressed in the decision he has made on these photos. 
These are old photos. They portray, I fear, behavior that is 
unacceptable and, in fact, has been made illegal by the Detainee 
Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act, which Senator Graham 
played the leading part in drafting. This behavior portrayed in the 
pictures already has also been made illegal by Executive order of 
President Obama. So what purpose is served by putting these pictures 
out now? What good purpose? None. It is a kind of voyeurism, frankly, 
to see the pictures just for the sake of seeing the pictures. Maybe in 
a normal time that would be OK; it probably would be. Disclosure and 
transparency are values our country, our Government, holds high. But 
there is something different now, and this is what President Obama 
recognizes. We are at war. When you are at war, you have to ask the 
question the President asked General Petraeus, General Odierno, and 
others: Will the public release of these pictures endanger America, 
American military personnel, and American Government personnel serving 
overseas?
  The answer came back loud and clear: Yes, it will. So the President, 
with strength and decisiveness, stepped onto what I am sure he knew was 
politically controversial ground. He did what he thought was right for 
the country as Commander in Chief. As Senator Graham said, we applaud 
him greatly for that. We are at war, and you don't do the things when 
you are at war that you might do at other times.
  This proposal basically codifies into law the process President Obama 
suggested in reaching the decision he made to fight the release of 
these pictures.
  Last week, the President made exactly the right decision as Commander 
in Chief that will protect our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and 
elsewhere and make it easier for them to carry out the missions that we 
have asked them to do.
  After consulting with General Petraeus, General Odierno and others, 
the President decided to fight the release of photographs that depict 
the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. Those photographs are the 
subject of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American 
Civil Liberties Union.
  Last fall, the Second Circuit court of appeals ordered the release of 
those photographs. Instead of appealing that decision to the Supreme 
Court, government lawyers agreed to release the images as well as 
others that were part of internal Department of Defense investigations.
  I strongly believe that the President's decision to fight the release 
of the photographs was the right one. Today, Senator Graham and I 
introduced this amendment to H.R. 2346, the supplemental appropriations 
bill for Iraq and Afghanistan, that will codify the President's 
decision and establish a procedure to prevent the detainee photos from 
being released.
  Before the President decided to fight the Second Circuit decision, 
Senator Graham and I sent a letter to the President making the case 
that the release of the photographs serves no public good.
  The behavior depicted in those photographs has been prohibited by 
Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act 
as well as by Executive orders issued by President Obama. Meanwhile, 
the Department of Defense has investigated the allegations of detainee 
abuse for the purpose of holding those responsible accountable.
  We also know that the release of the photographs will make our 
service men and women deployed overseas less safe. There is compelling 
evidence that the images depicting detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib was a 
great spur to the insurgency in Iraq and made it harder for our troops 
to succeed in their mission there.
  Now we learned valuable lessons from those pictures. And as I said, 
Congress and this President have taken steps to prevent that abuse from 
ever happening again.
  But the same is not true about these pictures. These pictures depict 
past abuses that have already been addressed and we know that the 
release will only empower the propaganda operations of al-Qaida and 
other Islamist terrorist organizations.
  Even before 9/11, terrorist groups like al-Qaida recognized the 
immense value of using propaganda to recruit and radicalize followers 
around the world. Since 9/11, the al-Qaida propaganda operation has 
only gotten more sophisticated. Should pictures like these be released, 
we know that they will be circulated immediately on al-Qaida connected 
Web sites and many other Web sites that readily post images just like 
this.
  And to be clear, it is not al-Qaida leadership we are worried about--
they are committed to destroying America regardless of what happens 
with these photos. Rather it is the thousands of

[[Page S5673]]

young men--and some women--around the world who may not otherwise be 
inclined to sympathize with or support al-Qaida but may change their 
minds after seeing these photos. Those recruits are the ones that keep 
al-Qaida and other Islamist terrorist groups vibrant and capable of 
planning and executing attacks against us.
  By introducing this legislation today, we do not condone the behavior 
depicted in the photographs. We expect that those responsible for the 
mistreatment of detainees will be held accountable. And that is exactly 
what the Department of Defense has done with the internal 
investigations it has conducted.
  This bill--the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act--would 
establish a procedure just like the one that led to the President's 
decision not to release the photos.
  This legislation would authorize the Secretary of Defense, after 
consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, to certify to the 
President that the disclosure of photographs like the ones at issue in 
the ACLU lawsuit would endanger the lives of our citizens or members of 
the Armed Forces or civilian employees of the U.S. Government deployed 
abroad.
  The certification would last 5 years and could be renewed by the 
Secretary of Defense if the threat to American personnel continues. 
Also, the language in the bill is clear that it would apply to the 
current ACLU lawsuit that gave rise to the President's decision last 
week.
  Let me state clearly that we cannot become complacent about the stark 
reality that we are still at war with enemies who continue to seek to 
attack America and kill Americans. In the heated partisan environment 
in Washington, we are unfortunately sometimes more engaged in finger 
pointing and recriminations than being focused on defeating the vicious 
determined enemy we face.
  I applaud President Obama for the actions he has taken in the past 
week on the photos and the military commissions and I believe that this 
legislation will provide him with an important tool to assist him in 
leading the war on terror.
  Bottom line: I hope, again, this can be a bipartisan amendment, which 
it is, but I hope it will be supported by Members across the aisles. 
When we do that, we are all going to be saying we know we are at war 
and that we have no higher responsibility than to protect the security 
of our country and our military personnel, which would be endangered if 
these pictures go out.
  For a quick moment, I speak as chairman of the Homeland Security 
Committee, which I am privileged to lead. These pictures will be a 
recruiting device for al-Qaida and the rest of the terrorist ilk. These 
pictures will go up instantaneously on jihadist terrorist recruiting 
Web sites. Not just people elsewhere in the world but people in the 
United States will be drawn to those Web sites and perhaps recruited 
through these pictures into a life of terrorism, where the essential 
target will be America and Americans. There is no reason to let that 
happen, and this amendment will make sure, in an orderly and fair way, 
that it doesn't happen while we are at war.
  Again, I thank my friend from South Carolina. I gather we are waiting 
for word on whether we can introduce the amendment soon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, here is a closing thought. The President 
understands very well, and I know Senator Lieberman does, and I think 
we all understand we have some damage to repair. We have made mistakes 
in this war. Detainee operations are essential in every war. Part of 
war is to capture prisoners and how you dispose of them can help or 
hurt the war effort. There have been times in the past where detainee 
operations have hurt the war effort. We need to start over. That is why 
we need to look at a new system to replace the one we have regarding 
military commissions--but keep it in the military setting--and a way to 
start over with basic detainee operations in a comprehensive manner. 
But in repairing the damage of the past, you have to make sure you are 
not creating future damage. If you release these photos, you will not 
repair damage from the past, and you will not bring somebody to justice 
that is in these photos whom we already don't know about. There will 
not be a new person named. It is more of the same. So it doesn't 
contribute to repairing the damage of the past, but it sure does create 
damage for the future.
  The one fact I am very aware of is that the young men and women 
serving overseas today--soldiers, military members, and civilians--have 
done nothing wrong. They should not pay a price for the people who did 
something wrong in the past whom we already know about.
  If you release these photos, Americans are going to get killed for no 
good reason. That is why we need to pass this amendment--to help the 
President defeat this lawsuit that would lead to violence against 
Americans who are doing their job and have done nothing wrong. They 
should not be punished for something somebody has done in the past, 
which has already been addressed.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1157

  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, it is my understanding that there is an 
agreement we can bring up the amendment at this time. Therefore, I ask 
unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up 
amendment No. 1157 on behalf of Senator Lieberman, myself, and Senator 
McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Graham], for himself, 
     Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1157.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide that certain photographic records relating to the 
   treatment of any individual engaged, captured, or detained after 
    September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in 
operations outside the United States shall not be subject to disclosure 
under section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to 
                  as the Freedom of Information Act))

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DETAINEE PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORDS PROTECTION.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009''.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Covered record.--The term ``covered record'' means any 
     record--
       (A) that is a photograph relating to the treatment of 
     individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 
     11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in 
     operations outside of the United States; and
       (B) for which a certification by the Secretary of Defense 
     under subsection (c) is in effect.
       (2) Photograph.--The term ``photograph'' encompasses all 
     photographic images, whether originals or copies, including 
     still photographs, negatives, digital images, films, video 
     tapes, and motion pictures.
       (c) Certification.--
       (1) In general.--For any photograph described under 
     subsection (b)(1)(A), the Secretary of Defense shall submit a 
     certification, in classified form to the extent appropriate, 
     to the President, if the Secretary of Defense, in 
     consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
     determines that the disclosure of that photograph would 
     endanger--
       (A) citizens of the United States; or
       (B) members of the Armed Forces or employees of the United 
     States Government deployed outside the United States.
       (2) Certification expiration.--A certification submitted 
     under paragraph (1) and a renewal of a certification 
     submitted under paragraph (2) shall expire 5 years after the 
     date on which the certification or renewal, as the case may 
     be, is submitted to the President.
       (3) Certification renewal.--The Secretary of Defense may 
     submit to the President--
       (A) a renewal of a certification in accordance with 
     paragraph (1) at any time; and
       (B) more than 1 renewal of a certification.
       (d) Nondisclosure of Detainee Records.--A covered record 
     shall not be subject to--

[[Page S5674]]

       (1) disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States 
     Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information 
     Act); or
       (2) disclosure under any proceeding under that section.
       (e) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act and apply to any photograph 
     created before, on, or after that date that is a covered 
     record.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, Senator Lieberman and I have already 
explained the need for this amendment. It will help the President win a 
lawsuit that is moving through our legal system regarding the release 
of photos of past detainee abuse. As I said, that will not help us to 
learn more, and it will only put American lives at risk, as the 
commanders have told the President. The Senate can avoid that by 
passing this targeted amendment.
  I hope we can get a large vote for this amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1147

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
business be laid aside so that I may offer amendment No. 1147.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for himself and Mr. 
     Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 1147.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit funds made available for the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve to be made available to any person that has engaged in certain 
        activities with respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran)

       At the end of title IV, add the following:


  prohibition on use of funds for the strategic petroleum reserve for 
  persons that have engaged in certain activities with respect to the 
                        islamic republic of iran

       Sec. 410.  None of the funds made available by this title 
     or any other appropriations Act for the Strategic Petroleum 
     Reserve may be made available to any person that has, during 
     the 3-year period ending on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act--
       (1) sold refined petroleum products valued at $1,000,000 or 
     more to the Islamic Republic of Iran;
       (2) engaged in an activity valued at $1,000,000 or more 
     that could contribute to enhancing the ability of Iran to 
     import refined petroleum products, including--
       (A) providing ships or shipping services to deliver refined 
     petroleum products to the Islamic Republic of Iran;
       (B) underwriting or otherwise providing insurance or 
     reinsurance for such an activity; or
       (C) financing or brokering such an activity; or
       (3) sold, leased, or otherwise provided to the Islamic 
     Republic of Iran any goods, services, or technology valued at 
     $1,000,000 or more that could contribute to the maintenance 
     or expansion of the capacity of the Islamic Republic of Iran 
     to produce refined petroleum products.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me briefly describe what this amendment 
does. The administration, as well as Members of Congress, have all been 
recently saying some important things about our ability to influence 
the actions of the country of Iran relative to their acquisition of a 
nuclear capability. Let me quote a couple of these statements that I 
think make a lot of sense.
  Secretary Gates said:

       The regional and nuclear ambitions of Iran continue to pose 
     enormous challenges to the U.S. Yet I believe there are 
     nonmilitary ways to blunt Iran's power to threaten its 
     neighbors and sow instability throughout the Middle East.

  The Secretary said that at an Armed Services Committee hearing in 
January of this year.
  In March of this year, after an important NATO meeting, Secretary 
Clinton said the following:

       I know that there's an ongoing debate about what the status 
     of Iran's nuclear weapons production capacity is, but I don't 
     think there is a credible debate about their intention. Our 
     task is to dissuade them, deter them, prevent them from 
     acquiring a nuclear weapon.

  I think we would all agree with these two sentiments. One way to 
``dissuade'' Iran from pursuing this nuclear capability, as Secretary 
Clinton put it, is to focus on the vulnerabilities of Iran and its 
leaders to cause them to change their plans by putting significant 
pressure on Iran and its leadership.
  Where might those pressure points be? One of them that President 
Obama talked about in his campaign was the fact that Iran imports about 
40 percent of the refined gasoline and diesel that its citizens use. It 
does not have an indigenous capability. That represents a vulnerability 
since there are only a few companies, maybe five, that supply that 
refined petroleum product to Iran. So one of the things we can do is to 
ensure that those companies have to decide whether they want to do 
business with Iran's $250 billion economy or our $13 trillion economy. 
There is legislation pending that Senator Bayh, Senator Lieberman, and 
I have introduced that would deal with that subject.
  But there is another way that we can deal with it, and it is focused 
on this legislation in front of us. That is how we spend U.S. money and 
whether, in fact, we pay money to these companies.
  It turns out that the answer is yes. For example, in January, the 
Department of Energy announced its award of a contract to purchase 10.7 
million barrels of crude oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to two 
companies, Vitol and Shell Trading. The total cost of these contracts 
is $552 million. These two firms play a critical role in importing 
gasoline to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
  Despite protests from the Congress, the Department of Energy actually 
completed those sales and the transfers of money in April of 2009. So 
that is not a contract we can affect. That is half a billion dollars of 
U.S. taxpayer money going to these two companies that do business 
directly with Iran. We should stop doing that. What this amendment says 
is that we are going to stop doing that with money that would be 
ordinarily spent on companies such as Vitol and Shell Trading.

  The Department of Energy has outstanding contracts to add 6.2 million 
barrels of crude oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with Shell 
Trading and a company called Glencore, which also sells gasoline to 
Iran. Last month, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment--it was 
amendment No. 980 to S. Con. Res. 13--to the budget to prevent Federal 
expenditures to companies doing business in the energy sector of the 
Islamic Republic of Iran on the matter I spoke to before. So this would 
be a complementary way for us to assure that Iran is not supported by 
these companies. This amendment would make clear our opposition to the 
use of taxpayer funds to pay to these companies that sell refined 
petroleum products to Iran. We wouldn't be able to use American 
taxpayer dollars, for example, to pay them to fill our Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. There are plenty of other companies that can do 
that.
  So if we are serious about confronting the Islamic Republic of Iran, 
we have to use all the economic and diplomatic tools at our disposal to 
focus pressure on that country and its leadership to cause them to stop 
pursuing their plans to become a nuclear power. I think most of us 
would agree that companies doing business with Iran should have to make 
a choice: Do they do business, as I said, with our $13 trillion economy 
or do they do business with Iran's $250 billion economy? This amendment 
doesn't get to that larger issue, but it does at least say that we are 
not going to spend taxpayer money with these five or so companies--some 
of which we are currently doing business with--by buying their oil for 
our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  Mr. President, I am happy to answer any questions or have debate 
about this amendment. If my colleagues are willing to accept it without 
a vote, that is fine with me too. I think the important point is to get 
this proposition established. I can't imagine there is a great deal of 
controversy about this here in the body, but if anyone would like to 
debate me about it, I would be happy to do that at this time or when 
they are here.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S5675]]

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1161

  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendments and call up amendment No. 1161.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1161.

  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To require the United States Executive Director of the 
 International Monetary Fund to oppose loans and other programs of the 
Fund that do not exempt certain spending by the governments of heavily 
    indebted poor countries from certain budget caps and restraints)

       On page 106, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       Sec. 1303. (a) Exemption of Certain Government Spending 
     From International Monetary Fund Restrictions.--The Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive 
     Director of the International Monetary Fund to oppose any 
     loan, project, agreement, memorandum, instrument, plan, or 
     other program of the Fund that does not exempt spending on 
     health care, education, food aid, and other critical safety 
     net programs by the governments of heavily indebted poor 
     countries from national budget caps or restraints, hiring or 
     wage bill ceilings, or other limits on government spending 
     sought by the Fund.
       (b) Conforming Repeal.--Section 7030 of the Omnibus 
     Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-8; 123 Stat. 874) is 
     amended by striking subsection (c) and redesignating 
     subsection (d) as subsection (c).

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I begin by thanking the senior Senator from 
Mississippi for his good work and for his cooperation on bringing this 
amendment forward. I rise to offer amendment No. 1161, which is 
intended to ensure that the International Monetary Fund fulfills its 
mission in a manner consistent with American values and American 
objectives. This amendment would help ensure that the human cost of 
this economic crisis is not exacerbated, is not made worse, by cuts to 
nutrition and to health and to education programs.
  Without a doubt, we are facing the greatest economic crisis in 
decades, a crisis that has worldwide implications. Unemployment is up, 
not just in my home State of Ohio or in the State of the Presiding 
Officer, of New Mexico, but across this Nation and around the world. In 
low-income countries, workers are toiling away for increasingly lower 
wages and children are all too often going without health care, without 
enough food, and with little education.
  The World Bank estimates the global economic crisis will push an 
additional 46 million people into poverty this year. If the crisis 
persists, an additional 2.8 million children under 5 may die from 
preventable and treatable diseases between now and 2015.
  As governments across the globe find themselves in dire straits, the 
IMF has stepped in to provide badly needed loans to countries in 
trouble but often at the expense of social spending programs. In the 
past, the IMF has loaned money to nations, often with the requirement 
that these countries balance their budgets, cut spending and raise 
interest rates. Of course, there is nothing wrong with balanced 
budgets, but in an economic crisis such as the one we currently face, 
how can the IMF ask countries to cut spending on education, on health 
care, on nutrition, in order to undertake policies that might actually 
cause more harm than good? The upshot of these policies is the world's 
weakest and most vulnerable are the ones who suffer. The first items 
cut from budgets are social spending programs. In fact, the IMF has 
actually required that countries cap spending on health care and 
education and nutrition.
  If these conditions continue to be placed on countries receiving IMF 
funds, our attempts to provide assistance to those in need will be 
undercut, all in the name of fiscal responsibility. Let me be clear: 
The purpose of this amendment is not to inhibit IMF lending. I 
recognize the importance of the IMF and I recognize the role it will 
play in stabilizing the global economy, but it is especially for this 
reason we must be able to hold it accountable.
  The administration's inclusion of IMF money in the supplemental 
appropriation is an opportunity for us to make a statement to the 
International Monetary Fund, to make sure that the money we loan to the 
IMF is used for programs that do not adversely affect the most 
vulnerable in the world. We must ensure the IMF doesn't force countries 
to cut spending for health care or education or nutrition at the 
expense of balanced budgets or shoring up central banks.
  We must ensure that social spending--education, health care, 
nutrition--is protected not only for humanitarian and moral reasons but 
also for the long-term security and stability of those countries.
  We must be able to hold the IMF accountable for its policies. We must 
use our voice and our vote to reflect our commitment to education, to 
the fight against global poverty, and to the welfare of workers 
everywhere. That is what this amendment will accomplish.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1188

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, amendment No. 1188 is at the desk. I ask 
unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to setting aside 
the pending amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. Brownback, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1188.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be waived.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To make available from funds appropriated by title XI an 
          additional $42,500,000 for asssistance for Georgia)

       At the end of title XI, add the following:
       Sec. 1121. (a) Additional Amount for Assistance for 
     Georgia.--The amount appropriated by this title under the 
     heading ``Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia'' is hereby 
     increased by $42,500,000, with the amount of the increase to 
     be available for assistance for Georgia.
       (b) Source of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--The amount of the increase in subsection 
     (a) shall be derived from amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this title, other than amounts under the 
     heading ``Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia'' and available 
     for assistance for Georgia.
       (2) Administration.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall--
       (A) administer the reduction required pursuant to paragraph 
     (1); and
       (B) submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the Committee of the House of Representatives a report 
     specifying the account and the amount of each reduction made 
     pursuant to the reduction required pursuant to paragraph (1).

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that will 
restore assistance to the Republic of Georgia, thereby fulfilling the 
commitment the United States has made to that country.
  Last year, following the Russian invasion of Georgia, and the 
widespread destruction that took place throughout the country, the 
United States pledged $1 billion in aid to Georgia. The move had wide 
bipartisan support.
  Thus far approximately three-quarters of the assistance has been 
delivered to Tblisi. Now the administration has requested that final 
step in fulfilling the U.S. pledge be incorporated into the 
supplemental bill and requested the remaining $242.5 million in 
assistance for Georgia.
  The House measure includes this full funding. The Senate version, on 
the other hand, provides only $200 million, which makes it available 
not just for Georgia but other central Asian countries as well.
  The amendment I am offering would move $42.5 million in existing 
funds under the international affairs title of the bill to fulfill the 
full amount of the American pledge. I would emphasize--I wanted to 
heavily emphasize--that in

[[Page S5676]]

doing so, this amendment does not increase the top line of the State 
Department budget by one penny, nor does it mean one penny more in 
taxpayer expenditure. It is consistent with the administration's budget 
request and with the promise that our Nation made to the Republic of 
Georgia following last year's strife.
  The Georgian Government has stated that it plans to devote the 
assistance to projects that will address urgent requirements identified 
by the World Bank's recent Joint Needs Assessment. These include 
resettling internally displaced persons, rebuilding vital 
infrastructure following last year's Russian invasion, strengthening 
democratic institutions and law enforcement capabilities, and enhancing 
border security.
  In fulfilling our pledge, we have the opportunity not only to enhance 
the stability of the democratic progress of Georgia but also to send a 
clear message to the region that the United States will stand by its 
friends. Such a signal is one of the utmost importance.
  It has been just 8 months since the world's attention was riveted by 
Russia's invasion. Following the violence, there was talk of sanctions 
against Moscow. The Bush administration withdrew its submission to 
Congress of a nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia, and NATO 
suspended meetings of the NATO-Russia Council. That outrage quickly 
subsided, however, and it seems that the events of last August have 
been all but forgotten in some quarters.
  A casual observer might guess that things returned to normal in this 
part of the world and that war in Georgia was a brief and tragic 
circumstance that has since been reversed. But, in fact, this is not 
the case.
  While the stories have faded from the headlines, Russia remains in 
violation of the terms of the ceasefire to which it agreed last year. 
Russian troops continue to be stationed on sovereign Georgian 
territory. Thousands of Russian troops remain in South Ossetia and 
Abkhazia, greatly in excess of the preconflict levels.
  Rather than abide by the ceasefire's requirement to engage in 
international talks on the future of the two provinces, Russia has 
recognized their independence, signed friendship agreements with them 
that effectively render them Russian dependencies, and have taken over 
their border controls.
  All of this suggests tangible results to Russia's desire to maintain 
a sphere of influence in neighboring countries, dominate their 
politics, and circumscribe their freedom of action in international 
affairs.
  Russian President Medvedev recently denounced NATO exercises in 
Georgia, describing them as ``provocative.'' Yet these ``provocative'' 
exercises did not involve heavy equipment or arms and focused on 
disaster response, search and rescue, and the like. Russia was even 
invited to participate in the exercises, an invitation Moscow declined.
  We must not revert to an era in which the countries on Russia's 
periphery were not permitted to make their own decisions, control their 
own political futures, and decide their own alliances. Whether in 
Kyrgyzstan, where Moscow seems to have exerted pressure for the 
eviction of U.S. forces from the Manas base, to Estonia, which suffered 
a serious cyber-attack some time ago, to Georgia and elsewhere Russia 
continues its attempts to reestablish a sphere of influence.
  Yet such moves are in direct contravention to the free and open 
rules-based international system that the United States and its 
partners have spent so many decades to uphold.
  So let's not forget what has happened in Georgia and the pledges we 
have made to support a friend. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment and stand by the Republic of Georgia in its continuing time 
of need.
  I want to emphasize again, the amendment does not increase the top 
line of the State Department budget by one penny, nor does it mean one 
penny more in taxpayer expenditures, consistent with the 
administration's budget request, and with the promise that our Nation 
made to the Republic of Georgia following last year's strife.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1181

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and I call up my amendment No. 1181.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1181.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act with respect to 
                 the extension of certain limitations)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. EXTENSION OF LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 44(f)(1) of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831u(f)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively, and moving the margins 2 ems to 
     the right;
       (2) by striking ``evidence of debt by any insured'' and 
     inserting the following: ``evidence of debt by--
       ``(A) any insured''; and
       (3) by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``; and
       ``(B) any nondepository institution operating in such 
     State, shall be equal to not more than the greater of the 
     State's maximum lawful annual percentage rate or 17 percent--
       ``(i) to facilitate the uniform implementation of federally 
     mandated or federally established programs and financings 
     related thereto, including--

       ``(I) uniform accessibility of student loans, including the 
     issuance of qualified student loan bonds as set forth in 
     section 144(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
       ``(II) the uniform accessibility of mortgage loans, 
     including the issuance of qualified mortgage bonds and 
     qualified veterans' mortgage bonds as set forth in section 
     143 of such Code;
       ``(III) the uniform accessibility of safe and affordable 
     housing programs administered or subject to review by the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development, including--

       ``(aa) the issuance of exempt facility bonds for qualified 
     residential rental property as set forth in section 142(d) of 
     such Code;
       ``(bb) the issuance of low income housing tax credits as 
     set forth in section 42 of such Code, to facilitate the 
     uniform accessibility of provisions of the American Recovery 
     and Reinvestment Act of 2009; and
       ``(cc) the issuance of bonds and obligations issued under 
     that Act, to facilitate economic development, higher 
     education, and improvements to infrastructure, and the 
     issuance of bonds and obligations issued under any provision 
     of law to further the same; and
       ``(ii) to facilitate interstate commerce generally, 
     including consumer loans, in the case of any person or 
     governmental entity (other than a depository institution 
     subject to subparagraph (A) and paragraph (2)).''.
       (b) Effective Period.--The amendments made by subsection 
     (a) shall apply with respect to contracts consummated during 
     the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and 
     ending on December 31, 2010.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I will be very brief.
  I, first of all, want to say a special thanks to Chairman Inouye and 
the ranking member, my neighbor from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, for 
their good work on this effort and really being thoughtful and timely 
on that we need in this bill we have before us.
  The amendment I am offering today deals with an emergency challenge 
that is faced in our State of Arkansas. It is a specific problem just 
to us, and we need the Senate's help to immediately address that issue.
  Unfortunately, as a result of the economic challenges our Nation now 
faces, these challenges are magnified for us in our State, and 
immediate and emergency intervention is essential; otherwise, our 
State's recovery will lag behind due to a lack of capital in our State 
because of the circumstances we are experiencing, as I said, with an 
unusual cap that is tied to the Federal rate. So we are working hard to 
solve this problem in our State. We are asking our Senate colleagues to 
work with us.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Pryor be added as 
a cosponsor to the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the Acting President pro tempore.
  Again, we look forward to being able to work with our colleagues to 
meet this challenge our State, and our State

[[Page S5677]]

alone, faces. Again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for 
being able to work with us on this issue.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1143

  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside to call up my amendment No. 1143.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Risch], for himself, Mr. 
     Cornyn, and Mr. Bond, proposes an amendment numbered 1143.

  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To appropriate, with an offset, an additional $2,000,000,000 
               for National Guard and Reserve Equipment)

       At the appropriate in title III, insert the following:

                  National Guard and Reserve Equipment

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard and Reserve 
     Equipment'', $2,000,000,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2010: Provided, That the Chief 
     of the National Guard Bureau and an appropriate official for 
     each of other reserve components of the Armed Forces each 
     shall, not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, submit to the Committee on Armed Services and 
     the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report on 
     the modernization priority assessment for the National Guard 
     and for the other reserve components of the Armed Forces, 
     respectively: Provided further, That the amount under this 
     heading is designated as an emergency requirement and as 
     necessary to meet emergency needs pursuant to sections 403(a) 
     and 423(b) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.

                             (rescissions)

       (a) In General.--Of the discretionary amounts (other than 
     the amounts described in subsection (b)) made available by 
     the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (123 Stat. 
     115; Public Law 111-5) that are unobligated as the the date 
     of enactment of this Act, $2,000,000,000 is hereby rescinded.
       (b) Exception.--The rescission in subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to amounts made available by division A of the American 
     Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 as follows:
       (1) Under title III, relating to the Department of Defense.
       (2) Under title VI, relating to the Department of Homeland 
     Security.
       (3) Under title X, relating to Military Construction and 
     Veterans and Related Agencies.
       (c) Administration.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall--
       (1) administer the rescission specified in subsection (a); 
     and
       (2) submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives a report specifying the account and the 
     amount of each reduction made pursuant to the rescission in 
     subsection (a).

  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President and fellow Senators, I come to the floor to 
offer this important amendment. What this amendment does is simply 
appropriates $2 billion to the National Guard and Reserve equipment 
account. Mechanically, it does this by permitting the OMB to rescind $2 
billion that has been previously appropriated in the stimulus package. 
It exempts from the rescission funds related to the Department of 
Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and part of title X of 
that bill relating to military construction and veterans and related 
agencies. Otherwise, the OMB is directed to rescind $2 billion, which 
is the amount authorized for the National Guard and Reserve equipment 
account.
  The reason for the amendment is that as our Guard units and Reserve 
units have been asked to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan over recent 
years, their equipment has been badly depleted. I have personal 
experience with this, as our Guard unit from Idaho had been dispatched 
to Iraq and spent time there. When they came back, a lot of their 
equipment was necessarily left behind for the use of the Iraqis and for 
the use of other American troops who were going to stay in Iraq. We 
have in Idaho over a period of time gone through a process by which 
some of this equipment has been replaced but not all. Obviously, this 
amendment does not apply just to Idaho; it applies to all States, all 
National Guard units, all Reserve units.
  This is something that is badly needed. The National Guard certainly 
performs a valuable service to the Governors of each of the States, to 
the people of each of the States. This bill will help them get the 
equipment that badly needs replacing back in the queue where it belongs 
and back where it can be used by these Guard units and Reserve units.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I wish to compliment the distinguished 
Senator from Idaho. He puts his finger on a problem that affects not 
only Idaho but some other States as well, including my State of 
Mississippi, where we have had a large number of National Guard and 
Reserve officers, too--but his amendment goes directly to the National 
Guard--deployed to the theater, engaged in serious and dangerous 
operations in the theater, and we appreciate the fact that they are in 
need of having equipment and weapons that are suitable for the tasks 
and the challenges they face. It is a dangerous environment. This 
amendment will help deal with that serious problem. I thank the Senator 
for bringing it to the attention of the Senate.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. As has been pointed 
out, this is a situation that a number of States face. It will not cost 
any additional taxpayer dollars. It is a wise expenditure of taxpayer 
dollars.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1179

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment for purposes of calling up an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1179.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Kaufman], for himself, Mr. 
     Lugar, and Mr. Reed, proposes an amendment numbered 1179.

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To ensure that civilian personnel assigned to serve in 
   Afghanistan receive civilian-military coordination training that 
         focuses on counterinsurgency and stability operations)

       On page 71, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
       (g) Training in Civilian-Military Coordination.--The 
     Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Defense, shall seek to ensure that civilian personnel 
     assigned to serve in Afghanistan receive civilian-military 
     coordination training that focuses on counterinsurgency and 
     stability operations, and shall submit a report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate and the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign 
     Affairs of the House of Representatives not later than 90 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act detailing 
     how such training addresses current and future civilian-
     military coordination requirements.

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
amendment, and I send the modification to the desk.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S5678]]

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I am grateful to the chairman and ranking 
member for their work on this critical bill.
  I am happy to be joined by Senators Lugar and Reed in introducing an 
amendment to ensure that civilians deployed to Afghanistan receive 
training that cultivates greater civilian-military unity of mission and 
emphasizes the importance of counterinsurgency and stability 
operations.
  Last month, I had the distinct privilege of traveling with Senator 
Reed to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq to visit our troops and assess 
regional developments and challenges.
  During the trip, it was abundantly clear that we must build greater 
unity of mission between civilians and military in order to meet our 
growing needs in the region.
  In Iraq and Afghanistan, we are engaged in a four-stage process of 
fighting insurgency by shaping the environment, clearing insurgents 
with military power, holding the area with effective security forces 
and police, and building through a combination of governance and 
economic development.
  As we increase our military commitment and civilian capacity in 
Afghanistan, we must ensure that all U.S. personnel have the tools they 
need to succeed in this increasingly difficult mission.
  In addition to sending 21,000 additional troops and trainers to 
Afghanistan, President Obama recently announced that we will send 
hundreds of civilians from the State Department, USAID, and other 
agencies to partner with the Afghan people and government in promoting 
economic development and governance.
  These civilians will continue to work in tandem with the military in 
stabilizing Afghanistan and should therefore train in tandem to prepare 
for their deployment.
  When surveyed, civilians serving in Afghanistan have confirmed that 
joint training with the military was the single most effective 
preparation. This sentiment underscores the urgency of this amendment, 
and highlights the critical need for increased joint training so we can 
meet current and future needs in Afghanistan.
  Integrated training, specifically for military and nonmilitary 
personnel participating in provincial reconstruction teams, PRTs, is 
ongoing, and the next course will be held later this month at Camp 
Atterbury in Indiana.
  Still, this training will include only about 25 nonmilitary personnel 
from State and USAID, and it is not scheduled to recommence for 9 
months, after many of our brave men and women have already left for the 
region.
  Especially given the increased need, this 9-month training cycle is 
woefully inadequate. We do not have 9 months to wait and we should not 
risk sending civilians to Afghanistan without the training they need to 
be safe, secure, and effective.
  We must therefore increase the frequency of training programs, such 
as the one at Camp Atterbury and we also must ensure this training 
includes a greater focus on counterinsurgency and stability operations.
  The military challenges we are facing today are unlike conventional 
wars of the past. I strongly agree with the assessment of leading 
defense experts that we must better prepare to win the wars we are in, 
as opposed to those we may wish to be in.
  According to Secretary Gates, this will require ``. . . a holistic 
assessment of capabilities, requirements, risks, and needs'' which will 
entail, among other things, a rebalancing of our defense budget.
  This also includes changing the way we prepare U.S. personnel for 
their mission, as reflected by the creation of the Counterinsurgency 
Academy in Kabul, where more civilians should train in greater numbers 
with the military once they are in Afghanistan.
  An increased focus on counter-
insurgency reflects the fact that we must undergo a military 
rebalancing to be better prepared to face an asymmetric threat.
  Thanks to the leadership, vision, and integrity of Secretary Gates, 
General Petraeus, and others, we have moved in that direction, and we 
must continue along this path.
  That is why I strongly support this supplemental, which contains 
increased funding for mine resistant ambush protected vehicles, or 
MRAPS, and other equipment to counter unconventional threats like 
improvised explosive devices. Such equipment is critical to advancing 
our security goals in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  But most importantly, it provides needed defenses for our troops, so 
that we can keep our brave men and women out of harm's way in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  It is in this same vein that we must also take every opportunity to 
prepare our civilians better. Increased civilian-military training 
focused on counter-
insurgency and stability operations is essential to meeting this goal, 
and that is why I urge my colleagues to join Senators Lugar, Reed, and 
me in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. President I appreciate the chairman and ranking member's 
assistance on this amendment, as well as the guidance I have received 
from Senator Leahy.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Cuban Independence Day

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, for Americans, Independence Day is the 
day we celebrate our freedom and the ideals on which our Nation was 
founded.
  Today is a special day for Cubans who won their formal independence, 
with help from the United States, 107 years ago today. Today is 
independence day in Cuba, which serves as a reminder that there are 
those still struggling to exercise their fundamental rights, having 
spent the past 50 years under the repressive rule of a one-family 
regime.
  Last month, 17 peaceful Cuban activists wrote to President Obama, 
noting that:

       A great majority of Cubans . . . desire profound democratic 
     change in Cuba. The shining example of the civil rights 
     movement in the United States is a beacon of hope so that 
     full dignity for each Cuban can be restored. We want to 
     determine our future through a democratic process.

  His administration has taken actions with the well-being of Cubans in 
mind.

  While I appreciate the President's willingness to address some of the 
challenges facing the Cuban people, I also ask that he consider 
implementing policies that will empower the Cuban people, not empower 
the regime.
  Wholesale change in Cuba won't come from Washington. It can only come 
from Havana. The Cuban people will not truly be free until all 
prisoners of conscience are freed from prison.
  Additionally, the regime must end the practice of harassing and 
detaining those who exercise their fundamental human rights.
  The Cuban people are also entitled to freedom of the press, freedom 
to assemble, and freedom to worship. Finally, the Cuban people must be 
given the right to freely choose who governs them and how they will be 
governed.
  On the day we recognize Cuba's independence from Spain 107 years ago, 
we should also recognize the Cuban people's right to independence from 
the repressive regime that currently denies them these fundamental 
freedoms.
  Mr. President, 107 years ago, as the United States and those freedom 
fighters in Cuba who struggled mightily for more than a quarter of a 
century, by that time, to free themselves from the yoke of colonialism, 
the United States and Cuba, after freeing Cuba from Spain, sat together 
to form the new Cuban Republic. And 107 years ago on a day like today, 
the United States ceded to the Cuban people their right to be an 
independent nation.
  It is amazing how nurtured and closely bound the history of our 
Nation is with the history of the nation that saw

[[Page S5679]]

my birth. It is with that in mind that this unique role and the fact 
that only a very small body of water, called the Florida Straits, 
separates us, has created this entangled web of history between these 
two nations that have so much been a part of my life.
  As we look to the future, it is right that we continue to be the 
greatest single beacon of hope, as these dissidents expressed to 
President Obama, for those in Cuba who look for freedom, who look for 
the opportunity to have a democratic government they can elect.
  Today the Cuban people continue to be ruled by the tyrannical hand of 
two brothers who seized power in 1959 on January 1. That is a long time 
ago. Since that day until today, there has not been a legitimate 
election, there has never been the opportunity for the Cuban people to 
freely express themselves without the fear of repression or political 
prison.
  Today there are dozens of Cuban people who are in prison merely for 
expressing the ideas that this country has so nurtured over the time of 
its existence--freedom, democracy, and rule of law. It is with that 
hope that today I have come to the Senate floor to commemorate this 
very important date on the calendar in history that intertwines Cuba 
and the United States.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1155

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, Senator Landrieu and I have 
filed an amendment that we hope the Appropriations Committee will 
accept for $2 million to be appropriated, set aside for the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission.
  You would wonder why a sum of money of that size compared to the 
scope of the appropriations bills out here would need to have direction 
to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Of course, I wonder the same 
thing because they have a budget that is certainly much more robust 
than it has been in the past as a result of the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission authorization bill we passed last year. Nevertheless, we 
have an emergency that has arisen with regard to a consumer product for 
which the Safety Commission Acting Chairman has said they do not have 
enough money. So Senator Landrieu and I are offering this amendment.

  Let me tell you what this consumer threat is. On or about the years 
2004-2005, because of the high demand for construction in the aftermath 
of two very active hurricane seasons--2004 and 2005--as a matter of 
fact, we had four hurricanes just in my State of Florida within a 6-
week period. Those four hurricanes covered up the entire State. Then, 
of course, you remember the active hurricane season of 2005, which 
ended in the debacle in New Orleans, with Hurricane Katrina and hitting 
the Mississippi coast. Then along came Hurricane Rita, which also hit 
the Texas coast as well as Louisiana.
  In the aftermath of that, of course, there was a lot of construction. 
One of the essential items in construction, even in the State of the 
esteemed ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, is something 
known as drywall because you put up the studs in a unit--let's say a 
home--and you put drywall on it, and that makes the walls.
  Drywall is usually made with gypsum, which is mined and produced in 
America. It is actually a byproduct of the mining of phosphate. On the 
outside of the gypsum they put something like a cardboard-thick paper, 
and that becomes a drywall sheet that actually is the facing of a wall. 
But because there was such a demand for this drywall in the aftermath 
of those hurricane years, they started importing from China something 
known as Chinese drywall.
  Well, we think Chinese drywall is in as many as 100,000 homes in this 
country. Just in my State, the State of Florida, it may be in 36,000 to 
50,000 homes.
  Here is what is happening. People who live in homes with Chinese 
drywall are getting sick. First of all, if you enter the home--as I 
have, in several homes in Florida--there is a pungent kind of smell 
that is something like rotten eggs. For this Senator, whose respiratory 
system is very sensitive to any of these things, once I was in there 
for 5 or 10 minutes, suddenly I found my respiratory system choking up.
  When you talk to these people whose homes have this Chinese drywall, 
sure enough, that is what is happening. But that is not what is only 
happening. Normally, copper tubing--whether it is part of the plumbing 
or whether it is part of an air conditioner--as it gets old, it gets 
green. The bright shiny copper turns green. Not so in a home with 
Chinese drywall. It starts turning black and crusty, and it starts 
deteriorating the coils on an air conditioner.
  Mr. President, this is no kidding. Some of those houses I visited 
have had to replace the coils in the air conditioner three times.
  Or what about the house outside of Bradenton, FL, that I went to, 
where just a month before the elderly couple had gone on a trip to 
Cozumel, Mexico, where they had bought for the wife a silver bracelet. 
They brought it back. It had been in the house a month, and it had 
turned completely black. So, obviously, you can see that something has 
happened.
  What about going into the bathroom? You have a mirror in the bathroom 
and, suddenly, you start seeing the reflective part of the mirror start 
chunking off.
  What about the kids who have respiratory problems and their 
pediatrician is telling the parents: Get that child out of the house. 
Well, where do they go?
  I visited one single mother. She took her child and moved in with her 
mother. But she is still paying the mortgage payments. What about that 
other family down the street who did not have family close by? They had 
to move out and rent a place. But they are still, because their 
mortgage company will not work with them, having to pay the mortgage in 
order not to lose their house.
  What about the poor homebuilder? The poor homebuilder is having 
trouble enough as it is in the economy we are in with the sale of 
houses going down. The poor homeowner asks: Who is responsible for 
this? And maybe the homebuilder is not even around because they might 
have gone bust because of the economy. So who does the poor homeowner 
turn to?
  Well, I can tell you, a lot of those homeowners are turning to their 
elected officials.
  The sad thing is we have people in dire need, and all of the pleas to 
the Consumer Product Safety Commission--which, by the way, drug their 
feet 2 and 3 years ago on defective toys coming in from China--they say 
even though they have the legal authority--and they do--to impound this 
stuff, to freeze the assets of the distributing company of this stuff--
they have the authority under existing law to stop the importation of 
this Chinese drywall--they have refused thus far to do anything about 
it.
  Now, they did do this: They got with the EPA and the EPA did a test. 
The EPA is releasing that test result, I believe, today. That test 
result is showing that when they compared Chinese drywall to American 
drywall--in the first chemical composition test--the difference from 
American drywall is that the Chinese drywall contains sulfur; thus, the 
smell of rotten eggs; strontium, which is some derivative, possibly, of 
some kind of nuclear process; and elements found in acrylic paint. 
Those are the results thus far.
  Thus, we come to the amendment of Senator Landrieu and myself for $2 
million to the Consumer Product Safety Commission to go to the next 
test--which will take most of that $2 million--and that is, to subject 
the Chinese drywall to conditions one finds in a house--and now we are 
finding it in about 20 States, not just in the South--subjecting it to 
the conditions of humidity and the heat of the summer to see what gases 
are emitted so that doctors can analyze this stuff as to how it is 
affecting the health of our people.
  If you are a homeowner with this Chinese drywall, this is no little 
emergency. The least we can do, even though the CPSC has drug its feet, 
is to give them the resources to go to

[[Page S5680]]

that next step and make this additional test so we know what we are 
dealing with to protect the health of our people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1189

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an amendment I 
have filed, amendment No. 1189. I am told the Democrats will object to 
my asking that it be pending, but I am going to talk about it. I hope 
very much I will have the opportunity to offer this amendment in 
regular order. As a right of a Senator, I hope that will be given. I 
don't know why it is being objected to, but I would very much like to 
speak on it. I hope I am not going to be prohibited from the 
opportunity to offer it, since I am on the floor in a timely manner 
trying to offer an amendment, as we have been asked to do.
  The amendment I hope to call up is amendment No. 1189. It is an 
amendment to try to help those automobile dealers that have been 
notified, particularly by Chrysler, with a deadline of June 9, and told 
they are going to have to shut their doors of those dealerships by June 
9. They were given 3 weeks' notice.
  The President's task force on the auto industry has taken 
unprecedented steps to negotiate with each of the affected stakeholders 
to bring General Motors and Chrysler closer to sustainable viability. I 
know Members of this body sincerely appreciate the enormity of their 
task; however, there are many growing concerns with their actions. The 
group that has arguably taken the biggest hit by their negotiations is 
the auto dealers.
  Auto dealers are some of the biggest and best employers in our 
Nation, in small towns across my State and every State. Many of them 
are the largest employers in their entire counties. Auto dealers run a 
tough business. They assume a lot of risk. They purchase the vehicles 
from the manufacturer. Each dealer is forced to move their product in 
order to make payroll, to cover overhead, to pay property taxes, or 
close their doors, all of which is no cost to the manufacturer. These 
are all dealer expenses.
  While I understand that if an auto dealer is forced to close their 
doors because the dealer is unable to make the business profitable, of 
course, we can understand that would be the choice of the dealer and 
they would be closed. But I don't understand why General Motors or 
Chrysler would arbitrarily shut down thousands of operating and 
profitable dealers across our country.
  The Treasury Department has back-pedaled from any involvement in the 
decision to shut down auto dealers across the Nation. A recent Treasury 
press release states:

       As was the case with Chrysler's dealer consolidation plan, 
     the task force was not involved in deciding which dealers or 
     how many dealers were part of GM's announcement.

  An earlier press release from the Treasury said:

       The sacrifices by the dealer community alongside those of 
     auto workers, suppliers, creditors, and other Chrysler 
     stakeholders are necessary for this company and the industry 
     to succeed.

  I don't think that is any kind of help for our dealers that are 
taking the risk and the responsibility for all the costs of their 
dealership.
  Before the closing announcements were made, another Treasury press 
release regarding Chrysler Fiat, on April 30, says:

       It is expected that the terminated dealers will wind down 
     their operations over time and in an orderly manner.

  However, Chrysler, in their notification to close 789 dealers on May 
14--last Thursday--has given dealers until June 9 to wind down. That is 
just over 3 weeks--3 weeks. Chrysler determined that an orderly wind-
down--an orderly manner--to sell all their inventory, sell all their 
parts, get rid of all their special equipment--3 weeks.
  My amendment simply states that no funds shall be expended from the 
Treasury to an auto manufacturer which has notified a dealership that 
it will be terminated without providing at least 60 days for that 
dealership to wind down its operations and sell its inventory. Sixty 
days, that is what we are asking for.
  We are not asking that any decisions be changed. It is not our place 
to do that. However, we are saying that with all the taxpayer dollars 
that are going into the automobile manufacturers, the road kill here is 
the auto dealer and they have done nothing that would be 
unbusinesslike. They have taken the risks. They employ people in the 
community. They pay the taxes in the community. Sometimes they are the 
largest employer in the community. Yet they are given 3 weeks to close 
down their operations. If we are going to help anyone in this country 
without one taxpayer dollar going into it, it should be these auto 
dealers, by giving them 60 days to have an orderly process to close 
down their operations.
  I wish we could go further. I disagree with the decision to 
arbitrarily close down profitable auto dealers. I wish to give my 
colleagues an example. There is a town in my State called Mineral 
Wells. In that town of less than 20,000 people is Russell Whatley, a 
Chrysler dealer, whose family has owned his dealership for 90 years. It 
is the oldest dealership in Texas. Russell doesn't sell 1,000 cars a 
year, but he has been profitable. He actively supports his community. 
He has actively supported many employees. What is it going to save 
Chrysler to close Mr. Whatley's profitable dealership in Mineral Wells? 
I can't even imagine, but it isn't my decision to make. However, I am 
going to say that I do think Mr. Whatley deserves 60 days to have the 
orderly process that Treasury itself said they would expect from the 
auto manufacturers.
  I am worried about Mineral Wells when Mr. Whatley's dealership is 
closed, just as I am worried about communities all over this country 
with dealerships that are going to be arbitrarily closed. If they have 
3 weeks to sell their inventory, what is that going to do to them and 
to the people who have to go out and find jobs? I don't think it is 
right. I think we should pass my amendment.
  The reason I am offering it on this bill is because this is a bill 
that is going to go through quickly, and this is a deadline that is 
coming very fast. If we can let those dealers know they are going to 
have 60 days, at least, for the orderly processing of their closures, I 
am told by dealers this will help them immensely in that process, and 
it will not cost the taxpayers one dime--not one dime.
  I hope we will pass this amendment. I hope the majority will allow 
this to be brought up in the regular order. I was told when I came to 
the floor that I would have the opportunity to offer this amendment and 
get into the line for a record vote. I hope that will be done, because 
we don't have much time to help these dealers. With all the money we 
are putting into the automobile manufacturers, and all of the help we 
are giving to others affected by that industry, the ones who have been 
left out are the auto dealers.
  I hope that giving them 60 days--2 months--to shut down a business 
that may have been in place for 25, 30, or 90 years is the least we can 
do in these troubling times. We are taking some very different 
positions that we have never taken as a Senate because these are tough 
times, and sometimes that is necessary. But this is the least we can do 
in fairness to a business that has done nothing to produce cars that 
won't sell. It has done nothing that has caused any of the financial 
problems of General Motors, and I think they deserve a break that will 
not cost the taxpayers a penny.
  I am going to be here, and I will ask the majority to allow amendment 
No. 1189 to become pending right after the votes that will occur very 
shortly.
  Mr. President, I have another amendment, and it is an amendment that 
I hope will help all of the hospitals in this country that are giving 
medical care on an emergency basis to illegal immigrants in our country 
get some reimbursement from the Federal Government for those costs.
  We have had in place funding--called section 1011 funding--for 5 
years. I am only trying to extend this program so that all of the 
States that deal with

[[Page S5681]]

the growing problem of taxpayer dollars--that the hospitals that have 
to absorb these costs will be able to recoup some of those costs from 
the Federal Government. The program provided $200 million over 5 years 
to help hospitals and doctors recoup these costs. It was not 100 
percent reimbursement, I assure you.
  In my State of Texas, we had about $600 million in uncompensated care 
in 1 year, and we were able to obtain $50 million in reimbursement. 
That was a little bit of help that helped many of the hospitals make 
it. These are eligible for any hospital in America. I hope we will be 
able to pass an amendment on this bill to alleviate that situation.
  I am told that the Finance Committee is objecting to this amendment 
because it is in their jurisdiction. You know, I think it is incumbent 
upon the Finance Committee to work with me on this very important issue 
for all the States in our country, because this is a Federal problem, 
and it should not be put on the local communities to foot the bill for 
emergency care that they are required by Federal law to give, but not 
get reimbursement from the Federal Government.
  I hope the Finance Committee will agree to work with me on that. I 
urge the majority to allow amendment No. 1189, which is filed and has 
no objections, that I know of, to be in the next set of votes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, would the regular order bring back 
amendment No. 1136?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would.


                    Amendment No. 1136, As Modified

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, that is an amendment of mine, and I 
send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order has been called for.
  The Senator has a right to modify the amendment at this time.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of title III, add the following:
       Sec. 315. (a) Reports Required.--Not later than 60 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act and every 90 days 
     thereafter, the President shall submit to the members and 
     committees of Congress specified in subsection (b) a report 
     on the prisoner population at the detention facility at Naval 
     Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
       (b) Specified Members and Committees of Congress.--The 
     members and committees of Congress specified in this 
     subsection are the following:
       (1) The majority leader and minority leader of the Senate.
       (2) The Chairman and Ranking Member on the Committee on 
     Armed Services of the Senate.
       (3) The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Select Committee 
     on Intelligence of the Senate.
       (4) The Speaker of the House of Representatives.
       (5) The minority leader of the House of Representatives.
       (6) The Chairman and Ranking Member on the Committee on 
     Armed Services of the House of Representatives.
       (7) The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives
       (c) Matters To Be Included.--Each report submitted under 
     subsection (a) shall include the following:
       (1) The name and country of origin of each detainee at the 
     detention facility at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as 
     of the date of such report.
       (2) A current summary of the evidence, intelligence, and 
     information used to justify the detention of each detainee 
     listed under paragraph (1) at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay.
       (3) A current accounting of all the measures taken to 
     transfer each detainee listed under paragraph (1) to the 
     individual's country of citizenship or another country.
       (4) A current description of the number of individuals 
     released or transferred from detention at Naval Station 
     Guantanamo Bay who are confirmed or suspected of returning to 
     terrorist activities after release or transfer from Naval 
     Station Guantanamo Bay.
       (5) An assessment of any efforts by al Qaeda to recruit 
     detainees released from detention at Naval Station Guantanamo 
     Bay.
       (6) For each detainee listed under paragraph (1), a threat 
     assessment that includes--
       (A) an assessment of the likelihood that such detainee may 
     return to terrorist activity after release or transfer from 
     Naval Station Guantanamo Bay;
       (B) an evaluation of the status of any rehabilitation 
     program in such detainee's country of origin, or in the 
     country such detainee is anticipated to be transferred to; 
     and
       (C) an assessment of the risk posed to the American people 
     by the release or transfer of such detainee from Naval 
     Station Guantanamo Bay.
       (d) Additional Matters To Be Included in Initial Report.--
     The first report submitted under subsection (a) shall also 
     include the following:
       (1) A description of the process that was previously used 
     for screening the detainees described by subsection (c)(4) 
     prior to their release or transfer from detention at Naval 
     Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
       (2) An assessment of the adequacy of that screening process 
     for reducing the risk that detainees previously released or 
     transferred from Naval Station Guantanamo Bay would return to 
     terrorist activities after release or transfer from Naval 
     Station Guantanamo Bay.
       (3) An assessment of lessons learned from previous releases 
     and transfers of individuals who returned to terrorist 
     activities for reducing the risk that detainees released or 
     transferred from Naval Station Guantanamo Bay will return to 
     terrorist activities after their release or transfer.
       (e) Form.--Each report submitted under subsection (a), or 
     parts thereof, may be submitted in classified form.
       (f) Limitation on Release or Transfer.--No detainee 
     detained at the detention facility at Naval Station 
     Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of the date of the enactment of this 
     Act may be released or transferred to another country until 
     the President--
       (1) submits to Congress the first report required by 
     subsection (a); or
       (2) certifies to the members and committees of Congress 
     specified in subsection (b) that such action poses no threat 
     to the members of the United States Armed Forces.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1136

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, one of the amendments which is being 
discussed and has been filed by the minority leader, Senator McConnell 
of Kentucky, relates to detainees at Guantanamo. I am hoping we will 
have an opportunity to debate this amendment because I think it is an 
important amendment, and I hope colleagues will pay close attention to 
it. It is not an amendment which is casual or inconsequential. It is an 
amendment which could have a very negative impact on our treatment of 
detainees who are guilty of crimes or involved in terrorist activities.
  It is interesting that Senator McConnell has brought this amendment 
before the body to be considered. It appears that when President Bush--
the previous President--announced that he was closing Guantanamo, we 
didn't have this rush to the microphones on the Republican side of the 
aisle and objecting. In fact, I don't recall any objection from their 
side of the aisle when President Bush made that recommendation.
  It is also interesting that during the years the Guantanamo Detention 
Facility has been open the requests that are being made now of this 
President were not made of the previous President. All the suggestions 
that perhaps there would be release of detainees from Guantanamo who 
may cause harm in some part of the world, those suggestions weren't 
made under the previous President.
  Literally hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo have been released by 
President Bush in the previous administration. It was found that many 
of them were either brought in with no charges that could be proved or 
once investigation of the evidence was commenced, they learned there 
was nothing that could be established. They were released and returned 
to countries of origin and other places around the world--hundreds of 
them in that case. I don't recall a single Republican Senator, or any 
Senator for that matter, coming to the floor and objecting to the 
release of those hundreds of detainees from Guantanamo by President 
Bush. It happened. They did not object.
  But now there is a new President and a new approach by the Republican 
side of the Senate. Senator McConnell has come forward with a proposal 
that calls on the President--not the Attorney General but the 
President--to provide detailed information about every detainee at 
Guantanamo--information which has never been requested by previous 
Senators and the previous administration.
  I will make an exception to what I just said. At one point, when the 
Bush administration was asked for the names of the detainees and their 
countries of origin, the Bush administration objected and said it could 
compromise national security to release their

[[Page S5682]]

names. That was the only request made. It was denied.
  Now come the Republicans, with the new Obama administration, with a 
brandnew outlook, and they want to know everything about the detainees. 
It is a long amendment. It goes on for five pages and a lot of detail 
here about the detainees at Guantanamo. Basic information--name and 
country of origin, and it goes on for quite a while. Most of it, I 
think, may be salutary and wouldn't have a negative impact, but there 
is one paragraph in particular which I think is dangerous. It is a 
request for information in the McConnell amendment of the President of 
the United States, and let me read what the request is. It is a request 
for ``a current summary of the evidence, intelligence, and information 
used to justify the detention of each detainee listed under paragraph 
(1) at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay.''
  Paragraph (1) refers to all the detainees in custody at Guantanamo. 
So what Senator McConnell is asking for is a summary of the evidence, 
intelligence, and information justifying detention. This could 
compromise a prosecution of a detainee. It could put us in a position 
where someone who truly is dangerous cannot be prosecuted because of 
this request for information by Senator McConnell.
  Senator McConnell wants, I guess, 535 Members of Congress to have a 
chance to read through the evidence, intelligence, and information 
about each detainee. Well, some of that may be classified; some may 
not. Even the information that is classified may leak, with 535 Members 
of Congress and other staff people. Do we want to run the risk of 
jeopardizing the prosecution of someone who is a danger to the United 
States to satisfy the curiosity of a Senator? I don't think so.
  Secondly, once this has been presented, if Senator McConnell has his 
way, then there is a very real possibility that should someone--a known 
terrorist--be brought to the United States, or any other place for 
trial under the laws of the United States, they could, in fact, ask--as 
they do in ordinary criminal cases--for the presentation of all the 
evidence the State has against them, which would include this document, 
which would include not only the evidence, intelligence, and 
information, but quite possibly the work product of the prosecutors who 
are holding this detainee.
  We could not only compromise his prosecution, we could end up with a 
``not guilty'' of someone who is dangerous to the United States simply 
to satisfy the curiosity of a Senator who files this amendment. I think 
that goes too far. I can't believe that it is in the best interests of 
the safety of this country for us to allow this McConnell amendment to 
pass and to require the President to provide to Senator McConnell a 
current summary of the evidence, intelligence, and information used to 
justify the detention of each detainee.
  Why? Why in the world would we want to compromise any attempt at 
prosecution? We don't want to do that. Men and women--career 
prosecutors--are currently reviewing each of these cases to determine 
whether we can go forward with prosecution. The record of the previous 
administration is not very good when it comes to prosecuting these 
detainees. President Obama has said he wants to put that behind us and 
to deal with these people on an honest basis.
  I have listened to the statements that have been made on the floor by 
the Republican Senators who have come forward with amendments. Many of 
them clearly want to keep Guantanamo open forever. They talk about a 
$200 million state-of-the-art facility in glowing terms. Well, I have 
been there, and I have seen it. I have seen the men and women in 
uniform who toil there each day under tough climate conditions. It gets 
pretty hot down there. I know they are working hard for their country. 
But I think they know, and we know, that continuing Guantanamo is going 
to continue to deteriorate the reputation of the United States around 
the world--not because of what our soldiers and sailors and military 
have done there, but simply because it has become a symbol that is 
being used by terrorists around the world to recruit enemies against 
the United States.
  That is why President Bush called for the closure of Guantanamo, and 
that is why President Obama has done the same thing. Yet the Republican 
platform now seems to be ``Guantanamo forever.'' They have built this 
platform on fear--fear that somehow this administration would be so 
negligent that it would release terrorists into the United States, into 
the communities and neighborhoods of this country. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. Not this President, or any President I can 
recall of either political party, would ever find themselves in a 
position to jeopardize the safety of this country by releasing 
detainees who would be dangerous to the United States.
  But this fear mongering is what has been the basis for their position 
on the other side of the aisle when it comes to the security of the 
United States.
  Those who are arguing that we cannot safely hold a terrorist in the 
prisons of America--that is the argument; don't let a detainee from 
Guantanamo ever be considered for a jail or prison of the United 
States--have overlooked the obvious. Currently, we have 208 inmates in 
the Bureau of Prison facilities of the United States who are sentenced 
to international terrorism--208 already there; 66 U.S. citizens, 142 
non-U.S. citizens. In addition to that, 139 inmates in our U.S. Bureau 
of Prisons have been sentenced for domestic terrorism; 137 U.S. 
citizens and 2 non-U.S. citizens. Do the math. That is 347 people who 
have been convicted of terrorism, international and domestic, currently 
being held in the prisons of the United States.

  Do I feel less safe in Illinois--in Springfield or Chicago--because 
of that? No, because I know they are being held by professionals in 
facilities that have a record of safely holding these individuals.
  The other side suggests if we put one of these Guantanamo detainees 
in a U.S. prison, they will be on the street in a heartbeat. I can't 
imagine that. That is not going to happen. The President wouldn't let 
it happen. Our Bureau of Prisons wouldn't let that happen either.
  Then there is this other aspect. If we decided at some point to 
prosecute a Guantanamo detainee in the courts of the United States for 
a crime, some of the language that has been brought to us by the 
Republicans would make that impossible. You know why. Well, one 
amendment by the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, would not allow 
the Attorney General to bring that person from Guantanamo Naval Station 
into the continental United States. The amendment prohibits that. We 
couldn't even bring them in to try them for a crime, couldn't even 
bring them in to hold them accountable in a court of law for terrorism.
  Another amendment says we can't hold these prisoners in any U.S. 
prison facility. How do we try a person in the United States and not at 
least, when they are not in trial, hold them in some prison facility? 
That is just common sense. The person is dangerous. They are, of 
course, detained in a secure facility during the course of the trial. 
Some of the Republican amendments would make that impossible.
  I don't understand what they are headed to. I think they want to keep 
this Guantanamo facility, as we have known it, open forever, without 
resolution of the people who are there. That is fundamentally unfair. I 
have said on the floor of the Senate before, and it is worth repeating, 
that there are people being held at Guantanamo for whom there are no 
charges. I know one person in particular who is being represented by a 
pro bono lawyer in Chicago. This man has been held for 7 years at 
Guantanamo. Originally, he was from Gaza in the Middle East. There was 
a report that he was dangerous. With that report, he was arrested, 
taken to Guantanamo, and held. After 6 years, he was notified there 
were no charges against him; he would be free to go if he could figure 
out where to go. And that has been the problem. He has been waiting for 
a year for permission to return to Gaza. He is now 26 years old. From 
the age of 19 to 26 he has been sitting in Guantanamo. Guantanamo 
forever? For him, it must feel like forever.
  It is about time that we mete out justice. For those being held 
unfairly, they should be released. For those where there are no 
charges, we should acknowledge that and return them as quickly and 
safely as possible. For those who are a danger to the United States, we 
should continue to detain

[[Page S5683]]

them so they never pose a hazard to our country. For those who can be 
tried, let's try them before our courts of law.
  President Obama is going through that arduous, specific process now 
on each one of these detainees. While his administration is working to 
clean up this mess that he inherited from the previous administration, 
the Republicans in the Senate are doing everything they can to block 
his way and make it impossible for him to resolve the situation at 
Guantanamo.
  I would say the McConnell amendment, page 3, paragraph (2), is a 
dangerous amendment. It is an amendment that could compromise the 
ability of the United States of America to prosecute those who could be 
a danger to our country. Why would we possibly do that?
  I urge my colleagues, if I am not given the authority under the rules 
of the Senate to strike that paragraph, to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, what is the business pending before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The McConnell amendment No. 1136.


                Amendment No. 1199 to Amendment No. 1136

  Mr. DURBIN. I have sent an amendment to the desk. I ask the clerk to 
report the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1199 to amendment No. 1136.
       On page 3, strike lines 1-4 and insert the following:
       (2) A current summary of the evidence, intelligence, and 
     information used to justify the detention of each detainee 
     listed under paragraph (1) at Guantanamo Bay.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendment No. 1199 Withdrawn

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to withdraw the pending 
amendment I just filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________