[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 79 (Thursday, May 21, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5770-S5804]
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.
  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:

       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.
       Chambliss amendment No. 1144, 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.
       Isakson amendment No. 1164, to amend the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 to expand the application of the homebuyer 
     credit.
       Corker amendment No. 1173, to provide for the development 
     of objectives for the United States with respect to 
     Afghanistan and Pakistan.
       Lieberman amendment No. 1156, to increase the authorized 
     end strength for active-duty personnel of the Army.
       Graham (for Lieberman) amendment No. 1157, to provide that 
     certain photographic records relating to the treatment of any 
     individual engaged, captured, or detained after

[[Page S5771]]

     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).
       Kyl/Lieberman amendment No. 1147, 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.
       Brown amendment No. 1161, 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.
       McCain amendment No. 1188, to make available from funds 
     appropriated by title XI an additional $42,500,000 for 
     assistance for Georgia.
       Lincoln amendment No. 1181, to amend the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Act with respect to the extension of certain 
     limitations.
       Risch amendment No. 1143, to appropriate, with an offset, 
     an additional $2,000,000,000 for National Guard and Reserve 
     Equipment.
       Kaufman modified amendment No. 1179, to ensure that 
     civilian personnel assigned to serve in Afghanistan receive 
     civilian-military coordination training that focuses on 
     counterinsurgency and stability operations.
       Leahy/Kerry amendment No. 1191, to provide for consultation 
     and reports to Congress regarding the International Monetary 
     Fund.
       Hutchison amendment No. 1189, to protect auto dealers.
       Merkley/Whitehouse amendment No. 1185, to express the sense 
     of the Senate on the use by the Department of Defense of 
     funds in the Act for operations in Iraq in a manner 
     consistent with the United States-Iraq Status of Forces 
     Agreement.
       Merkley (for DeMint) amendment No. 1138, to strike the 
     provisions relating to increased funding for the 
     International Monetary Fund.
       Bennet/Casey amendment No. 1167, to require the exclusion 
     of combat pay from income for purposes of determining 
     eligibility for child nutrition programs and the special 
     supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and 
     children.
       Reid amendment No. 1201 (to amendment No. 1167), to change 
     the enactment date.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and to call up amendment No. 1162.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to setting aside 
the pending amendment?
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. 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. INOUYE. Madam President, I withdraw my earlier request.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The request is withdrawn.


                             Cloture Motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order and 
pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 2346, the 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009.
         Harry Reid, Christopher J. Dodd, Charles E. Schumer, Mark 
           Begich, Mark L. Pryor, Richard Durbin, Patty Murray, 
           Tom Harkin, Edward E. Kaufman, Claire McCaskill, 
           Michael F. Bennet, Mark Udall, Jeanne Shaheen, Carl 
           Levin, Jack Reed, Sheldon Whitehouse, Daniel K. Inouye.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory 
quorum call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on H.R. 
2346, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009, shall be brought to 
a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Hatch).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?:
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 94, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 200 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     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
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Feingold
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Byrd
     Hatch
     Kennedy
     Rockefeller
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 94, the 
nays are 1. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam 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.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
Senators Bennett, Bingaman, and Kerry be added as cosponsors of 
amendment No. 1189.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam 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.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add 
Senator Klobuchar as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1189.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the 
2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act. My vote today does not indicate a 
blank check for the administration. But it is indicative of a strong 
desire on my part to begin to change to a new approach in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  We all know about the challenges President Obama inherited from 8 
long years of the Bush administration. He was left with an economy and 
recession, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, diminished U.S. standing 
around the globe, a country more dependent on foreign oil, and a 
resurgent al-Qaida.

[[Page S5772]]

  Today, we have a new administration with clear priorities and 
realistic foreign policy objectives. We must give President Obama and 
his administration the resources and flexibility they need to move U.S. 
foreign policy in a new direction. If we were to walk away from this 
change in policy that is reflected in this supplemental, I think the 
message we are sending is for the status quo. The status quo does not 
deserve a vote.
  Again, I repeat, my vote is not a blank check. I am voting for this 
bill not because I want the United States to remain bogged down in two 
wars, but because I want to give this administration--the Obama 
administration--the resources it needs to successfully end these wars, 
starting with the war in Iraq. Furthermore, I don't support an open-
ended commitment of American troops to Afghanistan; and if we do not 
see measurable progress, we must reconsider our engagement and strategy 
there.
  In particular, we must do more to sharply reduce the numbers of 
heartbreaking civilian casualties. As ADM Mike Mullen, Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently said:

       We cannot succeed in Afghanistan, or anywhere else . . . by 
     killing Afghan civilians. . . .

  In a reference to a U.S. airstrike in the Farah Province, Admiral 
Mullen said:

       We can't keep going through incidents like this and expect 
     the strategy to work.

  I could not agree more. President Obama promised the American people 
a new way forward in Iraq and a new way forward in Afghanistan. The 
passage of this bill will allow him to put the pieces in place to keep 
his promises by finishing the mission in Afghanistan, which was 
shortchanged because of the Iraq war. I want to talk about that for a 
minute.
  I voted, after 9/11, to go after al-Qaida, to go after the Taliban, 
to go after Osama bin Laden. The administration, instead of doing that, 
turned around and went into Iraq under the false premise that Iraq had 
something to do with 9/11. We still have former Vice President Cheney 
out there trying to convince the people that was the right thing to do. 
That was the wrong thing to do. There have been so many needless deaths 
in Iraq. We left Afghanistan, and the Taliban returned in force; and 
the people there are under the yoke of the Taliban in many parts of 
that country. What a tragedy, because of a mistaken policy. What a 
terrible legacy, because of a mistaken policy. Yet the debate rages on. 
So I am going to engage in that debate.
  I believe we need to tackle this mission in Afghanistan, which was 
shortchanged. I believe we must increase the role of the State 
Department and our civilian agencies in working toward peace. I know my 
colleague in the chair, Senator Kaufman, has been very eloquent on this 
point--a new way to allow the Afghan people to, in essence, take back 
their country. We need to train Afghan security forces so we can 
ultimately change the nature of our mission there and bring our troops 
home. That is the goal.
  I have heard my Republican friends say they don't know what the goal 
is in Afghanistan. That is OK. I don't think there is any problem 
explaining what it is. We want to go after al-Qaida. We want to 
decrease the influence of the Taliban and defeat them, if we have to. 
Hopefully, we can, in fact, work with some of them. I am not convinced 
of that, but it may be possible. We need to give the Afghan security 
forces the ability to defend their own people.
  There is a lot more we have to do over there to protect the most 
vulnerable Afghans, and that means the women and the children of 
Afghanistan. I will talk more about that because this supplemental 
takes a huge step forward in protecting the women and children there.
  It seems to me we have to give President Obama an opportunity to 
bring about the change he promised. If I see that change is not coming, 
I am not going to be there. But today, I believe we should give him 
that chance.
  To think that we actually had Osama bin Laden cornered at one time, 
but the obsession with Saddam Hussein drove us away in those Bush years 
from that mission and brought us into a situation where we have lost so 
many of our young men and women, many of them--30,000--were injured, 
some with horrific injuries, and many more are suffering from post-
traumatic stress and brain injury.
  President Bush took his eye off Afghanistan, and so did Vice 
President Cheney. Frankly, sadly, we come to this day. I understand why 
some colleagues might just say: I don't want to hear about it. I don't 
want to spend any more money on it. Just forget it.
  I don't think that is the way to go. I think President Obama said 
very clearly that he is going to bring change. I think this is the day. 
We either stand for change or for the status quo. That is my belief.
  In the Bush years we never really had enough resources to fight al-
Qaida in Afghanistan because we were waging an open-ended war in Iraq. 
Remember, there were no benchmarks for progress. It was day after day, 
death after death after death. Frankly, because the Iraq war fueled 
recruitment by al-Qaida, our Nation's security has been compromised. 
Our standing in the world has suffered. Again, most heartbreaking, 
American servicemembers and their families have paid the price.
  In my view, there are four provisions in the supplemental that will 
help to correct our course.
  First, the bill provides funding to get our troops home from Iraq. 
These provisions are essential for President Obama to meet his date of 
August 31, 2010, to remove combat brigades from Iraq and remove all of 
our troops by the end of 2011.
  For those of us who want to bring the troops home, the funding to do 
that is in this supplemental. So, clearly, when we vote for this, we 
vote to begin that process. The responsibility for security must be 
turned over to the Iraqis--and quickly. U.S. forces cannot continue to 
shoulder the burden there anymore. The people there have to decide if 
they want to live together or die together. They have to look at these 
ethnic divisions and make their own decisions. We will help. We will 
always help. But it is their decision.
  So the first part of the bill is funding to begin bringing the troops 
home from Iraq.
  Second, this bill seeks to turn things around in Afghanistan by 
providing a significant investment in diplomacy and development, 
including, very importantly to me and to a lot of my colleagues, for 
the Afghan women. A military solution alone will not solve the problems 
in Afghanistan. We need a strategy that helps the Government provide 
for its people and invest in the civil society and those programs that 
are crucial to the long-term security and prosperity of that country.
  Development is very important to the people of Afghanistan. I am very 
proud that this bill takes critical steps to support Afghan women and 
girls. Today, more than 7 years after the international community 
helped free Afghan women from the prison of life under the Taliban, the 
situation for women in Afghanistan remains dire.
  I want to say to Senator Leahy and his staff: Thank you. Thank you 
for listening. Thank you for working with us. Thank you for working 
with the women-led nongovernmental organizations.
  Without Senator Leahy and his staff, we would not have this language 
in the bill. I wanted to make that point.
  More than 80 percent of the women in Afghanistan are illiterate. More 
than one in six die in childbirth. These are the voices that have been 
forgotten. We cannot return to the days when Afghan women had to be 
draped in burqas against their will. If you have never tried on a 
burqa--and I am sure most people haven't--let me tell you what it feels 
like, because I did. You disappear. You become nothing. Remember when 
women were murdered in cold blood by the Taliban in soccer stadiums? 
Those days must be over.
  It seems to me that walking away from this supplemental at this time 
says we are walking away from those women. We need to help them. We 
need to do everything we can to give them a chance because to not do so 
would be tragic.
  This bill specifically appropriates $100 million for programs that 
directly address the needs of Afghan women and girls. In addition to 
Senator Leahy and his staff, I thank Congresswoman Nita Lowey and her 
staff. In the House bill, they also put in quite a few resources for 
the women-led NGOs. In our bill, we do even more to directly address 
the

[[Page S5773]]

needs of women and girls, including funding for the Afghan Human Rights 
Commission and Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs.
  I wrote a bill called the Afghan Women Empowerment Act. Specifically, 
the supplemental appropriates $30 million for Afghan women-led 
nongovernmental organizations, which is a key component of that bill. 
The international community cannot stay in Afghanistan indefinitely. We 
know that. So this funding will help empower those organizations that 
will provide for the needs of the Afghan community long after the 
international community has left.
  The supplemental includes $10 million to train and support Afghan 
women investigators, police officers, prosecutors, and judges with 
responsibility for investigating, prosecuting, and punishing crimes of 
violence against women and girls.
  This is particularly important in a country where women have been so 
marginalized. No female victim of violence will ever come forward if 
she believes there is no system in place or resources to help her. What 
happens if she comes forward is that she becomes a target. I don't know 
how you feel about it--I think I can guess--when any of us sees little 
girls being attacked with acid when they are going to school. There is 
something deeply wrong if America turns away from that. We cannot, it 
seems to me, in good conscience not give this one more chance, which is 
what this supplemental is doing because it is taking a major step to 
give the Afghan people the chance to stand up for their women, 
children, and families.
  Third, this bill recognizes the importance of Pakistan, a 
dysfunctional, nuclear-armed nation that has some of the most notorious 
al-Qaida terrorists within its borders. Pakistan is one of the greatest 
threats to international security that we face today. This danger is 
such a concern that Bruce Riedel, a Brookings Institution scholar who 
served as the coauthor of the President's review of our Afghanistan-
Pakistan strategy, said that the country--this is Pakistan--``has more 
terrorists per square mile than any other place on Earth, and it has a 
nuclear weapons program that has grown faster than anyplace else on 
Earth.'' It seems to me to walk away from that threat is the wrong 
course. This bill provides funds for nonmilitary aid and 
counterinsurgency training to enable the Pakistani Government to defeat 
the growing extremist threat within its borders.
  Fourth, this bill provides funding to help our servicemembers and 
their families deal with the wounds of war and to improve their quality 
of life. It provides funding to increase the number of soldiers and 
marines to help ease some of the burdens on servicemembers and families 
who have served three, four, and five deployments to combat zones. How 
can we walk away from giving those soldiers relief at this point when 
they have served three, four, and five times? We see some of the 
fallout on the mental health of our soldiers. We have seen some tragic 
things happen, including a soldier who actually turned on his own 
colleagues and killed them. We cannot have servicemembers under this 
amount of stress from three, four, five, or six deployments. Some of 
them can handle it. Not all of them can handle it. This bill will 
increase the number of soldiers and marines, so we can help ease the 
burden of those who have given and given.
  This bill includes funding to keep our servicemembers safer, 
including funding for mine-resistant vehicles in Afghanistan to combat 
the dangers of roadside bombs. It helps ease the childcare needs of our 
military families by funding the construction of 25 child development 
centers to serve 5,000 children. It provides $230 million to complete 
construction of the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, and 
it provides funds for the construction of nine warrior support 
facilities across the United States. Our soldiers need help. They 
cannot be expected to travel across the country to get medical care, 
either for physical wounds or mental wounds. We need to make sure we do 
this.
  Finally, this bill provides funding for domestic programs that will 
safeguard our security. It includes $1.5 billion to prepare and respond 
to a global disease pandemic, such as the H1N1 influenza virus we are 
combating today. A lot of people say: Maybe you are overreacting. We 
just don't know because in other flu epidemics, we think we have 
conquered it, and then it comes back in a more virulent form. We need 
to vaccinate our citizenry. This is expensive and a must-do. I am very 
pleased it is in this bill. Just this week, two lives were lost in New 
York City to the virus. One victim was only an infant, and the other 
was an assistant principal of a school. Yes, we lose people to the flu 
every year. We know that. But we want to make sure we are not facing 
something for which we are unprepared. Better to be prepared, and this 
bill gives us the funds to prepare.
  There is significant investment in shoring up our southwest border 
and also combating drug traffickers who operate there. We keep seeing 
horrific violence along the border. It is deplorable. The drug cartels 
must be stopped and the perpetrators brought to justice. That is also 
in this bill. This is an emergency spending bill.
  It also includes $250 million for emergency firefighting activities. 
California has suffered devastating wildfires over the last few fire 
seasons. I know all of you have watched in horror at the recent 
wildfire in Santa Barbara. We know we are facing terrible challenges. 
We are facing warmer temperatures. We are facing more drought 
conditions. The funding will help ensure resources are on hand when 
they are needed.
  I have to say that this bill should be a must-pass. I have to also 
reiterate that my vote indicates my support for a change in our foreign 
policy, a change in Iraq to bring this war to an end, a change to 
finally do what we have to do in Afghanistan so we do not walk out and 
walk away as we did before. The Taliban allowed al-Qaida to thrive, and 
we have to work in Afghanistan so that the people turn away from the 
Taliban toward something else that is positive. And we can provide 
that.
  Strong diplomacy is in this bill. A change in policy is in this bill. 
It is our best opportunity to achieve these objectives. If it does not 
work, I will be the first one to stand up here and say so because, 
frankly, I believe too many of our brave soldiers have been put in 
harm's way.
  I think this is the last use of a supplemental appropriation, 
according to the administration, to fund military operations in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. I welcome that. It says that our President is going to 
hold true to his commitment to an open and transparent government that 
is held accountable to the people. We are going to have these policies 
funded through the regular budget process. I understand why we need 
this now. To bring about the change in Iraq and Afghanistan, we cannot 
do it on the cheap. We have to do it right. I think President Obama's 
quote--and I am not quoting him exactly--was that we have to get out of 
there very carefully even though we did not get in there very 
carefully. That is what we are doing. We are getting out of Iraq 
carefully. We are doing it right. We are funding the way to do it 
right. We are helping our soldiers. And we are changing course in 
Afghanistan, first of all, by paying attention to it, going after al-
Qaida, trying to make sure the Taliban is not an option people choose 
there, and being very strong in our help toward the women of 
Afghanistan.
  I will be voting yes for all those reasons and watching closely.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for the next hour, this 
bill be open to debate only.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the 
completion of my statement, Senator Isakson be recognized for 5 
minutes, and then that Senator Brown be recognized for 10 minutes. That 
will allow all of our statements to be completed prior to a unanimous 
consent agreement which will shortly be entered into.

[[Page S5774]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that no Budget Act points of order 
be in order to H.R. 2346, as amended; that at 1 p.m., Senator Cornyn be 
recognized for debate only for up to 40 minutes; that at the conclusion 
of Senator Cornyn's remarks, the time until 2 p.m. be equally divided 
and controlled between the leaders or their designees; that at 2 p.m. 
today, there be 40 minutes of debate with respect to the DeMint 
amendment No. 1138, with the time controlled as follows: 20 minutes 
under the control of Senator DeMint, 10 minutes under the control of 
Senators Gregg and Inouye or their designees; that upon the use or 
yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to 
the amendment; that no intervening amendment be in order to the 
language proposed to be stricken by the DeMint amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, President Obama said in his campaign and 
has repeated it since the first days of his Presidency that we must 
keep our Nation safe and secure, but we have to do it in ways 
consistent with our values. That is a sentiment I share, and one that I 
have voiced in hearings and statements for years as well.
  To President Obama's credit, to the benefit of the Nation, he has 
worked since his first day in office to turn these words into action to 
make our national security policy and our detainee policy consistent 
with American laws and American values. That, in turn, makes us more 
secure. I have supported President Obama in these steps, and I will 
continue to do so. That is why I have voted against amendments to 
withhold funding to close the Guantanamo detention facility, and to 
prohibit any Guantanamo detainees from being brought to the United 
States. These amendments undermine the good work the President is 
doing, and they make us less safe, not safer.
  I believe strongly, as all Americans do, we have to take every step 
we can to prevent terrorism. Then we have to ensure severe punishment 
for those who do us harm. As a former prosecutor, I have never shied 
away from harsh sentences for those who commit atrocious acts. I point 
to the times I have requested and gotten for people I have prosecuted 
life sentences, life sentences that they served without the possibility 
of parole.
  I also believe strongly we can ensure our safety and security and 
bring terrorists to justice in ways that are consistent with our laws 
and values. When we have strayed from that approach--when we have 
tortured people in our custody, or sent people to other countries to be 
tortured, or held people for years without even giving them a chance to 
go to court, to argue we were holding the wrong person, they are being 
held in error--we have hurt our national security immeasurably.
  Our allies have been less willing to help our counterterrorism 
efforts, and that has made our military men and women more vulnerable 
and our country less safe. Terrorists have used our actions as a tool 
to recruit new members, which means then we have to fend off more 
enemies.
  Worse still, we have lost our ability to respond with moral authority 
if other countries should mistreat American solders or civilians.
  Guantanamo has become the symbol of the severe missteps our country 
took in recent years. Changing our interrogation policies to ban 
torture was an essential first step. But only by shutting the 
Guantanamo facility and restoring tough but fair procedures can we 
repair our image in the world. We have to do that if we hope to have a 
truly strong national security policy.
  To close Guantanamo, we need our national security and our legal 
experts working hard to come up with a comprehensive plan for its 
closure. We should be funding those efforts. By cutting off that 
funding, we have hamstrung the President's initiative, and no matter 
what we intended to do, I believe we have made our Nation less safe.
  Much debate has focused on keeping Guantanamo detainees out of the 
United States. In this debate, political rhetoric has entirely drowned 
out reason and reality. Our criminal justice system handles extremely 
dangerous criminals, and it has handled more than a few terrorists, and 
has done so safely and effectively. We try very dangerous people in our 
courts and we hold very dangerous people in our jails in Vermont and 
throughout the country. We have the best justice system in the world.
  We have spent billions of dollars on our detention facilities, on our 
law enforcement, and our justice system. Are we going to say to the 
world, oh, my goodness gracious, we are not good enough to be able to 
handle criminal cases of this nature? I do not believe so.
  We try those dangerous people and we hold those dangerous people in 
jails in Vermont and throughout our country. We are showing the world 
that we can do it. I know; I have put some of them there. We do it 
every day in ways that keep the American people safe and secure. I have 
absolute confidence we can continue to do it.
  The Judiciary Committee has held several hearings on the issue of how 
to best handle detainees. Experts and judges from across the political 
spectrum have agreed that our courts and our justice system can handle 
this challenge. Indeed, it has handled it many times already.
  What I am saying is, after all of those billions of dollars, after 
all of the superb men and women we have working in our justice system, 
after all that we spend on maximum security facilities, are we going to 
say to the world, America is not strong enough to try even the worst of 
criminals?
  When we were hit with one of the worst terrorist attacks ever in this 
country, Oklahoma City, did we say we cannot try the people we have now 
captured? We cannot have them in a courtroom where it is secure, we 
will not be able to punish them? Of course not. We went ahead, and we 
also established for the rest of the world that we follow a system of 
justice in America. And having been horribly damaged in Oklahoma City, 
we followed our system of justice. The rest of the world looked at it, 
and they learned from us.
  Let's not step back from that. Republican luminaries such as GEN 
Colin Powell have agreed with this idea. One Republican member of the 
Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham, said, ``The idea that we cannot 
find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United 
States is not rational.''
  So let's let reality come in and overwhelm rhetoric. It is time to 
act on our principles and our constitutional system. Those whom we 
believe to be guilty of heinous crimes should be tried. They should be 
penalized severely, and our courts and our prisons are more than up to 
the task. Our courts and our prisons are more up to this task than 
those in any other country in the world. But we also could have people 
who are innocent or where we captured the wrong person. If so, they 
should be released.
  There are going to be tough cases. Instead of cutting out the money 
the administration needs to dispose of those cases responsibly, knowing 
how tough they will be, we ought to be doing just the opposite and give 
them the resources they need.
  Let's put aside heated, distorted rhetoric. Support the President in 
his efforts to truly make our country a safe and strong Republic worthy 
of the history and values that have always made America great.
  I believed that when I was a young lawyer in private practice. I 
believed that when I was a prosecutor. I believe that even more today 
as a Senator.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                         Tribute to Bill Shipp

  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I know most Members on the floor 
remember a song of about 25 years ago called: ``The Night the Lights 
Went Out in Georgia.''
  Well, on Tuesday of this week, a beacon of light in journalism did go 
out in Georgia, when Bill Shipp, a gifted political writer, announced 
his retirement after 50 years of reporting in the South.
  Bill Shipp is a remarkable character. It is said that all of us are 
replaceable. I am not sure Bill Shipp is replaceable. He began his 
writing in Georgia as a political columnist for the Atlanta 
Constitution.
  Starting in the late 50s, he covered the late Ivan Allen and the late 
Dr. Martin Luther King and the Governors

[[Page S5775]]

and the politicians of that era from George Wallace to Lester Maddox, 
to Jimmy Carter, to Carl Sanders.
  He wrote about the transition of the old South to the new South. And 
in Washington, he covered the Civil Rights Act in the middle and late 
seventies. He was a writer whose perception was keen, whose wit was 
sharp, and whose pen was even sharper.
  For 32 of his 50 years I was in elected office in Georgia. I can make 
a true confession: When he wrote a column, you went to the paper and 
you read Bill Shipp first. There was a reason for that. If you were 
going to be the victim of the day, you might as well go out and find 
out what he was going to say about you. But if you were not the victim 
of the day, you could relish in seeing some other politician being 
skewered by that pen.
  Bill Shipp had a profound effect on journalism in our State. For 
years he reported for the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, but after a 
number of years he started his only publication whose title was: ``Bill 
Shipp's Georgia.'' Never has there been a more appropriate name for a 
newsletter, because, in many ways, Georgia's politics was Bill Shipp's 
possession.
  Bill Shipp wrote about politics in such a way that he changed 
politics in the South. While I would never accuse Bill of having 
editorialized in a news article, the tone and tenor of the direction of 
Bill Shipp's perception of what was right and wrong could help to lead 
debates to a positive conclusion in an otherwise period of discourse 
and trouble.
  I love Bill Shipp for many reasons--one, because he and I have had 
the pleasure of living in the same county for the last 40 years. The 
other is, I have learned a lot from him. I always appreciated him. In 
politics, Bill Shipp is the equivalent of Helen Thomas at a 
Presidential press conference. When a Georgia politician has a press 
conference, Bill Shipp is there. When it is time for questions, he 
always has one. And when it comes time to roll the grenade in the 
middle of the room, Bill Shipp will do it. He did it to me and to 
others.
  Bill Shipp is a gifted friend, a man for whom I wish the best in his 
retirement. I think, finally, of those days on Ivy Grove and Cherokee 
Road in Marietta where he and Tom Watson Brown and George Berry would 
sit at 5 in the afternoon, have a libation, and discuss the next day's 
column that Bill would write. Bill Shipp is a treasured asset of our 
State, a man who has contributed greatly to the growth of the new South 
and the new Georgia, a man whose contributions to journalism are 
preeminent in our State, and a friend to whom I wish the very best in 
his retirement.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  (The remarks of Mr. Brown pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 156 
are located in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for up to 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


 Samuel L. Gravely, Jr., First African-American U.S. Navy Flag Officer

  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, this past weekend, at the Northrop-
Grumman shipbuilding facility in Pascagoula, MS, the USS Gravely, the 
57th Arleigh Burke class Aegis Guided Missile Destroyer, was christened 
in honor of the late VADM Samuel L. Gravely, Jr.
  Vice Admiral Gravely was born in 1922, in Richmond, VA. In 1942, 
Gravely interrupted his education at Virginia Union University and 
enlisted in the U.S. Naval Reserve. He attended officer training camp 
at the University of California in Los Angeles after boot camp at the 
Great Lakes Naval Training Station in Illinois, and then midshipman 
school at Columbia University. When he boarded his first ship in May of 
1945, he became its first African-American officer.
  Gravely was the first African-American to command a fighting ship, 
the USS Falgout, and to command a major warship, the USS Jouett. As a 
full commander, he made naval history in 1966 as the first African-
American commander to lead a ship, the USS Taussig, into direct 
offensive action. He was the first African-American to achieve flag 
rank and eventually vice admiral. In 1976, Gravely became the commander 
of the entire Third Fleet, commanding over 100 ships, 60,000 sailors, 
and overseeing more than 50 million square miles of ocean.
  Gravely's tenure in the naval service was challenged with the 
difficulties of racial discrimination. As a new recruit, he was trained 
in a segregated unit; as an officer, he was barred from living in the 
bachelor's officers' quarters. In 1945, when his first ship reached its 
berth in Key West, FL, he was specifically forbidden entry into the 
officers club on the base. Gravely survived the indignities of racial 
prejudice and displayed unquestionable competence as a naval officer.
  Gravely exemplified the highest standards and demanded very high 
standards from his crew. Throughout his career, he stressed the 
rudiments of professionalism--intelligence, appearance, seamanship and, 
most importantly, pride.
  Vice Admiral Gravely was a trailblazer for African-Americans in the 
military arena. He fought for equal rights quietly but effectively, 
letting his actions and his military record speak for him. Gravely died 
on October 22, 2004, at the naval hospital in Bethesda, MD. In a 
fitting tribute, the obituary on the U.S. Department of Defense Web 
site quoted Gravely's formula for success: ``My formula is simply 
education plus motivation plus perseverance.''
  Samuel L. Gravely, Jr.'s performance and leadership as an African-
American naval officer demonstrated to America the value and strength 
of diversity. He was a true professional with superb skills as a seaman 
and admirable leadership attributes.
  The USS Gravely, christened in Pascagoula, will reflect his 
character, his forthrightness, and his steadfastness and will stand for 
and deliver his legacy wherever it serves. His spirit aboard the USS 
Gravely will be an inspiration to its crew, the U.S. Navy, and 
Americans for generations to come.
  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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I understand there is a previous--let me 
ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 40 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the standing order.
  Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate it. Thank you very much, Mr. President.


                           Amendment No. 1139

  Mr. President, I want to address the Senate on two subjects this 
afternoon--first of all, on the subject of various memos and 
interrogation techniques, notably enhanced interrogation techniques, 
that were carried out in response to Office of Legal Counsel memos that 
were written by lawyers there, designed to provide guidance to our CIA 
interrogators after 9/11 to help them protect the country against 
future terrorist attacks.
  I have an amendment that, because of technical reasons, we will not 
be able to vote on this week. But I want to assure my colleagues this 
issue is not going away, and we will be back to talk about it more 
later. But I think it is of sufficient gravity and importance that I 
want to highlight it here for the next few minutes.
  First of all, this amendment I am referring to is a sense-of-the-
Senate amendment. Let me summarize what it does because I think it is 
important to put it in context.
  The sense-of-the-Senate amendment reads as follows. It says:

       In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, there 
     was bipartisan consensus that preventing further terrorist 
     attacks [against] the United States was the most urgent 
     responsibility of the United States Government.
       A bipartisan joint investigation by the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee 
     on Intelligence of the House of Representatives concluded 
     that the September 11, 2001 attacks demonstrated that the 
     intelligence community had not shown ``sufficient initiative 
     in coming to grips with the new transnational threats''.

[[Page S5776]]

       By mid-2002, the Central Intelligence Agency had several 
     top al Qaeda leaders in custody.
       The Central Intelligence Agency believed that some of these 
     al Qaeda leaders knew the details of imminent plans for 
     follow-on attacks against the United States.
       The Central Intelligence Agency believed that certain 
     enhanced interrogation techniques might produce the 
     intelligence necessary to prevent another terrorist attack 
     against the United States.
       The Central Intelligence Agency sought legal guidance from 
     the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice as 
     to whether such enhanced interrogation techniques, including 
     one that the United States military uses to train its own 
     members in survival, evasion, resistance, and escape 
     training, would comply with United States and international 
     law if used against al Qaeda leaders reasonably believed to 
     be planning imminent attacks against the United States.

  This amendment further notes that:

       The Office of Legal Counsel is the proper authority within 
     the executive branch [of the Federal Government] for 
     addressing difficult and novel legal questions, and providing 
     legal advice to the executive branch in carrying out [its] 
     official duties.

  It further notes that:

       Before mid-2002, no court in the United States had [ever] 
     interpreted the phrases ``severe physical or mental pain or 
     suffering'' and ``prolonged mental harm'' as used in sections 
     2340 and 2340A of title 18, the United States Code.
       The legal questions posed by the Central Intelligence 
     Agency and other executive branch officials were--

  This amendment notes--

     a matter of first impression, and in the words of the Office 
     of Legal Counsel, ``substantial and difficult''.
       The Office of Legal Counsel approved the use by the Central 
     Intelligence Agency of certain enhanced interrogation 
     techniques, with specific limitations, in seeking actionable 
     intelligence from al Qaeda leaders.

  The amendment further notes that:

       The legal advice of the Office of Legal Counsel regarding 
     interrogation policy was reviewed by a host of executive 
     branch officials, including the Attorney General, the Counsel 
     to the President, the Deputy Counsel to the President, the 
     General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency, the 
     General Counsel of the National Security Council, the legal 
     advisor of the Attorney General, the head of the Criminal 
     Division of the Department of Justice, and the Counsel to the 
     Vice President [of the United States].

  Further, the amendment notes that:

       The majority and minority leaders in both Houses of 
     Congress,--

  Both in the Senate and in the House, as well as--

     the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the chairmen 
     and [ranking members] of [both] the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee 
     on Intelligence of the House of Representatives received 
     classified briefings on [both the proposed techniques and the 
     Office of Legal Counsel advice] as early as September 4, 
     2002.

  The amendment further notes that:

       Porter Goss, then-chairman of the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, 
     recalls that he and then-ranking member Nancy Pelosi 
     ``understood what the CIA was doing'' [and] ``gave the CIA 
     our bipartisan support'' [and] ``gave the CIA funding to 
     carry out its activities'', and ``On a bipartisan basis . . . 
     asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry 
     out its mission against al Qaeda''.

  The amendment further notes that:

       No member of Congress briefed on the legal analysis of the 
     Office of Legal Counsel and the proposed interrogation 
     program of the Central Intelligence Agency in 2002 objected 
     to the legality of the enhanced interrogation techniques, 
     including ``waterboarding'', approved in legal opinions of 
     the Office of Legal Counsel.

  The amendment further notes that:

       Using all lawful means to secure actionable intelligence 
     based on the legal guidance of the Office of Legal Counsel 
     [of the Department of Justice] provides national leaders a 
     means to detect, deter, and defeat further terrorist 
     [attacks] against the United States [of America].

  The amendment further notes that:

       The enhanced interrogation techniques approved by the 
     Office of Legal Counsel have, in fact, accomplished the goal 
     of providing intelligence necessary to defeating additional 
     terrorist attacks against the United States.

  It further notes that:

       Congress has previously established a defense for persons 
     who engaged in operational practices in the war on terror in 
     good faith reliance on advice of counsel that [such] 
     practices were lawful.

  This amendment further notes that:

       The Senate stands ready to work [on a bipartisan basis] 
     with the Obama Administration to ensure that leaders of the 
     Armed Forces of the United States and the intelligence 
     community continue to have the resources and tools required 
     to prevent additional terrorist attacks on the United States.

  This amendment concludes with this finding or sense of the Senate:

       It is the sense of the Senate that no person who provided 
     input into the legal opinions by the Office of Legal Counsel 
     of the Department of Justice analyzing the legality of the 
     enhanced interrogation program, nor any person who relied in 
     good faith on [that legal advice], nor any member of Congress 
     who was briefed on the enhanced interrogation program and did 
     not object to the program going forward should be prosecuted 
     or otherwise sanctioned.

  This is the amendment I sought to offer that for technical reasons is 
not going to be voted on now. But, I assure my colleagues, we will 
revisit this at a later date.
  I want to take issue with some of the comments by my distinguished 
colleague from Illinois, the majority whip, who I believe--it was 
yesterday, or maybe the day before--said there was no basis for my 
assertion that there was actionable intelligence gained from the so-
called enhanced interrogation techniques, and questioned what my source 
was.
  I would remind the distinguished Senator from Illinois that the 
source is President Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Dennis 
Blair, who wrote, on April 16, 2009, that ``high-value information came 
from interrogations in which these methods were used, and provided a 
deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking 
this country.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter in which the 
Director of National Intelligence made those statements be printed in 
the Record following my comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CORNYN. Nor was this special information available to only a few. 
The New York Times reported it on April 21, under the headline ``Banned 
Techniques Yielded `High-Value information', Memo Says.'' That is a 
story in the New York Times which basically recounts what the Director 
of National Intelligence said.
  I would remind my distinguished colleague from Illinois that it is, 
in fact, the Director of National Intelligence for President Obama who 
has affirmed not just the need but the usefulness of the information 
and intelligence derived from these enhanced interrogation techniques 
that were approved by the legal authority for the executive branch of 
the Federal Government, the Office of Legal Counsel.
  My colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, argues that we need to 
allow prosecutors to follow the facts and the law wherever they may 
lead--certainly, a relatively harmless assertion; one I would generally 
agree with. But here, we know enough about the facts and the law to 
know there is no evidence that anyone acted with the intent required to 
prosecute under the law. I won't bore the Senate with an analysis of 
what the criminal law requires in this context, but I would say that 
the facts, as we know them, are to give our public servants the benefit 
of the doubt. As detailed in the Office of Legal Counsel memoranda, 
significant efforts were made to minimize significant harm that could 
arise from these techniques. Who could question the desire of both the 
intelligence community as well as the Department of Justice and the 
leaders responsible for protecting our national security--who could 
question the good-faith need to get information that would actually 
help prevent follow-on terrorist attacks?

  We know al-Qaida, on September 11, 2001, used crude weapons to attack 
our country. Yet they were able to kill 3,000 Americans, roughly. Our 
intelligence community and our national leadership knew al-Qaida was 
not satisfied with such primitive weapons but, indeed, was seeking 
biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. We know how important it was 
for our intelligence officials to get the information they needed. We 
know the lawyers at the Office of Legal Counsel who rendered this legal 
advice were doing what they thought was their responsibility in good 
faith. Indeed, the Members of Congress who had the responsibility to 
perform congressional oversight on these activities, I believe, 
demonstrated their good-faith desire to do what was necessary to 
protect our country. I believe we know enough to

[[Page S5777]]

say these people--all of them--acted in good faith.
  It has been suggested the standard we apply is whether the advice 
fell within the range of legitimate analysis and within the range of 
reasonable disagreement common to legal analysis of important statutory 
and constitutional questions. I believe that has been demonstrated, and 
but for this technical objection to the amendment, I am confident we 
would receive an overwhelming bipartisan vote of support for this 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  The distinguished Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, says we 
should allow prosecutors and the Department of Justice to decide 
whether to bring a case against these officials: The intelligence 
community, the lawyers who drafted the legal advice, and perhaps even 
the Members of Congress who acquiesced and facilitated these enhanced 
interrogation techniques following a classified briefing. But I would 
suggest there is no case to be brought against these individuals. Any 
prosecution that arises out of this interrogation program would clearly 
be based upon politics and not on the law.
  I would submit the amendment I have offered--and that I described and 
which I will reoffer again at an appropriate time--is a call for 
reasonableness and national unity. The calls for prosecution of good-
faith patriots has simply gone too far. When bloggers and others--not 
to single out bloggers but even Members of this body--have suggested 
that we somehow need a truth commission and have suggested that 
prosecutions might be the appropriate outcome, when they are suggesting 
that prosecutions under these circumstances occur, then I think our 
political environment has changed in a dangerous way and one which will 
certainly chill our intelligence officials in gathering actual 
intelligence necessary to keep us safe and certainly discourage 
patriots who want to serve and who are willing to serve in Government. 
When policy differences become criminalized in ways that some have 
suggested, it is not helpful to our country. Indeed, I think it is 
dangerous to our national security.
  We know there is an unfortunate history of hysterias, panics, and mob 
rule from time to time that occurs, whether it is from Salem through 
the McCarthy era. When justice is steered by passion and politics 
rather than by reason and the rule of law, it is not worthy of the name 
``justice.'' Once you stir up an angry mob, we know it is unpredictable 
where that mob might lead or who might get caught up in the mob's 
action. But we know already too many patriotic Americans have been 
targeted by the present hysteria. This amendment calls for an end to 
the hysteria and a return to reason, civility, national unity, and the 
rule of law.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                       Director of


                                        National Intelligence,

                                   Washington, DC, April 16, 2009.
       Dear Colleagues: Today is a difficult one for those of us 
     who serve the country in its intelligence services. An 
     article on the front page of The New York Times claims that 
     the National Security Agency has been collecting information 
     that violates the privacy and civil liberties of American 
     citizens. The release of documents from the Department of 
     Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) spells out in detail 
     harsh interrogation techniques used by CIA officers on 
     suspected al Qa'ida terrorists.
       As the leader of the Intelligence Community, I am trying to 
     put these issues into perspective. We cannot undo the events 
     of the past; we must understand them and turn this 
     understanding to advantage as we move into the future.
       It is important to remember the context of these past 
     events. All of us remember the horror of 9/11. For months 
     afterwards we did not have a clear understanding of the enemy 
     we were dealing with, and our every effort was focused on 
     preventing further attacks that would kill more Americans. It 
     was during these months that the CIA was struggling to obtain 
     critical information from captured al Qa'ida leaders, and 
     requested permission to use harsher interrogation methods. 
     The OLC memos make clear that senior legal officials judged 
     the harsher methods to be legal, and that senior policymakers 
     authorized their use. High value information came from 
     interrogations in which those methods were used and provided 
     a deeper understanding of the al Qa'ida organization that was 
     attacking this country. As the OLC memos demonstrate, from 
     2002 through 2006 when the use of these techniques ended, the 
     leadership of the CIA repeatedly reported their activities 
     both to Executive Branch policymakers and to members of 
     Congress, and received permission to continue to use the 
     techniques.
       Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 
     2009, appear graphic and disturbing. As the President has 
     made clear, and as both CIA Director Panetta and I have 
     stated, we will not use those techniques in the future. I 
     like to think I would not have approved those methods in the 
     past, but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that 
     time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the 
     interrogations within the orders they were given.
       Even in 2009 there are organizations plotting to kill 
     Americans using terror tactics, and although the memories of 
     9/11 are becoming more distant, we in the intelligence 
     services must stop them. One of our most effective tools in 
     discovering groups planning to attack us are their 
     communications, and it is the job of the NSA to intercept 
     them. The NSA does this vital work under legislation that was 
     passed by the Congress. The NSA actions are subject to 
     oversight by my office and by the Justice Department under 
     court-approved safeguards; when the intercepts are conducted 
     against Americans, it is with individual court orders. Under 
     these authorities the officers of the National Security 
     Agency collect large amounts of international 
     telecommunications, and under strict rules review and analyze 
     some of them. These intercepts have played a vital role in 
     many successes we have had in thwarting terrorist attacks 
     since 9/11.
       On occasion. NSA has made mistakes and intercepted the 
     wrong communications. The numbers of these mistakes are very 
     small in terms of our overall collection efforts, but each 
     one is investigated, Congress and the courts are notified, 
     corrective measures are taken, and improvements are put in 
     place to prevent reoccurrences.
       As a young Navy officer during the Vietnam years, I 
     experienced public scorn for those of us who served in the 
     Armed Forces during an unpopular war. Challenging and 
     debating the wisdom and policies linked to wars and 
     warfighting is important and legitimate; however, disrespect 
     for those who serve honorably within legal guidelines is not. 
     I remember well the pain of those of us who served our 
     country even when the policies we were carrying out were 
     unpopular or could be second-guessed.
       We in the Intelligence Community should not be subjected to 
     similar pain. Let the debate focus on the law and our 
     national security. Let us be thankful that we have public 
     servants who seek to do the difficult work of protecting our 
     country under the explicit assurance that their actions are 
     both necessary and legal.
       There will almost certainly be more media articles about 
     the actions of intelligence agencies in the past, and as we 
     do our vital work of protecting the country we will make 
     mistakes that will also be reported. What we must do is make 
     it absolutely clear to the American people that our ethos is 
     to act legally, in as transparent a manner as we can, and in 
     a way that they would be proud of if we could tell them the 
     full story,
       It is my job, and the job of our national leaders, to 
     ensure that the work done by the Intelligence Community is 
     appreciated and supported. You can be assured the President 
     knows this and is supporting us. It is your responsibility to 
     continue the difficult, often dangerous and vital work you 
     are doing every day.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Dennis C. Blair.

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am going to turn to another subject, but 
may I inquire how much time is remaining under the unanimous consent 
agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 27 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CORNYN. I assure the Chair I will not use all that time.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. President, I wish to discuss another very serious challenge in 
our country and that is how to reform our broken health care system to 
serve the needs of the American people and to help bring down the costs 
of health care, which now prices many people out of the market and 
contributes to the too large number of Americans who don't have health 
insurance.
  I am a relatively new member of the Senate Finance Committee, and 
under the leadership of Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, we have 
been discussing our various policy options for some time. There has 
been some discussion on the floor about the subject. Indeed, my 
colleagues from Oklahoma and North Carolina, Senator Burr and Dr. 
Coburn, have introduced a bill which they believe addresses the need 
for health care reform in a significant way.
  On Monday, I am going to return to my State of Texas and travel 
around the State to basically talk about commonsense solutions to this 
health care crisis. Last Monday, I spent some time in Houston, TX, with 
the Houston Wellness Association and others concerned about how we can 
spend more of

[[Page S5778]]

our energy and effort on keeping people healthy and preventing disease 
which will, of course, avoid unnecessary human suffering but also help 
us contain the too high price of health care.
  We know what is at stake in the health care reform debate. I believe 
my constituents in Texas--and I believe the American people, 
generally--don't want to be served up a fait accompli in Washington. 
They don't want to wake in July or August and find that Congress has 
taken a blank sheet of paper and basically deprived them of the 
opportunity to keep the health care they presently have and instead 
present them with something else which they don't want and which does 
not promise to make health care more accessible but, rather, will make 
it more expensive and less accessible. I know my constituents in Texas 
don't want elites in Washington to make decisions for them. They want 
to be informed about the debate, and they want to then discuss with me 
and their other elected representatives what they want--not what is 
dictated to them from Washington inside the beltway.
  Whether you are putting together a family budget or a business plan, 
we all see the same problem, and that is the rising cost of health 
care. We know health care costs have risen faster than inflation in 
both good times and bad times. Health care costs, we know, force many 
self-employed workers and small businesses into the ranks of the 
uninsured. We also know that health care costs in America are twice as 
much per capita than they are in most of the developed world. In fact, 
we spend roughly 17 percent of our gross domestic product on health 
care. I believe the next highest country to us is Japan, an 
industrialized country, which spends roughly 9 percent of GDP.
  But we also know there are a lot of hidden costs--there are not just 
the obvious costs--on families and businesses. These hidden costs show 
up in smaller paychecks for working men and women all across this 
country. All things being equal, one would think that rising 
productivity of the American worker would lead to higher wages, but 
instead, for many workers, more compensation takes the form of higher 
health care premiums, when they could be receiving greater compensation 
in terms of wages that they could then spend on other purposes. But 
because of rising deductibles, copays, and the rising costs, we see 
rising health care costs actually squeeze worker pay in America such 
that, in many instances, that pay is stagnant, if not declining.
  Hidden costs also show up in the $36 trillion of unfunded liabilities 
in the Medicare Program, as well as other entitlements. Our people are 
concerned about the hidden costs of all the borrowing we are doing in 
Washington and the unprecedented spending. Nearly 50 cents on every 
dollar spent in Washington is borrowed, leaving the fiscal 
responsibility for our children and grandchildren and not taking it 
upon ourselves.
  In fact, as we know, the Federal deficit in 2009 will be nearly as 
large as the entire Federal budget was in 2001. Let me say that again. 
This is staggering. The Federal deficit in 2009 will be nearly as large 
as the entire Federal budget in 2001. As the distinguished occupant of 
the chair, who is the former chief executive of his State, the 
Commonwealth of Virginia, knows, that kind of growth cannot be 
sustained indefinitely. Indeed, we are cruising for a disaster when it 
comes to unrestrained health care costs, both for individuals and for 
small businesses but also for the Government when it comes to 
entitlement spending.
  I agree with what President Obama said last week. He said our current 
deficit spending is unsustainable. I agree with that. He said we are 
mortgaging our children's future with more and more debt. I think all 
Americans agree with what President Obama said, but we have yet to see 
the hard decisions that would lead us back to a path of fiscal 
discipline. It is the contrary: more spending, more borrowing, with no 
fiscal discipline. As we look at health care reform, our people want 
solutions that will lower the costs of health care, without increasing 
the debt, without raising taxes, and without reducing quality or access 
to care.
  I have heard a lot of discussions in the context of the Finance 
Committee, talking about what options are available to the Congress in 
dealing with this health care crisis and, honestly, most of them deal 
with how we can empower the Government to make more and more decisions 
on behalf of patients. I think that is the opposite direction from 
which we ought to go to approach this problem. We ought to look at what 
puts patients back in charge; what gives individuals the power to 
consult with their own private physician and make a decision; what is 
in the best interests of themselves and their family when it comes to 
health care. Let's not put barriers in the way of that sacred 
relationship between a patient and a doctor, and for sure let's not use 
rationing--denying and delaying access to care--as government-run 
programs abroad use in order to control costs.
  Let's put patients back in charge. That ought to be our battle cry as 
we approach this current crisis.
  Patients should have more control, not less control, over their own 
health care. One way we can do that is giving them more and better 
information on cost and quality of their care. How in the world can we 
have an effective market for health care, which will provide lower 
costs, if, in fact, patients are denied access to information about 
cost and outcomes? They not only want to know how much it is going to 
cost them; they want to make sure it is a good, quality service, and we 
ought to be in the business of providing them that information. We 
ought to be insisting, as their elected representatives, that we have 
access to that information in deciding how to spend their money in 
entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Patients should 
also, I believe, have a choice of providers who compete for their 
business. We know that competition produces higher quality, better 
service, and a lower price. We can see that across the board. When the 
market helps discipline spending, it improves quality and lowers price. 
We can do that in health care by empowering individuals and giving them 
more access to information, greater transparency, quality, and price, 
making them better informed consumers.
  We also know our tax and our legal system need reform so all 
Americans are treated fairly. We have to end the cost shifting that now 
goes with too low reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid, which 
means it is harder and harder for an individual to find a doctor who 
will actually accept those submarket rates to care for them.
  I was in Dallas a couple years ago. I was in an emergency room at a 
hospital, while touring the hospital, and there was this wonderful 
woman who came into the emergency room and someone asked her what she 
wanted. She said: I need my prescriptions refilled--in the emergency 
room at a hospital in Dallas. She couldn't find a doctor who would 
accept her as a new Medicare patient, so the only place she knew where 
to go was to the emergency room to get a prescription, to refill her 
medications. That is incredibly inefficient and an incredibly costly 
way to deliver health care. We have to find a way to do it better.
  Right now we know that for private health insurance, the costs are 
shifted in order for health care providers to provide care to 
everybody. That cost shifting results in higher premiums, smaller 
paychecks, tax increases, and more public debt, and we ought to attack 
it head-on.
  We also know from experience that putting patients in charge can 
lower health care costs. At the Federal level, believe it or not, we 
actually have a Federal program that, contrary to intuition and some 
people's skepticism, actually demonstrates this.
  This is a success of Medicare Part D, the prescription drug program. 
Medicare Part D gives seniors choices among entirely private plans, 
with no government-run plan at all, no ``public option'' at all. As a 
result of the successes of Medicare Part D, seniors have seen program 
costs that are 37 percent less than anticipated, and more than 80 
percent of seniors are satisfied with the program.
  I think this example proves the point I was making earlier--that 
greater access to information about quality and cost gives people more 
choices, creates competition in a market that disciplines cost, and 
ultimately brings down those costs and increases satisfaction.

[[Page S5779]]

  At the State level, good ideas for Medicaid reform have come from 
Florida, South Carolina, Indiana, and other States. These programs have 
given some of the lowest income Americans more choices and more control 
over the dollars spent on their behalf. Again, costs are lower and 
participants are generally satisfied with these programs.
  The private sector has some very good ideas as well. Steve Burd, of 
Safeway, has talked to many of us on both sides of the aisle about 
their successful experimenting with health care costs at their company 
by providing financial incentives to quit smoking, lose weight, 
exercise, control blood pressure and cholesterol, and get the 
appropriate diagnostic tests at a reasonable price.
  There is also another successful program, and I am going to meet with 
executives and employees at Whole Foods, which is located in Austin, 
TX, where I live. Whole Foods has conducted a successful experiment 
with high-deductible insurance plans with personal wellness accounts 
that each employee controls. Whole Foods has seen fewer medical claims, 
lower prescription drug claims, and fewer hospital admissions through 
this program.
  So why in the world would we want to dictate a single-payer system 
out of Washington for 300 million people when we have seen successful 
experiments and innovation across the country that we can learn from 
and adopt to empower patients and consumers, not Washington 
bureaucrats? Some, though, in Washington have simply given up on the 
private sector when it comes to delivering health care needs. They want 
to shift more power and control to the Federal Government. I think that 
is a terrible mistake.
  We have heard ideas about how to increase spending to pay for more 
Government control, at a time when we already spend 17 percent of the 
GDP on health care--again, nearly twice as much as our next closest 
competitor in an industrialized nation, Japan--17 percent in the United 
States compared to 9 percent in Japan, and other countries are far 
lower.
  Raising taxes is simply a terrible idea, especially during a 
recession. Raising taxes would also break the President's pledge he 
made in the campaign last year when he assured Americans that no family 
making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase--not 
your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, 
not any of your taxes. But we can help the President keep his pledge--
not help him break it--by empowering patients and consumers, ordinary 
Americans, to make their decisions and not empower bigger and bigger 
government to take those decisions away from them and dictate them.
  In the Finance Committee, we have heard a number of proposals that 
may improve care but are not going to contain costs--at least according 
to the CBO. These proposals include what I would consider to be 
commonsense approaches that I think are good, such as more health care 
technology and prevention initiatives. We have even seen a number of 
interest groups, provider groups, appear with the President last week, 
pledging they would cut the growth of health care costs, over the next 
10 years, $2 trillion. That all sounds good until you start looking at 
it and realize there is actually no enforcement mechanism at all. It is 
a meaningless pledge, and there is going to continue to be upward 
pressure on health care costs across the board unless we do something 
about it.
  Only in Washington, DC, would people embrace the notion that to save 
money, you have to spend more money. It is not just counterintuitive, 
it is unproven. I don't think there is any justification for that 
suspicion. If there is, I would just love to see it. I don't think we 
ought to take as a matter of blind faith that by spending over a 
trillion dollars more of tax money on top of the 17 percent of GDP we 
are already spending now, that somehow miraculously, with the wave of a 
wand, by suspending our powers of disbelief, we are going to bend the 
curve on the growth of health care costs, which are bankrupting the 
country when it comes to Medicare and putting health insurance and 
health care out of the reach of many hard-working Americans.
  We have heard about some interesting ideas, such as comparative 
effectiveness research, which sounds good at first blush. In the 
stimulus plan, the Federal Government spent, or pledged, more than a 
million dollars on that. It sounds pretty good. Let's finds out what 
works. Well, I am concerned that the Government will use this research 
to delay treatment and deny care. The way the Government contains 
health care costs is by rationing, pure and simple. That is what 
happens in Medicare. I mentioned the woman in Dallas who couldn't find 
a doctor to accept her as a new Medicare patient. It is because the 
Government reimburses at such a low rate. So we have a promise of 
coverage, which everybody applauds, but it denies people access because 
the Government denies and delays care by using rationing as a way to 
control costs. We don't need that. Certainly, we don't need that, based 
on the ``cookbook'' medicine prescribed by Government bureaucrats, who 
will say: We will pay for this procedure but not that other procedure 
because it is not in our ``cookbook.'' Last week, Medicare refused to 
pay for less-invasive colonoscopy procedures. I don't think the 
American people are crying out for more Government control of their 
health care decisions based on cost-based decisions. That is what they 
would get if the proponents of the so-called public plan get their way.
  Again, I don't know who it is in Washington, DC--there must be a 
little group, a cabal of individuals sitting behind closed doors, that 
tries to think up innocuous names, such as ``public plan,'' for some 
really scary stuff. A ``public plan'' is simply a Washington takeover 
of health care; it is plain and simple. It is not an option. In the 
end, it will be the only place you can go under a single-payer system.
  We should take this pledge, too, Mr. President. We should guarantee 
that Americans who currently have health insurance that they like ought 
to be able to keep it--that is about 85 percent--as we look for ways to 
increase access for people who don't have health insurance. One think 
tank that looked at this so-called public plan--or Washington takeover 
of health care, which would drive all private competitors out of the 
market by undercutting them--estimated that 119 million Americans will 
lose their private health insurance if this Washington takeover, under 
the title of ``public plan,'' is embraced.
  We know the Federal Government is not a fair competitor. While it 
serves also as a regulator and a funder, the Federal Government says: 
Take it or leave it. It is price fixing. Nobody else can compete with 
the Federal Government. The public plan, so-called, would simply shift 
cost to taxpayers and subsidize inefficiency, as Medicare and Medicaid 
do today. They are broken systems that we don't need to emulate by 
making Medicare for all. Why would we emulate Medicare when it is 
broken and on an unsustainable financial path? We need new ideas and 
innovations that put the people in charge and will help bring down 
costs. Greater transparency, more choices, and market forces will 
increase satisfaction while bringing down costs.
  There is another scary concept out there that is called a ``pay or 
play'' mandate for employers. When I talk to small businesses in Texas, 
they tell me one of their most difficult decisions is how do they 
provide health care for their employees in small businesses? It is hard 
to get affordable health insurance. Some in Washington are proposing 
taking this to what I would call a ``mandate on steroids.'' Basically, 
it would say that if a small business doesn't provide health insurance 
coverage for its employees, it is going to have to pay a punitive tax. 
That is why they call it ``pay or play.'' New mandates on job creators 
would do nothing but head us in the wrong direction during a recession, 
where we are fighting the best we can in the private sector to create 
new jobs and retain the ones we have. We know the costs of this ``pay 
or play'' mandate are going to ultimately be passed down to the workers 
in the form of lower wages, just as they are today under a broken 
system.

  I have heard good ideas about health care reform. I hope we will have 
a robust debate about the options available to the American people to 
fix this broken system. I have to tell you that many proposals out 
there that seem to be gathering momentum are deeply troubling. As I 
have said, I believe the

[[Page S5780]]

best way to approach health care reform--indeed, governance generally--
is from the bottom up, not the top down.
  We need to take our time and get this right and not, in our haste, 
produce a bad bill that will even deny people the choices and coverage 
they have now. We need to listen to the people who are running small 
businesses and raising families across this country. That is what I 
plan to do in Texas next week. I hope my colleagues will take advantage 
of the next week's recess to do likewise.
  This is too important to get done wrong. Let's take our time and 
listen to the stakeholders and people who will suffer the negative 
consequences if we get it wrong, and let's work together with President 
Obama and the administration to try to get it right.
  I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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 now have 20 cosponsors of amendment 
No. 1189. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Klobuchar, Senator 
Cardin, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Brownback, Senator Roberts, Senator 
Grassley, Senator Burr, Senator Johanns, and Senator Schumer as 
cosponsors of amendment No. 1189.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I add these cosponsors because more 
and more of our Senators are learning what has happened to these 
dealerships that have been notified by Chrysler that they have 3 weeks 
to completely dissolve a business that has been part of a community for 
20 years, 30 years, up to 90 years. The oldest car dealership in Texas 
is 90 years old--a grandfather, father, and now a son running that car 
dealership. They were noticed 3 weeks from May 14 that dealership will 
be closed.
  Just to give a view of what the dealers received on May 14 and why 
these 789 who received this notice are so concerned is because the 
letter they were sent says:

       As a result of its recent bankruptcy filing, Chrysler is 
     unable to repurchase your new vehicle inventory. As a result 
     of the recent bankruptcy filing, Chrysler is unable to 
     purchase your Mopar parts inventory. And furthermore, as a 
     result of the bankruptcy filing, Chrysler is unable to 
     purchase your essential special tools.

  After 90 years of operating a Chrysler dealership, a company is now 
told they will have no ability after 3 weeks to sell a Chrysler 
automobile, nor will there be a guarantee for repurchase.
  What my amendment does, which now has 20 very bipartisan cosponsors, 
is to say: Give these dealers 3 more weeks. Give them 3 more weeks to 
have an orderly transition out of a company. There are estimated to be 
40,000 employees of these Chrysler dealerships who received 3 weeks' 
notice--40,000. We are dealing with so many issues in these auto 
manufacturer closings, the bankruptcies. We all want the auto 
manufacturers to stay in business. We do. The Government is making a 
huge investment in that hope. But the group that is getting nothing 
right now is the dealers.
  The dealers also are the group that has done nothing that caused this 
problem in the first place. They did not design the cars, they did not 
manufacture the cars, but they did buy them. There is no cost to the 
company that manufactures because these dealerships have purchased 
these cars. They have purchased the parts. They have purchased the 
special tools to do the repairs. Yet now they are being told they 
cannot sell, they cannot repair and, oh, by the way: We are not going 
to guarantee you will have your parts and inventory bought. This is 
just not right. That is why there are 20 cosponsors to this amendment, 
and it is growing by the hour.
  I submit for the Record a letter that Senator Rockefeller wrote to 
the chief executive officer, Robert Nardelli, in which he, too, is 
protesting the egregious timeframe and terms of these franchise 
terminations which he said ``seem unprecedented to me.''
  As you know, most auto dealers have a few months of inventory of new 
vehicles on their lots, though some may have up to 6-months' worth. 
This means if the dealers stopped adding cars to their inventories last 
week when GM and Chrysler announced their decisions, they would still 
be able to sell cars for 6 months before they run out.
  But Chrysler is saying they will not buy back this inventory or even 
parts and instead has arranged for the remaining dealers to buy the 
unsold cars from dealers set to lose their franchises. But there is no 
guarantee of that. Right now it is just a hope.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
           Transportation,
                                     Washington, DC, May 20, 2009.
     Robert Nardelli,
     Chief Executive Officer, Chrysler LLC, Auburn Hills, MI.
     Fritz Henderson,
     Chief Executive Officer, General Motors Corporation, Detroit, 
         MI.
       Dear Mr. Nardelli and Mr. Henderson: I am writing to 
     express my deep concern with Chrysler's and General Motors' 
     (GM) recent announcements to terminate franchise agreements 
     with 789 and roughly 1,100, respectively, automobile 
     dealerships across this country and to urge both of you to 
     reconsider these decisions. It is my belief that we must work 
     to keep as many of these businesses open as possible, and at 
     the very least assist these dealerships, the employees, and 
     their loyal customers transition as we move forward in this 
     process.
       Between Chrysler and GM, it appears that approximately 
     100,000 jobs nationally are at risk as a result of the 
     dealership closings. In West Virginia, 17 of 24 Chrysler 
     dealerships have been told their franchises will end on June 
     9, 2009, while a publicly undisclosed number of GM franchises 
     were notified that their agreements will stop in October 
     2010. This puts hundreds, if not thousands, of employees' 
     jobs at risk and will have a crippling impact on local 
     communities across the State as less tax revenue will likely 
     translate into cuts in important and much needed government 
     services, especially during these challenging economic times.
       The egregious timeframe and terms of these franchise 
     terminations seem unprecedented to me. As you both know, most 
     auto dealers have a few months of inventory of new vehicles 
     on their lots, though some may have up to six-months worth. 
     This means if the dealers stopped adding cars to their 
     inventories last week when GM and Chrysler announced their 
     decisions, they would still be able to sell cars for six 
     months before they run out. From what I have been told, 
     Chrysler will not buy back this inventory of vehicles or even 
     parts and instead has arranged for the remaining dealers to 
     buy the unsold cars from dealers set to lose their 
     franchises. So come June 10th, terminated dealers will only 
     be able to sell that inventory to remaining dealers, likely 
     at substantial losses since they may well have backlogs of 
     inventory themselves. While GM has at this point agreed to 
     allow its terminated dealers to continue to sell vehicles 
     until October 2010, I am concerned that this deadline will be 
     moved up if GM enters bankruptcy as many expect.
       Such franchises face a similar situation when it comes to 
     large inventories of parts and manufacturer-related tools. 
     From discussions with these dealership owners, it appears 
     that some of this inventory may have been accepted as a 
     result of manufacturer pressure to purchase additional, 
     unneeded stock, possibly in order to help the companies avoid 
     bankruptcy. Now these dealerships will likely have no other 
     alternative but to sell their stock of parts and tools to 
     surviving dealers for pennies on what they paid.
       I am also worried about the negative impacts of your 
     companies' decisions on consumers who have warranties and 
     service contracts, especially in rural areas like West 
     Virginia. Many families have consistently bought cars from 
     the same dealership in their local community and have built 
     long-term relationships with the dealership's owner. Now 
     these West Virginians will be forced to travel unreasonable 
     distances due to the local dealership having their franchise 
     agreement terminated. In some cases, customers will be in the 
     untenable position of having to drive over an hour to simply 
     have their cars serviced and their warranties honored.
       While I understand that as part of GM's and Chrysler's 
     restructurings you may need to examine your dealership 
     contracts, I urge you to reconsider your decisions to 
     terminate these franchise agreements. As two companies that 
     have received billions of dollars in Troubled Assets Relief 
     Program (TARP) funding, I would hope at the very least that 
     Chrysler will establish a more reasonable transition period 
     that will allow its terminated franchises to stay open beyond 
     June 9th. I would also hope that regardless of whether it 
     enters bankruptcy, GM will honor its commitment to allow 
     terminated dealers to remain open until October 2010.

[[Page S5781]]

     Both of these actions would permit dealerships to sell most 
     of the inventory of their vehicles, parts, and tools; 
     maintain their used vehicle businesses and service and repair 
     centers; allow consumers to continue to have access to 
     quality service and the honoring of warranties and service 
     contracts; and keep job losses to an absolute minimum.
       Thank you for your urgent attention to these important 
     matters. I look forward to receiving prompt responses from 
     you both.
           Sincerely,
                                           John D. Rockefeller IV.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Senator Rockefeller is concerned, as many of us are, 
that the dealers are the roadkill in this, and they are also the people 
who have run successful businesses. They have sold the cars. They have 
employees. They have investments in the community. In many instances, 
these are the largest employers in the community. They support the high 
school football program. They support the community charitable events. 
We are not only knocking out 40,000 employees, we are not only knocking 
out the people who have given their faith and loyalty to this brand, 
but we are knocking out a huge chunk of community activism and 
volunteer service to the many communities affected by these closings.
  I talked with the president of Chrysler this morning, and I believe 
he sincerely is trying to save the company, and we want him to do that. 
But it has been half a day, and I have not seen a progress report that 
we will be able to come back to the floor and say these dealers are 
going to get some help from Chrysler.
  The President says he wants to help. But I think it is time now that 
we get some sense of what help is. If it is purchasing the inventory, 
getting the financing for the new and ongoing dealerships that will 
stay in business, we need to know that. These dealers need to know it 
so they can plan. My goodness, it is now probably 2 weeks or so, until 
June 9, and these people are having to plan for the orderly transition 
of their companies, hopefully not into bankruptcy, but many of them are 
going into bankruptcy.
  I have been told some of these are Chrysler dealers, but they have 
other dealerships as well. The Chrysler dealership could bring down the 
ongoing one. I think it is time for the Government that is trying to 
help the manufacturers to say we need to help the dealers too. We do 
not need to have a bailout for the dealers, but we do need to give them 
time to have their orderly transition or give them credit possibilities 
with the dealerships that are going to stay in business and have them 
take the inventory. That would be the logical thing to do. But we need 
a commitment.
  The 20 cosponsors of this amendment, when they hear from their 
dealers and they hear what is happening, want answers and they want 
answers before this bill leaves the floor. I hope I can give a better 
result than I have gotten so far today from the White House and from 
Chrysler that something is coming together. I think everyone has the 
right goal. We need to work together to achieve that goal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Honoring Our Military

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I think a lot of folks are looking 
toward the weekend. It is a holiday weekend. I know I am reflecting on 
that holiday weekend. I hope others are as well because on this 
Memorial Day, families in communities throughout Arkansas, our great 
State, and across our great Nation will gather to recognize the service 
of our men and women in uniform and to honor those who have paid the 
ultimate sacrifice in the name of freedom.
  My father and both of my grandfathers were infantrymen who proudly 
and honorably served our Nation. They taught me from a very early age 
about the sacrifices of our troops, their experiences, the sacrifices 
of our troops and their families and what they have done to keep our 
Nation free.
  Throughout my Senate career, I have consistently fought for 
initiatives that provide our military servicemembers, our veterans, and 
their families the benefits they have earned and deserve. That is why 
in advance of Memorial Day, which is right before us, I have authored a 
series of bills to honor our troops and their families.
  My first legislative proposal calls for educational benefits that 
better reflect the service and commitment of our guardsmen and 
reservists. This legislation is endorsed by the Military Coalition, a 
group of about 34 military veterans and uniformed service 
organizations, with over 5.5 million members. I am pleased that my 
friend and colleague, Senator Crapo of Idaho, with whom I routinely 
join in a bipartisan way on a whole host of issues--we came to the 
House together, and we came to the Senate together. He is a good friend 
and good working partner on behalf of substantive issues. He has joined 
me in cosponsoring this bill.
  Unfortunately, educational benefits for the members of our Selected 
Reserve have simply not kept pace with their increased service or the 
rising cost of higher education. These men and women serve a critical 
role on our behalf, and we must make an appropriate investment in them.
  In Arkansas and across the country, Americans are well aware of the 
reality that our military simply could not function without the 
thousands of men and women at armories and bases in our communities who 
continually train and prepare for future mobilizations and who work to 
ensure other members of their units are qualified and ready to deploy 
when called upon.
  My legislation would tie educational benefit rates for guardsmen and 
reservists to the national average cost of tuition standard that is 
already applied to Active-Duty educational benefit rates. This builds 
upon my total force GI bill, first introduced in 2006, which was 
designed to better reflect a comprehensive total force concept that 
ensures members of the Selected Reserve receive the educational 
benefits that are more commensurate with their increased service.
  The final provisions of this legislation became law last year with 
the signing of the 21st-century GI bill. In addition, the National 
Guard and Reserve have been and will continue to be an operational 
force serving overseas, and as such they require greater access to 
health care so that members can achieve a readiness standard demanded 
by current deployment cycles.
  Far too many men and women are declared nondeployable because they 
have not received the medical and dental care they need to maintain 
their readiness before they are called up. This can cause disruption in 
their unit by requiring last-minute replacements from other units or 
requiring treatment during periods that are set aside for much needed 
training and experience they need to gain before they are deployed.
  Compounding the challenge is the fact that short-notice deployments 
occur regularly within the National Guard. The Department of Defense 
can and should do more to bring our Selected Reserve members into a 
constant state of medical readiness for the benefit of the entire 
force.
  My bill, the Selected Reserve Continuum of Care Act, would better 
ensure that health assessments for guardsmen and reservists are 
followed by Government treatment to correct any medical or dental 
readiness deficiencies discovered at their health screenings.
  This legislation is endorsed by the National Guard Association of the 
United States, the Association of the United States Army, the 
Association of the United States Navy, the Enlisted Association of the 
National Guard of the United States, the Reserve Officers Association, 
the Retired Enlisted Association, the U.S. Army Warrant Officers 
Association, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.
  I also thank Senators Landrieu and Burris for their support in 
cosponsoring this bill as well.
  Lastly, a bill I have introduced today, the Veterans Survivors 
Fairness Act, would enhance dependency and indemnity compensation 
benefits of survivors of severely disabled veterans and increase access 
to benefits for more families. In doing so, it would address inequities 
in the VA's DIC program by doing three things. First, it would increase 
the basic DIC rate so it is equivalent to the rate paid to survivors of 
Federal civilian employees. It also would provide a graduated scale of 
benefits so many survivors are no longer

[[Page S5782]]

denied benefits because of an arbitrary eligibility restriction. 
Lastly, it would allow surviving spouses who remarry after the age of 
55 to retain their DIC benefits.

  This legislation, cosponsored by my good friend, Senator Herb Kohl of 
Wisconsin, is endorsed by the Disabled American Veterans, the 
Association of the United States Navy, the Military Officers 
Association of America, the National Guard Association of the United 
States, the National Military Family Association, and the Reserve 
Officers Association. It is not coincidental that these two measures 
are supported so heavily by our military associations. It is because 
they are much needed and it is because they are so deserved. Beyond 
these three bills, veterans health care continues to be on the top of 
my priority list. I have worked with my colleagues to make substantial 
investments to increase patient travel reimbursement, improve services 
for mental health care, and reduce the backlog of benefit claims.
  Access to the Veterans' Administration health system is absolutely 
critical, but too often it is quite challenging, particularly for our 
veterans who live in the rural areas of our Nation. For these veterans, 
among the other initiatives I have championed, I have championed 
legislation with my friend and colleague, Senator Jon Tester of 
Montana, that will increase the mileage reimbursement rate for veterans 
when they go to see a doctor at a VA medical facility and will 
authorize transportation grants for Veterans Service Organizations to 
provide better transportation service in rural areas.
  I have been to areas in southern Arkansas, very far from Little 
Rock--3, 3\1/2\ hours' travel--visiting with veterans down there who 
are in dire need of access to that VA medical care. Yet their ability 
to get there was hampered by the fact that they were only reimbursed 
one way; not to mention the fact that their reimbursement was so low--
so far below what a Federal employee gets reimbursed--it was 
uneconomical and almost prohibitive in getting them there.
  As Memorial Day approaches, I hope all my colleagues will remember, 
and I would like to encourage them and all Arkansans, to take the time 
to honor our servicemembers, veterans, and their families. Never miss 
an opportunity to thank someone in uniform. Our troops are worthy of 
our appreciation, and we should come together as a nation to show them 
with our words and our deeds that we stand with them as they serve our 
interests at home and abroad. As we all gather in preparation of a 
recess break, I hope we will all remember the reason we have this 
break, the reason we celebrate this holiday.
  Those of us who have military in our family, those of us who do not, 
it doesn't matter, we all enjoy the freedoms of this great country, and 
it is critically important that we show that not only on Memorial Day 
but each day of the year. The opportunity we have as legislators to 
honor our men and women in uniform, to support them with legislation 
that is meaningful to their lives, to their service, and to their 
families is absolutely essential. I encourage all my colleagues to look 
at the legislation I have offered, along with several of our 
colleagues, and encourage them to join me as we begin this Memorial Day 
break coming up next week and to remember why we celebrate, why we 
celebrate this Nation and these freedoms. It is because of the men and 
women in uniform who have served so bravely, and for those who have 
made the ultimate sacrifice, that we enjoy this great land and these 
freedoms and rights that we do enjoy in this great country.
  Before concluding, I would like to add a couple other notes. I 
couldn't help but hear the comments of my colleague from Texas, and I 
wish to join her in her frustration for so many of our small and 
family-owned businesses across our State--our automobile dealers--that, 
for generations and generations, have passed down in their families a 
small business that they have worked very hard to keep afloat, to keep 
busy, to keep healthy, and to keep alive for future generations. My 
hope is that we will have the assistance and the working relationship 
with both the Treasury and the Chrysler Corporation and GM and others 
to better understand how we make that transition as reliable and 
certainly as palatable to those individuals and their families and 
small businesses as we possibly can. I look forward to working with the 
Senator from Texas and with other Senators as well as we move forward 
in that effort.
  Last, but not least, I would like to also mention and extend my 
congratulations to our newest ``American Idol,'' Arkansas' own Kris 
Allen, who represented our State so well over the past few months in 
the ``American Idol'' television show, which has been so popular among 
so many people in this country.
  Kris is a talented young man with a bright future ahead of him, and I 
look forward to watching him build a very successful career. I join all 
Arkansans when I say how proud we are of Kris, not only as a talented 
performer but as a humble young man who embodies our Arkansas values of 
hard work, integrity, and conviction. We wish him all the best as we 
begins this new phase of his life and career.
  I yield the floor, and 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. DeMINT. 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. 1138

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, do we need to set aside a pending 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator is 
recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. It is my understanding, Mr. President, that I have 20 
minutes to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DeMINT. I would like to say a few words now and then reserve the 
remaining time.
  Mr. President, I am going to speak on my amendment to S. 1054, and it 
addresses a large amount of money that has been added to the war 
supplemental bill. In these times, it is, first of all, somewhat 
surprising that we would take $108 billion and add it, unrelated to war 
supplemental, to this spending bill. My amendment would strike $108 
billion from the current spending bill, and I would like to take a few 
minutes to explain exactly what my amendment does and what we are 
striking.
  The Chair and all my colleagues know these are very challenging 
times. We often refer to it as one of the worst economic crises we have 
had. I think we and many Americans are concerned about how much we are 
spending, how much we are borrowing, and what that might mean in the 
not-too-distant future as it relates to inflation and interest rates 
and higher taxes. I am hearing very often when I go back home: Enough 
is enough.
  We have to remember, as we look at this amount of money that has been 
requested, what happened to what we called the TARP funds. The last 
administration asked us to come up with $700 billion to be used for a 
financial bailout because we were in a crisis, and the money was going 
to be used--and this was very clear--to buy toxic assets, nonperforming 
loans, here and around the world. It had to be done immediately or the 
world financial system would collapse. Under that duress, Congress 
approved $700 billion--really, a trillion with interest, over time--but 
none of the money was ever used as it was supposed to be used. We never 
bought any toxic assets. In fact, the money was used in different ways: 
to inject money into banks--even some banks that didn't want it; it has 
been used to make loans to General Motors and to Chrysler; and now we 
are talking about converting those loans to common shares so that the 
Government is owner of General Motors and Chrysler, as well as the AIG 
insurance company and possibly part owners of many banks.
  But the interesting part of this that relates to my amendment is that 
this week I asked Secretary Geithner: What is going to happen when this 
money is repaid? Well, if it is repaid, he said, it will go into the 
general fund, but the Treasury will maintain an authorization to take 
up to $700 billion from the

[[Page S5783]]

general fund anytime from now on. It becomes a permanent slush fund for 
Treasury. So what we have done is made the Treasury Department 
appropriators. Anytime they want, they can appropriate up to $700 
billion.
  That is, in effect, what we are doing with the International Monetary 
Fund. Let me explain to my colleagues a lot of things I didn't know 
until I looked into this. The International Monetary Fund was set up to 
make loans to nations; to help nations that might need money to get 
through a financial crisis. Many nations are involved, but we give them 
$10 billion as a kind of deposit to the fund. Currently, the IMF has 
the authority to use that money continuously. But we also give them the 
right to draw another $55 billion from our Treasury at any time. In 
effect, the International Monetary Fund can appropriate $55 billion 
from the U.S. Treasury anytime it wants. They now have over $60 billion 
of our money that they can use all over the world.
  We can debate whether that is a good thing, but what the President 
has asked for, and this bill provides, is an additional $100 billion 
credit line, in effect, to the International Monetary Fund, and it ups 
our deposit another $8 billion. We are going to take another $8 billion 
and put it in the International Monetary Fund to be used. But then we 
make appropriators out of the International Monetary Fund. We give them 
a permanent credit line of an additional $100 billion that they can 
appropriate anytime they want around the world.
  There are a lot of good things we would like to do as a country, as a 
Congress. We would love to improve our education system. There are a 
lot of challenges in health care. We have talked about our roads and 
bridges decaying. There are so many good things we would like to do 
that we don't have the money for. How can we possibly tell an 
International Monetary Fund that they can take $100 billion anytime 
they want from the U.S. Treasury if there is an emergency somewhere in 
the world?
  There will be emergencies in these times. The interesting issue we 
are not thinking about is we are going to have more and more crises 
here at home. We know California is heavily in debt--over $20 billion. 
They are talking about a financial collapse, as is New York and other 
States. But the size of California's debt is only one-fifth of what we 
are giving the International Monetary Fund.
  I don't think we have added up all of this. I am very concerned we 
are not considering how much money we are talking about. Let's put $108 
billion in context. I know some will come and say we are not spending 
that amount of money, we are just authorizing it, which means it can be 
appropriated anytime, but we are not spending it. In fact, they took 
the effort to get CBO to change the way it normally scores so this is 
not spending. They are saying the risk is only like $5 billion. But the 
International Monetary Fund can take $100 billion out of our Treasury 
anytime it wants.
  With the world situation the way it is, I think we are being very 
naive to think it will not come out. We were told most of the TARP 
funds would not be used. We used most of the TARP funds.
  But let's think about this $100 billion. That is more than we spend 
as a Federal government on transportation all year. The 2010 budget for 
transportation is $5 billion. It is more than we spend on education for 
a whole year--$94 billion in our country. It is more than we spend on 
veterans' benefits. It is a lot of money. But very often we are talking 
about our own services to our own people in this country for which we 
do not have enough money. We need to remember the International 
Monetary Fund, while it may serve in theory a good purpose, people on 
the board who decide how this money is used include countries that we 
say are terrorists, such as Iran. Do we think Iran is going to help the 
United States when we are in trouble?
  Let's look at our current situation. Our current national debt as a 
country is $11.2 trillion--more than any other country in the world. We 
are the most indebted country in the whole world. Our per capita debt 
is $37,000. Every man, woman and child in this country owes $37,000, 
based on what we have already borrowed. But if you include Social 
Security and Medicare liabilities, our current expenditures will exceed 
tax revenues by $40 trillion over the next 75 years. Our debt is now 80 
percent of our gross domestic product--80 percent of our total economy, 
which is the highest level since 1951.
  The President's budget estimates that total debt relative to our 
total economy will rise 97 percent by 2010 and 100 percent thereafter. 
We are going to have debt that is larger than our total economy in the 
next year or two.
  We currently owe $740 billion to the People's Republic of China and 
we owe $635 billion to Japan and $186 billion to the oil exporters. 
Keep in mind, if the IMF does access this $108 billion, we will have to 
borrow it in order for them to get it, and we will have to pay interest 
on that money. We will be told we will earn interest on any money that 
is borrowed, but we will likely pay even a higher interest rate in 
order to make that money available. When we do, we increase our debt 
even further.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DeMINT. Yes.
  Mr. KERRY. I appreciate that. Let me ask the Senator, I think the 
Senator said this is a permanent fund, that we would be permanently 
reduced from this amount of money. Is the Senator aware this expires 
and is renewable every 5 years? That there is no permanency at all?
  Mr. DeMINT. Does the Senator have that? I have the bill with me. It 
would be a great help to point this out. Of course, 5 years, the 
drawing of $100 billion anytime in the next 5 years is something we 
should not even consider.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield further?
  Mr. DeMINT. Yes.
  Mr. KERRY. Is the Senator also aware it is not $100 billion, that CBO 
scored it at $5 billion and, in fact, the experience of our country is 
we earn interest, we make money, and this is a winning proposition for 
the country?
  Mr. DeMINT. That is a little smoke and mirrors. If the Senator will 
allow me to read from page 104 of the bill, on line 4 it says:

       Any payments made to the United States by the International 
     Monetary Fund as a repayment on account of the principal of a 
     loan made under this section shall continue to be available 
     for loans to the International Monetary Fund.

  You may have a date somewhere on this, but that is pretty clear, that 
it will continue to be a draw.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if I could proceed further? In point of 
fact, it is limited, and it has to be repaid at the end of 5 years if 
it is not renewed.
  Mr. DeMINT. Do you have the cite?
  Mr. KERRY. I will further get that for the Senator.
  Mr. DeMINT. I will answer the Senator on how much this costs. I think 
the Senator is aware, as I said, our normal way of measuring costs was 
changed for this bill. We are saying that, OK, if the International 
Monetary Fund accesses this money, it is just a loan so it is not a 
cost. But we have no guarantees it will get back. We say the 
International Monetary Fund has never lost money, but we have never 
been in these economic times before. We have never been in as much debt 
as a country. Can we afford, even if it is for the next 5 years, to 
have an international group that can draw $100 billion from our 
Treasury at any point they want? Do we want to be in that position? We 
have already given the Treasury Department a lot of credit to the 
general fund for $700 billion--which the Secretary has basically said 
is going to continue--and now we are going to give another line of 
credit to an international group in case there is a crisis around the 
world when we are facing crises here at home?
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator further yield? I appreciate it.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, we need to equally apply the time now 
against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from 
South Carolina has the floor.
  Mr. DeMINT. I will yield the time in a minute and reserve the 
remainder of my time. I appreciate the comment of the Senator. I think 
we should have open debate about this. I would like to talk a little 
bit more about this idea that a line of credit is not spending. We use 
that a lot around here. We say we have authorized it but have not 
appropriated it yet. But what the language

[[Page S5784]]

of this bill does is it not only authorizes $108 billion of new money 
for the International Monetary Fund, it gives them the power to 
appropriate it at any time. We may not call that spending around here, 
but that is just political talk. If that money is taken from our 
Treasury, we have to borrow money to give it to them, and they may or 
may not pay it back. We may say the International Monetary Fund has 
been stable for years, but part of the bill that is going through here 
today--the other side will say we have collateral, they have gold--but 
part of the bill here, and what my amendment strikes is, giving the 
International Monetary Fund the ability to sell over $12 billion worth 
of their gold, which is collateral supposedly for our money, in order 
to create more cash for them to lend around the world.
  I am not saying the International Monetary Fund does not have a 
function. But we have already put at risk over $60 billion at a time 
when our country is struggling, at a time when it looks like we are 
going to triple the national debt over the next years, at a time when 
many of our States are near bankruptcy, and at a time when we do not 
have the money to fund the priorities such as health care and 
transportation, energy research, health research that we are always 
talking about. We need more money to do those things that are essential 
here in America. How can we possibly, on a war supplemental bill, add 
$108 billion that is unrelated, basically extort the votes out of the 
Members by forcing us to either vote against our troops or vote against 
this reckless risk we are talking about taking?
  It makes absolutely no sense in this crisis that we have talked about 
in this country to put ourselves at risk for another $108 billion, when 
we don't even know how we are going to pay the interest on the money we 
have already borrowed.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question on equal time?
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I yield and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will speak off the leader's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I heard the Senator suggest that this is a 
reckless effort to put American money at risk somewhere else. I would 
like to share with colleagues a letter written to the Speaker of the 
House and to the majority leader, saying:

       We are writing to express support for the Administration's 
     request for prompt enactment of additional funding for the 
     International Monetary Fund.

  This very fund. Let me tell you who the signatories are: former 
Secretary of State, Republican, Jim Baker; former Secretary of the 
Treasury, Republican, Nicholas Brady; former Secretary of Defense Frank 
Carlucci; former Republican Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson; 
former Secretary of State Colin Powell; former chair of the Foreign 
Relations Committee in the House and now at the Woodrow Wilson 
Institute, Lee Hamilton; former Secretary of State, Republican, Henry 
Kissinger; former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane; former 
Treasury Secretary, Republican, Paul O'Neill; General Brent Scowcroft, 
security adviser to two Presidents. I mean, are these people reckless? 
Are they suggesting we do that because this is a reckless expenditure? 
Let's not be ridiculous.
  The fact is, the Chamber of Commerce--I have a letter here and will I 
ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.

       To the Members of the United States Senate.
       The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business 
     federation representing more than 3 million businesses and 
     organizations of every size, sector and region, supports 
     legislation to strengthen the International Monetary Fund 
     included in . . . the supplemental appropriations bill 
     currently being considered by the full Senate. . . .
       The worldwide economy is experiencing its worst downturn in 
     more than half a century. While American workers and 
     companies have been hit hard, the U.S. economic recovery may 
     be undermined by even more severe difficulties in some 
     emerging markets. It is squarely in the U.S. national 
     interest to support efforts to help these countries as they 
     confront the financial crisis.

  They go on to say:

       These U.S. commitments could leverage as much as $400 
     billion from other countries and thus ensure the IMF has 
     adequate resources to mitigate ongoing financial crisis.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               Chamber of Commerce


                              of the United States of America,

                                     Washington, DC, May 20, 2009.
       To the Members of the United States Senate: The U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation 
     representing more than three million businesses and 
     organizations of every size, sector, and region, supports 
     legislation to strengthen the International Monetary Fund 
     (IMF) included in H.R. 2346, the FY 2009 supplemental 
     appropriations bill currently being considered by the full 
     Senate, and urges Congress to reject amendments that would 
     strike the provisions from the bill.
       The worldwide economy is experiencing its worst downturn in 
     more than half a century. While American workers and 
     companies have been hit hard, the U.S. economic recovery may 
     be undermined by even more severe difficulties in some 
     emerging markets. It is squarely in the U.S. national 
     interest to support efforts to help these countries as they 
     confront the financial crisis.
       With leadership from the United States, the G20 committed 
     to increase the IMF New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB) by up to 
     $500 billion. The Administration is seeking Congressional 
     approval to (1) increase U.S. participation in the NAB by up 
     to $100 billion and (2) raise the U.S. quota in the IMF by $8 
     billion.
       These U.S. commitments could leverage as much as $400 
     billion from other countries and thus ensure the IMF has 
     adequate resources to mitigate ongoing international 
     financial crises. Pre-crisis IMF lending resources ($250 
     billion, more than half of which has been committed) are 
     clearly insufficient. Without adequate IMF support, currency 
     crises in especially troubled economies could trigger broader 
     economic and financial problems. Not only is the IMF the 
     appropriate multilateral institution to take preventive 
     action against such crises, its labors help the U.S. and 
     other national governments avoid costlier, ad hoc responses 
     after crises have escalated.
       In addition, these measures will signal to the world that 
     the United States is prepared to lead efforts to help 
     emerging market economies overcome the financial crisis. 
     Without adequate IMF support, financial crises in foreign 
     markets may negatively impact U.S. jobs and exports and 
     undermine the U.S. economic recovery. The Chamber encourages 
     you to support the provisions relating to the IMF included in 
     H.R. 2346, the FY 2009 supplemental appropriations bill.
           Sincerely,

                                              R. Bruce Josten,

                                         Executive Vice President,
                                               Government Affairs.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the fact is, this is a loan over which the 
United States keeps control. We are part of the decision-making of any 
lending that might take place under this. It is renewable under the New 
Arrangements for Borrowing Agreement, renewable every 5 years. If we do 
not renew it, it comes back. Moreover, it is only used in emergency if 
the other funds of the IMF run down.
  This is for American workers. We have a lot of people in America 
whose jobs depend on their ability to export goods. The fact is, if 
those emerging markets start to fade, not only do we lose the economic 
upside of those markets but we also run the risk that governments fail. 
We have already had four governments that failed because of the 
economic crisis. The fact is, if they continue to in other places that 
are more fragile, then you wind up picking up the costs in the long run 
in potential military conflict, failed states, increased capacity for 
people to appeal to terrorism and the volatility of the politics of 
those regions. This is not something we are doing without American 
interests being squarely on the table--economic interests and national 
security interests.
  I repeat, it has broad-based bipartisan support. I hope colleagues 
will take due note of that.
  With respect to the economics of this, let me share one other quote, 
which is a pretty important one. Dennis Blair, Admiral Blair, the 
Director of National Intelligence, was recently quoted as saying, about 
the first crisis the United States faces today, the most significant 
crisis we face today, ``the primary, near-term security concern of the 
United States is the global economic crisis and its geopolitical 
implications.''
  This is not just an economic vote, this is a national security vote. 
When you have a group from Jim Baker to General Scowcroft, to Henry 
Kissinger, and others all suggesting this is in our

[[Page S5785]]

long-term and important interest, I think we ought to listen pretty 
carefully.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have listened to some of the comments by 
the junior Senator from South Carolina about the President's request to 
participate in the expansion of the new arrangements to borrow and 
increase the U.S. quota at the International Monetary Fund.
  This authority, incidentally, is requested in order to implement 
decisions that were made by President Bush.
  It is easy to confuse people about this issue, as the Wall Street 
Journal editorial page confused itself and probably most of its readers 
earlier this week.
  If you are opposed to giving the Treasury Department this authority, 
the best way to scare people into voting against it is to say that it 
is a giveaway of $100 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds to foreign 
countries. That would scare anyone. If it were true I would vote 
against it myself.
  But it is not true. Our contribution is backed up by huge IMF gold 
reserves, so the cost to the taxpayers is $5 billion over 5 years, not 
$100 billion. OMB and CBO agree on that, and so does the Senate Budget 
Committee. And besides being false, it detracts from the legitimate 
question of why should we do this?
  The simple answer is because our economy, and millions of American 
jobs, depends on it.
  Between 2003 and 2008, U.S. exports grew by 8 percent per year in 
real terms. A key reason for that was the rapid growth of foreign 
markets. Our exports show a 95-percent correlation to foreign country 
growth rates since 2000.
  During that period, the role of exports in driving growth in the U.S. 
economy steadily increased. The share of all U.S. growth attributable 
to exports rose from 25 percent in 2003 to almost 70 percent in 2008.
  Because of the global financial crisis our exports peaked in July of 
last year and have been falling since then. 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 recession in the United 
States.
  With an export share in GDP of 12 percent, a 23-percent decline, if 
sustained over the course of a year, would make a negative contribution 
to GDP of almost 3 percent.
  The stimulus plan we passed is boosting domestic demand. But the 
benefits of the stimulus are at risk of being wiped out by the decline 
in exports.
  We need to help foreign countries lift themselves out of recession. 
It will benefit them, but it will also restore our exports as their 
economies recover and they begin to buy more of our goods and services.
  Some foreign countries can take care of themselves with stimulus of 
their own, and by cleaning up their own banking sectors.
  But many others, especially emerging market economies, have been hard 
hit. Some countries have been cut off abruptly from capital markets and 
shut out of credit markets by the banking problems originating in the 
United States and Europe.
  Those countries need to fix their own problems and get temporary 
finance to avoid a prolonged period of economic decline.
  Providing temporary finance and policy fixes is the job of the IMF.
  But as the world economy grew in the last decade, the financial 
resources available to the IMF did not keep up. It has been caught 
short by the suddenness, severity, and scope of this global crisis.
  The request for a quota increase, and the authority to participate in 
the new arrangements to borrow, will replenish the IMF's resources so 
it can fight this crisis.
  With this money, the IMF will be able to help many foreign economies 
revive. With this money, the IMF will be ready in case the crisis 
deepens and takes more victims.
  As foreign economies recover, so will ours. We will be spared an even 
worse decline in our exports, with greater job loss. As our exports 
resume, people in export industries in every State will be able to go 
back to work.
  This may seem like an arcane issue, but it is of vital importance to 
the jobs of millions of Americans across this country. I, Senator 
Kerry, Senator Dodd, Senator Shelby, Senator Lugar, and others have 
agreed on substitute language which provides for prior consultation and 
reports to Congress, as well as greater transparency and accountability 
at the IMF. It also provides guidelines for the use of the proceeds of 
sales of IMF gold.
  The real choice here is not whether or not we should provide Treasury 
with the authority that both former President Bush and President Obama 
have called for.
  Rather, it is how we should do it. After we vote on the DeMint 
amendment, and assuming it is defeated, I will seek consent for the 
adoption of substitute language that is supported by the chairman and 
ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee and the chairman and 
ranking member of the Banking Committee.
  It also has the support of the chairman and ranking member of the 
State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  The true cost of the authority requested by the President is not the 
$100 billion the Senator from South Carolina wants you to believe. That 
is a scare tactic. It is $5 billion over 5 years, and that is a drop in 
the ocean compared to cost to our economy, and to American jobs, by not 
acting.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I 
ask unanimous consent that the time be charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KERRY. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has 4 minutes, 
the Senator from Massachusetts has 4 minutes, the Senator from New 
Hampshire has 10 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this is one of those issues which looks 
easy on its face because it is politically simple to synthesize and 
state, but it is not easy; it is a complex issue.
  Obviously, anything that has an initial around here in a foreign 
organization can be easily attacked. The idea of American dollars going 
to support organizations which have initials, and they are foreign 
organizations, often gets attacked. But in this instance our national 
interest is of our concern, our primary concern, and is benefitted by 
the decision made to carry out our responsibilities relative to the 
IMF.
  How does this work? The International Monetary Fund is essentially an 
organization set up by the United States during the Bretton Woods 
Conference in the post-World War II period, the purpose of which was, 
and is, to have a backstop for countries that get into very deep fiscal 
problems and to have a place where the rest of the world can go 
together in the industrialized world and basically meet and support 
individual countries which have problems. It is actually an opportunity 
for us as a nation to share the burden which, in the post-World War II 
period, has fallen primarily to us, to try to stabilize the world 
economy.
  That obviously benefits us a lot. We are the biggest trader in the 
world. We export massive amounts of goods. Dramatic proportions of 
American jobs are tied to our capacity to export, and having a stable 
world economy is critical to our capacity to keep our economy going. 
That is why we set this up. It was pure, simple self-interest, to set 
up an international organization to help us stabilize other Nations 
that run into trouble.
  We are now in the midst of, obviously, a worldwide recession that is 
deep, it is severe, and we felt the brunt of it in the United States, 
and other nations across the world are feeling it also. Some are in 
much more dire shape than we are.
  The issue is, how can we try to avoid an international meltdown, 
countries failing and bringing down other countries with them, and how 
can we benefit ourselves by maintaining stable economies around the 
world?
  Well, one way to do that is to have an international organization 
such as the IMF which steps up and essentially tries to catch the 
dominoes before they fall.
  There are countries in this world that are going through deep 
economic

[[Page S5786]]

problems, even more severe than ours, which is hard to believe because 
ours is so severe. If those countries fail to be able to maintain their 
debt, their sovereign debt, and the leveraged debt of their banking 
systems, and if they fail as nations, then other nations that have lent 
to those nations will follow them into failure.
  A lot of these nations are in Eastern Europe, a few of them are in 
the Western Hemisphere. We have already seen two instances of this in 
Iceland and Ireland, and we know the situation is tentative.
  In fact, just today it was reported that even the British debt, the 
United Kingdom debt, may be downgraded. So the IMF is sort of our 
primary backstop in the international community to try to avoid that 
type of event occurring, where one Nation fails on its sovereign debt, 
or its major banking debt, and it brings down a series of other nations 
that have lent to it.
  The IMF has said, and it was agreed to by all of the countries 
participating in the IMF, that it needed more resources to be able to 
be sure--although nobody can ever be sure in this economy--in order to 
be reasonably sure that if a fairly significant nation has very serious 
problems, it can step in and try to help stabilize that country's 
situation, so that country does not take a lot of other countries with 
it as it defaults on its debt. This agreement was reached in concert, 
not by us alone but by a whole group of nations. So rather than the 
United States, for example, having to step in and unilaterally take 
action in, say, one of our neighboring countries, as we did in the late 
1990s, this allows us as a nation to join with other nations and pool, 
basically pool a large amount of resources, to have them available 
here, for the opportunity to avoid such a meltdown.
  We put in about 20 percent, other nations--Japan, Germany, England, 
other industrialized countries--put in the balance. The IMF is calling 
for $500 billion essentially. Actually, it works out to $750 billion 
when you put in the special drawing rights, $750 billion of capacity to 
be able to have that type of resources available to stabilize various 
nations around this world should they get into serious, severe trouble.
  You can follow the proposal of this amendment as essentially saying, 
the United States does not want to be part of this effort. We are going 
to back out of this responsibility or this--you do not even have to 
claim it as a responsibility, this action, because we basically are 
going to retrench from here within the United States and not 
participate in this sort of international effort to try to stabilize 
other economies because we need our money. We need it here, now, and we 
cannot afford to do that.
  That, in my opinion, is extraordinarily shortsighted. That is like 
cutting off your nose to spite your face because let's face it, if an 
East European economy goes down and it takes with it two or three other 
East European countries, and that leads to even some major Western 
European economies going down, who is the loser? Well, those economies 
obviously. But I can tell you a lot of American jobs are going to be 
the losers.
  That type of economic disruption, that type of economic Armageddon as 
it was described by one of my colleagues who actually supports the 
DeMint amendment, would come back to affect us dramatically.
  So what is the price of avoiding that, or hopefully avoiding it? What 
is the price of at least having in place an insurance policy to try to 
avoid that? Well, the price is, for us to put up no money, we are not 
putting up any money. We are putting up what amounts to a letter of 
credit to the IMF that says: All right, you now have a letter of credit 
from the United States for $100 billion. You have a letter of credit 
from a variety of other nations around the world for another $400 
billion. You have $500 billion of letters of credit, so if you have to 
go into a nation, because their banking system is on the verge of 
failure, and because they do not have the ability to monetize their 
debt the way we do--in other words, they do not have a central bank 
that can print money because they do not have a world currency--you are 
going to have this type of support to try to stabilize that country so 
it does not become a domino affect on all of those other nations that 
may have lent to it, including us.
  That is an insurance policy. Does it mean even if the IMF had to take 
that step and go into that country and invest that we would lose those 
dollars? No, we would not. In fact, we will not lose those dollars. We 
have never lost a dollar through the IMF. We have always been repaid 
everything.
  Not only will we not lose them because the country they are lending 
to is a nation, and probably a fairly sophisticated nation because they 
do not do too many nations that are not sophisticated, we will not lose 
it because the IMF has a massive gold reserve that essentially backs up 
all of the dollars, all of the money that is there. So it is not a 
risky exercise.
  That is why this effort does not score as $108 billion. There is no 
game being played about the $108 billion number. The simple fact is, 
the $108 billion number does not score because there has never been an 
outlay to the IMF.
  You can make an argument that even the $5 billion--that is what CBO 
came up with as a number, and I think that was based on the assumption 
that there might be some interest costs, but even the $5 billion is 
wrong. Zero is the right number. Certainly a representation that $108 
billion is what it is going to cost the American taxpayers is totally 
inaccurate. It is playing with facts fast and loose because we never 
had lost any money.
  All the lending of IMF is basically securitized, either by the debt 
of the nation they are lending it to or by their own gold, the gold of 
which they have a huge accumulation.
  So this is not a cost of any significance to the American taxpayer. 
What it is, however, is an extraordinarily cheap way for us as a nation 
to lay off the burden to other nations, other industrialized nations; 
lay off the burden of making sure that countries which would represent 
a very serious problem to us and to the world community should they 
fail financially, a very cheap way of trying to have in place a system 
to avoid that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. So, from my opinion, this is an amendment which is not 
constructive either for our economy or for the international situation. 
I would hope it would be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no one yields time, the 
time will be equally charged to both sides.
  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I objected to that. I was allowed 4 
minutes. The other side is not showing up. I do not think that is right 
to take my 4 minutes. If the other side would like to yield back, I 
will be glad to close with my 4 minutes.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I reserve my 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator puts us in a quorum call, the 
time will be charged to him, absent consent.
  Mr. DeMINT. Let me simplify this. I will go ahead and speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments that we have 
heard today. I want to make it clear we are not trying to minimize or 
change our commitment to the IMF at all. We are already committed for 
about $65 billion. We are the largest contributor to the IMF, and that 
will continue.
  What I am opposing is a massive increase in our commitment of $108 
billion at a time this country cannot afford it. We have also heard 
this is not really any spending, that no money will really come out of 
our Treasury. If that were true, we would not need to ask for it; it 
would not need to be in the bill. If that were true, it could be $200 
or $300 billion, and it still would not cost us anything.
  This is just political speak here in Washington. We are giving a 
credit line to an international agency where we do not control the 
vote, where they can take $108 billion more than they already have, 108 
in addition to the $65 billion we have committed to this agency, to use 
in a way that they would like. I object to this because I have 
businesses in South Carolina that can't get a loan, a small loan from a 
bank that has taken Federal money. They can't continue their business 
because the bank says these are difficult

[[Page S5787]]

economic times and that is a high risk. So we are going to take $100 
billion and give it to countries that are high risk because supposedly 
that helps our economy. Enough is enough. We have spent more than we 
can pay back already. It is wrong to attach this type of spending to a 
bill that supports our troops. This should be taken out of the bill 
right now. That is what my amendment does. It strikes a section that 
would give an additional $108 billion of appropriation authority to the 
IMF.
  It also strikes a section that allows them to begin to sell off the 
gold reserves that we just heard are a so-called security for this 
loan. This makes no sense.
  I urge colleagues to say enough is enough. There are many good things 
we can do, but we, frankly, don't have the money anymore. This is more 
than we spend on education every year, more than we spend on veterans 
benefits, more than we spend on transportation. It is real money, 
because it will be drawn upon, because there are countries all over the 
world in difficulty. We will set a precedent. Notice that in the 
criticism of the bill, they are not using this to criticize it, because 
not only does this create a permanent amount of authority to withdraw 
money, it gives the Secretary of the Treasury the ability to make 
amendments to the law. We are giving the authority of this Congress 
over to the Secretary of the Treasury and the International Monetary 
Fund. None of this makes any sense. Enough is enough. No more spending. 
No more borrowing. It is time to let it go.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this makes all the sense in the world. In 
fact, Senator Gregg, former chairman, now ranking member of the Budget 
Committee, gave an excellent summary of exactly what this is. It is not 
an expenditure. It is a letter of credit. It stabilizes countries. It 
is an insurance policy. It has always been repaid. As Senator Gregg 
said, even the $5 billion which the CBO scores this at is not accurate 
because the money is never laid out. This is not a risky exercise 
because we make money through the interest. This is an asset that we 
create that is traded against the letter of credit.
  Let me answer my colleague. He asked the question about the 5 years. 
Paragraph 17 of the IMF Articles of the New Arrangements to Borrow has 
a provision for withdrawal from membership. A participating member can 
withdraw. At that time, the money comes back to you. You cease to have 
your commitment on the line. Paragraph 19 of the IMF Articles of the 
New Arrangements to Borrow states:

       This decision shall continue in existence for five years 
     from its effective date. When considering a renewal of this 
     decision for the period following the five-year period 
     referred to in this paragraph 19 . . . the Fund and the 
     participants shall review the functioning of this decision.

  Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KERRY. I will yield on his time.
  Mr. DeMINT. Are you reading from----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. I am reading from the current Articles of the IMF's New 
Arrangements to Borrow. This is the operative agreement for the NAB, on 
which this lending takes place. Let me make it clear, why this is 
furthering our interests. The fact is, in South Carolina, they have a 
lot of businesses that export. From the beginning of this year exports 
in the U.S. were down 23 percent. They were down 23 percent because 
countries' economies around the world are hurting. As Secretary 
Kissinger, General Scowcroft, and the Chamber of Commerce all agree, 
this is important for American business. The fact is, between 2003 and 
2008, exports grew by 8 percent per year in real terms. We have a 
correlation in our exports to the growth of other countries. There has 
been a 95-percent correlation in that growth.
  The fact is, the share of all U.S. growth attributable to export 
growth went from 25 percent in 2003, to 50 percent in 2007, to 70 
percent in 2008. We benefit. That rise of exports from 25 percent to 70 
percent is to the benefit of American business. Unfortunately, those 
exports peaked in July of last year. Most of our partners are now in 
recession. Real exports are now 23 percent lower. You are looking at a 
reduction in American GDP, if you don't provide this line of credit.
  President Obama went to London. He led the world in getting a $500 
billion agreement to help support these countries to revive their 
economies. When you consider the money we have spent in the Cold War to 
break the Eastern Bloc away from the Soviet Union and, ultimately, they 
have adopted our economic system, they are working as partners now, 
many of them members of NATO. Their economies are hurting. We benefit 
if those States don't go into an economic implosion.
  This is a national security issue for the United States. It is a 
plain and simple, self-interest economic issue for the United States. 
Most importantly, we don't spend money. This is a deposit fund in an 
account which is interest bearing to the United States. It is a good 
investment. Historically, we have not lost money. I know Senator Lugar 
will vote against this amendment. Senator Gregg and others. I hope 
colleagues will resoundingly reject this ill-advised amendment.
  Mr. DeMINT. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 39 seconds.
  Mr. DeMINT. I wish to make sure the Senator understands that the bill 
we vote on today amends what he just read about our ability to get out 
of this in 5 years. Sometimes it is hard to get the straight scoop 
here.
  It is real money or we wouldn't be asking for it. This is not a time 
in our country's history that we can afford to put another $108 billion 
on the line, when we can't get our own businesses enough money. We have 
to stop this reckless spending. I encourage colleagues to support my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1138.
  Mr. DeMINT. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from 
Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Hatch).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Are there any other 
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 30, nays 64, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 201 Leg.]

                                YEAS--30

     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     McCain
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter

                                NAYS--64

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Byrd
     Hatch
     Kennedy
     Murray
     Rockefeller
  The amendment (No. 1138) was rejected.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S5788]]

  Mr. AKAKA. 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.
  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.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the 
following cosponsors to amendment No. 1189: Senator Landrieu, Senator 
Shaheen, Senator Crapo, Senator Risch, Senator Bill Nelson, and Senator 
Snowe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would point out that there are now 
26 cosponsors of the amendment that would have tried to give the 
Chrysler car dealers extra time to get their affairs in order rather 
than a June 9 deadline. It would just give them 3 more weeks. I am 
still hoping the White House and the Chrysler company will come forward 
with something that will give some help to these dealers. I think the 
Senate is beginning to speak by the number of cosponsorships for this 
amendment.
  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. BAYH. 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. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next hour 
be for debate only.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAYH. 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.
  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.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Inouye as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1189.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we are still working on language that 
I very much hope we can get agreement on before the end of the day. I 
think everyone is working in good faith. That is my hope, and I will 
remain optimistic that we can have something definitive for the dealers 
in this country who are facing bankruptcy or dissolution in 2 weeks.
  As of now, 28 Senators have signed on to agree that we need to be 
helpful to them. I think we have a way forward, but we have to get 
everyone signed off on it. I hope all of the parties will do that, so 
there can be a definitive announcement, because these dealers need to 
be able to plan going forward. They need to know what the rules of the 
game are. I think it is the least we can do for them.
  Mr. President, 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.
  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 ask unanimous consent to add 
Senators Feingold and Harkin to amendment No. 1189.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. That takes us up to 29 cosponsors of this amendment. 
We are almost up to a third of the Senate saying we need to help these 
Chrysler dealers. I just hope we can produce something for these 
dealers by the end of business today that will help them begin to get 
their affairs in order after the blow they received on May 14.
  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. COBURN. 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. COBURN. Mr. President, I asked the managers of the bill if I 
could have some time to discuss this bill for a moment. I offer a lot 
of amendments around here and, quite frankly, there are several 
amendments I should have offered, or should call up, but I am not going 
to call up because, quite frankly, I am not prepared to do it.
  I wanted to talk about this bill because it has been described in a 
lot of ways as funding for our troops, as things that we have to do. I 
want to put a few holes in that for a minute.
  There is funding for our troops in this bill, there is no question. 
We need to do that. One of the promises of the President--and I hope it 
comes about this next year--is we will never see another one of these 
to fight the wars. It will be incorporated, as it should have been in 
the past.
  I am on record of voting against three of these requests from the 
Bush administration for the fact that it should be incorporated into 
the regular budget. We know we have these expenses. When we do a 
supplemental or an emergency--that is what we are calling this--there 
is something that happens most people do not realize. Mr. President, 
100 percent of this bill will be borrowed by the Treasury when we start 
spending the money. This is not money we have. It is money we are going 
to borrow from the next two generations because the Congress refuses to 
make priorities of what we need to do, and we continue to spend money 
on things that we should not be or do not have to do, which are not a 
priority, and the money we are going to spend is borrowed money.
  We have not heard much of that in the entire debate on this bill. 
Every dollar will be stolen from the future of the next two generations 
to come, and most of the people who are hearing my voice today will not 
pay the cost of this significantly large bill.
  It was not all that long ago that the entire Federal budget wasn't 
the size of this, less than 45 years ago. Yet we are going to pass, in 
very short order, with very few amendments, a bill that does a lot of 
things besides fund our troops.
  Of course, there is another thing most Americans don't know. It is 
that all the things that are in this bill that go to other executive 
branch agencies will be utilized to raise the baseline next year for 
the starting point of the budget process. In other words, we are 
raising the baseline. So when we look at it, when it comes through the 
budget next year, and the appropriations cycle, it will not be what we 
actually appropriated under the budget. It will be under the budget 
plus what we spent on the supplemental. We do not go back to where we 
should be. We go back to an elevated area because we had an emergency 
spending bill.
  There is money in here for the United Nations Development Program, 
Peacekeeping Operations, $721 million. Here is a fact that most 
Americans don't know. Forty percent of every dollar spent by the United 
Nations on peacekeeping operations is absolutely defrauded or wasted. 
So in this case, $300 million of the $720 million that we are going to 
appropriate, some shyster connected with the United Nations, either in 
New York or in some foreign country, is going to steal that money. It 
is not going to go to help anybody keep the peace. It is not going to 
go to clothe and feed someone. It is not going to go to protect the 
rights of those who are discriminated against, those who are living not 
under the rule of law; that, in fact, $300 million out of the $720 
million isn't going to do anything except line the pockets of crooks.
  Yet we have that report, which we had to get from the U.N. because we 
don't have transparency on where our money is going. That is the U.N.'s 
own report. Yet there is nothing in this bill that requires them to 
give us an audit of how they are spending it. There is no metrics on 
how it is going to be spent, and there is nothing in this bill that 
says they are going to have to tell us and show us that they didn't let 
it get defrauded or get stolen. We are not paying attention. We are 
running like there isn't an economic crisis.

[[Page S5789]]

  There is another area in this bill that is extremely disturbing to 
me, which is that we are going to give a $1.3 billion pay raise to all 
the Foreign Service officers in this country.
  They hire 500 to 600 new ones each year. They have 25,000 
applications for these jobs without this pay raise. This is called a 
locality pay differential, and it started because it is so expensive to 
live in Washington that we give a 21-percent increase to all Foreign 
Service officers who get stationed in the United States, but we are now 
going to give it to them no matter where they live.
  So what we are talking about is a $15,000-a-year pay raise on the 
basis of nothing, to people who, on average, make more than $75,000 a 
year. Ask yourself a question: When we send a colonel to South Korea, 
do we give him a locality pay increase? No. When we send a sergeant to 
take care of the troops who are stationed around the world, do we give 
him a pay increase or her a pay increase? No. And they just happen to 
make a third of what our Foreign Service officers make. Yet with one 
broad stroke we are going to add $1.5 billion over the next 4 years, 
and then at least $400 million a year to everyone who works for the 
State Department.
  Why are we doing that? Why are we saying Foreign Service officers are 
more important than our men and women in uniform? Why are we creating a 
differential when, in fact, there is no hardship, and we are having no 
trouble getting employees. By the first data I put out there, we are 
not. There are no statistics to suggest they have a greater loss than 
they are capable to reproduce. Yet in this bill, $400 million a year, 
just as a gift--just as a gift.
  Think how demoralizing that is to the men and women who wear the 
uniform of the United States. We have decided that technocrats are more 
important than the people on the front lines. We have decided that, not 
based on merit, not based on performance, we are just going to give 
them a raise.
  I don't have any objections due to the cost of living in DC that we 
might have a differential pay for that. But why would we say no matter 
where you live--if you live in Muskogee, OK, where I am from--and you 
happen to work for the State Department; that because you work for the 
State Department and not because you produce more or do a better job, 
you are going to get a 21-percent pay increase that is never going to 
get rescinded.
  What are we doing? And why are we doing it?
  Also in here is $.5 billion for the start of--and they have a 
legitimate claim, the State of Mississippi--a hurricane prevention 
program. We asked the Corps to do a study. We are putting money in. It 
is unauthorized money. It has never been through the committee, and I 
am not saying that we may or may not want to do this. But the Corps 
hasn't even finalized their evaluation of the study on whether it is 
viable. Yet this is the first $.5 billion in a $2 billion to $7 billion 
project that I am not sure right now, without authorization of the 
appropriate committee, we are going to jump in line ahead of every 
other priority program that the Corps of Engineers has just because we 
can do it. And the Corps hasn't even accepted the premise of the study 
on which the money is going to be spent.
  America, wake up to what we are doing. This ship has a lot of holes 
in it, and we are taking on water faster than those with common sense 
can bail it out. These are just three prime examples of things in this 
bill that ought not be handled the way they are handled in the bill.
  The No. 1 thing we are not doing is we are not being honest with 
ourselves about where this money is coming from and how much more it is 
going to cost the people in this country who are struggling every day 
just to pay their mortgage, just to put groceries on the table, and to 
pay their utility bills.
  We are going to give $108 billion to the IMF. We had an amendment 
that got defeated. The fact is--and pay attention to this--it may not 
help. The assumption is we will get paid back because they have never 
not paid us back in the past. Well, this is a different day, and there 
is a high likelihood that, even though we only charge $5 billion for 
the cost of this $108 billion loan, we will never see a penny of it 
come back--a very high likelihood--especially if you look at the total 
debt and money assets of all the European countries compared to their 
GDP ratio.
  We wring our hands and say: Well, we have to do this. We have to do 
this. What we have to do is preserve America first. What we have to do 
is defend America first. What we have to do is restore confidence in 
America. The way we are doing it with this bill does just the opposite.
  I am sorry I haven't had time to go after the issues in this bill. 
There are tons of things we ought to be doing differently, and if we 
are not going to do them differently, we ought to hold the Members 
accountable on a vote to say why we are not doing them differently. 
Borrowing this money against our children's future and not making hard 
choices on some of the $350 billion worth of fraud and waste that we 
know the Federal Government has, not even looking at it, not making an 
attempt to pay for any of it, to me, is a tragedy.
  It is not just a tragedy of the moment because what it clearly spells 
out is that there has been no change. There is no change in behavior. 
There is no recognition of the difficulty we are in. There is no set of 
priorities that says we do what is most important for the country 
first, and if it is not really that important, we don't do it at all 
now so that we can protect the way of life we have come to know. I am 
disappointed in us because we have failed to grasp the seriousness of 
where we are today in this country. And where we are is not far from 
losing the essence of what America stands for.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Will the Senator withhold his 
request?
  Mr. COBURN. I will. I withdraw my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to speak about the supplemental 
that is before the Senate in terms of the appropriations. Much of this 
bill is about supporting the men and women wearing the uniform of the 
United States who are serving this country around the world and acting 
as sentinels for America's freedom around the world.
  The question is, Will we appropriate the resources necessary to match 
the challenge we have given them and the call to service we have asked 
of them? That is what this appropriations supplemental bill is largely 
all about.
  In that context, there is one particular area of funding that doesn't 
go to where we have troops but where we, in fact, care about what is 
happening in part of the world, and that is Pakistan. We care about it 
because it is along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border; the area where, in 
fact, Osama bin Laden likely exists; the area al-Qaida is operating in, 
crossing back and forth along that border in order to attack our troops 
in Afghanistan; and also because of the Taliban. So we have clear 
national security interests as it relates to that part of the world.
  We all agree the situation in Pakistan is probably at the top of the 
list of our most serious national security challenges because this is 
where al-Qaida has reconstituted itself, and this was the entity, along 
with bin Laden, that struck us on that fateful day of September 11.
  Late last month, the Secretary of State warned us that Pakistan's 
government is facing an ``existential threat'' from Islamist militants 
who have established operations dangerously close to the capital city 
of Islamabad. These are militants who wish to do us harm, plot new 
terrorist attacks or, God forbid, seize control of that country's 
nuclear arsenal. There are plenty of reasons for the United States to 
be engaged. Since 2001, Pakistan has received more than $12 billion in 
assistance from the U.S. Government. The idea behind the assistance has 
been to support democratic institutions, human rights, economic 
development, along with counterterrorism operations to fight the 
Taliban and al-Qaida and create the conditions for stability in the 
country.
  Unfortunately, under the lax oversight of the Bush administration, 
that assistance had very few strings attached to it, and under that 
administration it is hard to see what kind of results we actually 
achieved for the money we spent. Democracy and institutions of civil 
society are as fragile as

[[Page S5790]]

ever, the Taliban is expanding its reach, and we have heard reports 
about the Pakistani Government expanding its nuclear arsenal. So $12 
billion later, the way we sent assistance may or may not have worked 
for Pakistan, but it certainly didn't work for us.
  So, Madam President, we have to constantly ask ourselves: How are we 
using our money in pursuit of our national interests and our national 
security interest, and what type of benchmarks and progress are we 
making so that we can, in fact, respond both as fiduciaries to the 
taxpayers of the country and, at the same time, in measuring benchmarks 
toward our national security goals?
  It is our responsibility to see that there is transparency and 
accountability in whatever assistance we are providing, and as the 
administration makes the case to reverse what it acknowledges are 
``rapidly deteriorating security and economic conditions'' there, we 
have to make sure the funding we are sending over is actually doing its 
part to make the situation better.
  We have to ask those questions about the Pakistan funding in this 
current supplemental bill as well. For starters, in this supplemental, 
I think when we look at it, it is pretty significant. There is over 
$1.6 billion in the supplemental for Pakistan, including $400 million 
for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, $439 million in 
economic support funds, and $700 million in coalition support funds.
  I am concerned about the funding, but I want to specifically talk 
about the $700 million in coalition support funds. Those funds are used 
to reimburse the Pakistani Government for the logistical and military 
expenses of fighting Islamist militants.
  As the Pakistani military increases these activities--and we have 
seen those military activities finally take place in a way that we 
think is moving in the right direction--those coalition support funds 
are expected to increase substantially as well. So if we are going to 
have a shot at the militants, we are going to need to provide support. 
And we are agreed on that, I think. But that does not mean we should be 
sending out blank checks.
  Along with my distinguished colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, and 
several colleagues in the House, we suggested the Government 
Accountability Office look into the assistance we provided to Pakistan, 
including the $6.9 billion in coalition support funds it received. In a 
June 2008 report, the GAO found that the Pentagon did not consistently 
verify Pakistani claims for reimbursement, and additional oversight 
controls were needed.
  Here is an example from that report. The United States was 
reimbursing the Pakistani Government $19,000 per month for each of 
about 20 passenger vehicles, about $9 million in total, even though we 
later found out that we were paying for the same 20 vehicles over and 
over.
  A February 2009 report that we also asked for echoed and confirmed 
those findings and said that the Pentagon needed to improve oversight 
of coalition support funds reimbursements.
  Earlier today at a Foreign Relations hearing I asked Admiral Mullen, 
and he acknowledged we have not had good controls in the past on 
coalition support funds, but he assured the committee the controls have 
improved and additional steps are being taken to make sure the funds 
are being used wisely.
  The Deputy Secretary of Defense outlined these steps in a letter to 
Chairman Kerry last month, including new guidelines, additional face-
to-face meetings with Pakistani counterparts, and additional visits by 
the Department of Defense to Pakistan to refine the coalition support 
fund claim processing and validate procedures.
  Personally, I have met with Ambassador Holbrooke, our special envoy 
to this region, as well as questioned Secretary Clinton yesterday 
before the Foreign Relations Committee, and they both assured me this 
administration is developing metrics to measure success and change the 
way we engage in Pakistan so we can defeat the militants and bring 
stability to the country and the region. I am pleased to see these 
steps being taken and I look forward to closely monitoring them as we 
move forward.
  Let me conclude by saying we all realize that conditions on the 
ground make detailed reporting and accountability a major challenge. We 
cannot expect to be getting daily comprehensive spreadsheets e-mailed 
from every remote mountain region. But as best as we can, it is the 
responsibility of this Congress to ensure that all of our funds are 
being used in a manner that is advancing our national interests and our 
national security interests.
  With these changes that have taken place, I think--partly because we 
have asked for these reports, partly because of the questioning at 
these hearings, partly because of the new leadership of the 
administration--I plan to vote for the supplemental. In doing so, 
however, I want to send a very clear message that it is not and should 
not be construed as a blank check. I have concerns with the coalition 
support fund program and concern about Pakistan's nuclear program. 
Money is fungible, and I am concerned as we send money to Pakistan for 
one purpose that frees up their money to be buying nuclear weapons, 
something that is not in our interest or in the interest of that part 
of the world. I am glad the Obama administration is taking steps to 
ensure accountability and in the future we need to do even more. We 
need to be sure we do not wind up right back here a year from now, 
having to say the same things. We cannot afford to yet again take one 
step forward and two steps back, and above all we cannot afford to be 
sending such resources without achieving the national goals of security 
and the interests we have. That is the best way to make sure we do not 
lose sight of our goal here and that is also the best way we keep 
America safe.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURRIS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Christening of the USS ``Gravely''

  Mr. BURRIS. Madam President, as we prepare to return home to our 
constituents and to celebrate the Memorial Day weekend, remembering all 
those who have served and sacrificed in the name of the United States, 
I would like to single out one veteran in particular.
  It is with deep and abiding pride that I rise to salute the late VADM 
Samuel Gravely, and to mark the christening of a new and remarkable 
U.S. Navy destroyer, the USS Gravely.
  At a ceremony last weekend, the Gravely became the first Navy ship in 
U.S. history to bear the name of an African American officer.
  When she receives her commission, the vessel will be the most 
technologically advanced warship on the planet.
  It is a fitting honor for the destroyer's namesake, the late VADM 
Samuel L. Gravely, Jr., who was the first African American to become a 
Navy officer.
  Beginning his career as a seaman apprentice in 1942, amid the chaos 
of the Second World War, Admiral Gravely first knew a segregated U.S. 
Navy in which people of color served mainly as cooks and waiters.
  Only one ship had a black crew.
  That vessel was the USS Mason, whose 160 men served under the command 
of white officers, In 1944, the brave crew of the Mason escorted 
support ships to England during a vicious storm.
  They completed this daring mission with valor, even when cracks in 
the hull threatened to tear their ship apart.
  Because of the racial politics of the age, and despite the 
recommendation of their commander, it took more than 50 years for these 
brave sailors to receive official commendation.
  It was in this climate that Samuel Gravely began his naval career. He 
retired from a very different U.S. military 38 years later.
  Admiral Gravely's years of service included many notable firsts.
  He was the first African American to command a combatant ship, the 
first to command a major warship, the first to achieve flag rank, and 
the first to command a numbered fleet.
  These are remarkable accomplishments by any account, but they are

[[Page S5791]]

made all the more impressive when they are considered in the context of 
the U.S. Navy at the time.
  This exemplary sailor achieved greatness in a time when the policies 
of our Armed Forces too often limited the opportunities available to 
people of color.
  He understood the obstacles he was facing, but he was determined not 
to bow to the limits imposed by others. He did not let those 
difficulties stand in his way.
  Instead, he turned each challenge into an opportunity to excel.
  We should all learn from the example set by this great American hero, 
who started as an enlisted sailor and overcame extraordinary odds to 
finish his career as a three-star admiral.
  His accomplishments should resonate with all Americans.
  Admiral Gravely proved that respect will come to those who work hard 
to earn it.
  His legacy serves as an example for countless young men and women 
serving bravely in the Armed Forces. Soon, the destroyer USS Gravely 
will stand guard on the high seas, a striking symbol to the world of 
the remarkable and enduring truth of the American dream.
  Generations of sailors will serve on her decks, and as they stand 
aboard the Gravely, they also stand on the shoulders of the man for 
whom it was named.
  Thankfully, the divided society of years past has given way to a new 
America built on equality, a Nation more free, more fair and more 
equal, a Nation that cherishes the contributions of all men and women 
regardless of race, creed or color.

  A Nation built through the hard work and bravery of real life 
trailblazers like Admiral Gravely.
  I am extremely proud of Admiral Gravely's achievements, and I am 
deeply moved by the Navy's tribute to his service.
  Like many, I share in the joy that Mrs. Gravely must have felt as 
this state-of-the-art destroyer was christened with her husband's name.
  When this warship is commissioned, it will be more than a fighting 
tribute to its accomplished namesake.
  It will ensure that the outstanding legacy of Samuel L. Gravely, Jr., 
lives on in the service of the U.S. Navy for years to come.
  I can think of no better way to memorialize a true American hero.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to speak for a few moments 
regarding the President's remarks on national security today and about 
some national security issues in general.
  At the outset, let me note that there are some points in the 
President's message I do not agree with and some points of plain fact 
he made that should help us clarify some of the issues that have been 
raised in recent debates over national security. President Obama 
endorsed the continued use of military commissions with some minor 
changes. These commissions are historic and certainly appropriate and 
have been used by nations all over the world. I will reserve judgment 
on those changes until I see the details, but the President is right 
when he states that military commissions are ``an appropriate venue for 
trying detainees for violations of the laws of war,'' though some have 
not agreed with that.
  The President correctly noted: ``Military commissions have a history 
in the United States dating back to George Washington and the 
Revolutionary War.''
  As the President also noted, military commissions ``allow for the 
protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence 
gathering.'' That is absolutely true, and it is an important principle 
in defending America. He also noted that the commissions allow ``the 
presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot be 
effectively presented in a Federal court.''
  In other words, we have strict rules of evidence in Federal courts. 
Our soldiers are in a life-and-death struggle on the battlefield. They 
are not police investigators. They are not homicide investigators. They 
can not be expected to be able to comply with every rule regarding the 
collection of evidence. Military commissions account for that 
difference.
  It is also reassuring to see that President Obama has stated he will 
exercise his power as Commander in Chief to detain as war prisoners 
those al-Qaida members who continue to pose a danger to the United 
States, but who cannot be tried by a military commission. Some 
detainees may not be able to be tried by military commissions for legal 
reasons. For years, we have heard criticism from some of the fringe 
groups on the left--criticisms that have been echoed occasionally in 
this Chamber--that we must either try every enemy war prisoner or 
release them. That has never been the practice in the history of war, 
and that is not what our law says. This is a notion that cannot be 
sustained and one that would pose a threat to us if it were ever 
adopted as policy.
  I am glad to see President Obama rejected that notion. As he noted in 
his remarks today:

       There may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted 
     for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a danger to the 
     security of the United States. Examples of that threat 
     include people who have received extensive explosives 
     training at al-Qaida training camps, commanded Taliban troops 
     in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or 
     otherwise made it clear they want to kill Americans. These 
     are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United 
     States.
       As I said, I am not going to release individuals who 
     endanger the American people. Al-Qaida terrorists and their 
     affiliates are at war with the United States and those we 
     capture--like other prisoners of war--must be prevented from 
     attacking us again.

  That is fundamentally true, but some people have a confused notion 
about that.
  Under the Geneva Conventions, even lawful combatants can be detained 
throughout the duration of a war. When illegal combatants conduct a war 
outside the laws of the Geneva Conventions and other treaties and laws 
that deal with the conduct of civilized warfare by deliberately and 
intentionally bombing innocent men, women and children who are 
noncombatants, those people are not entitled to be released.
  President Obama also stated this morning that:

       We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our 
     national security, nor will we release detainees within the 
     United States who endanger the American people.

  Well, that is hard to know for certain. Attorney General Holder has 
talked about releasing the Uighurs, a terrorist group focused primarily 
on China. I don't believe the administration has the legal authority to 
release these detainees. Recently, according to the Los Angeles Times, 
some of the Uighurs were watching a soccer game--they allow them to 
watch television at the Guantanamo Bay facility--and a lady came on 
with short sleeves. This offended one of the Islamic Uighurs and they 
jumped up and grabbed the television and threw it on the floor. I point 
that out simply to say it is difficult to know for certain who is a 
threat. Many may well harbor a secret determination to attack America 
as soon as they are released.
  I think the President has made clear that he does not have the full 
and free discretion to simply release al-Qaida members and their fellow 
travelers into the United States. Federal law expressly bars admission 
to the United States of anyone who is a member of a foreign terrorist 
organization. A Federal law we passed some years ago bars admission of 
any person who is a member of a foreign terrorist organization--pretty 
common sense, right? If you are going to have lawful immigration 
policy, you don't want terrorists to be able to immigrating into the 
country. The law bars admission of anyone who has provided material 
support to a foreign terrorist organization, and it also bars from this 
country anyone who has received military-style training at a camp 
operated by one of these terrorist organizations. The United States 
Congress decided that these individuals, ones who have ties to or have 
assisted or who have been trained by groups such as al-Qaida pose a 
danger to the American people and should not be admitted into this 
country. That congressional enactment is now the law. It is binding 
upon the President and the Attorney General, who is charged by the 
Constitution with enforcing the law.

[[Page S5792]]

  So when the President states he will not release detainees within the 
United States, I can only state that I would expect no less. The law 
requires the President to bar admission to al-Qaida members or material 
supporters or those who trained in a terrorist camp, and I think he 
will follow that.
  I note his speech also is rather selective, however, in how it cites 
to: ``The court order to release 17 Uighur detainees that took place 
last fall.''
  The President referred to a court order to release these Uighurs, but 
he inexplicably failed to acknowledge what happened to that case on 
appeal. A lower district court judge ordered that they must be 
released, but the Federal appellate court reversed that order which 
would have allowed these terrorist to be released into the United 
States. This February, a couple of months ago in Kiyemba v. Obama, the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that 
the district court did not have legal authority to order the release of 
the Uighur detainees into this country. These are individuals who have 
trained in a terrorist camp, a terrorist group that is connected to al-
Qaida. A month ago, the U.S. Department of Treasury reaffirmed the 
determination that they are a terrorist organization. The appeals court 
could not have been more clear when it wrote:

       Never in the history of habeas corpus has any court thought 
     it had the power to order an alien held overseas brought into 
     the sovereign territory of a Nation and then released into 
     the general population. As we have also said, in the United 
     States, who can come in and on what terms is the exclusive 
     province of the executive branches.

  There are other things the President said today that I disagree with. 
First, President Obama committed himself to banning the enhanced 
interrogation of al-Qaida detainees. I certainly oppose torture of any 
detainees. But he went on to state: ``Some have argued'' that these 
techniques ``were necessary to keep us safe,'' and he said he ``could 
not disagree more.''
  Well, that is not exactly accurate, I have to tell my colleagues.
  On September 6, 2006, when President Bush announced the transfer of 
14 high-value al-Qaida detainees to Guantanamo, he also described 
information that the United States had obtained from these detainees as 
a result of these enhanced interrogation programs. Most people agree 
many of these enhanced techniques clearly are not torture. Some argue 
that a few of the techniques may amount to torture; but many say they 
are not torture. We have a statute that prohibits torture and it 
defines it pretty clearly.
  President Bush noted then that Abu Zubaydah was captured by U.S. 
forces several months after the September 11 attack. Several months 
later he was captured. Under interrogation he revealed that Khalid 
Shaikh Mohammed was a principal organizer of the September 11 attacks. 
Zubaydah also described a terrorist attack that al-Qaida operatives 
were planning to launch inside this country--an attack of which the 
United States had no previous knowledge. Zubaydah described the 
operatives involved in this attack and where they were located. This 
information allowed the United States to capture these terrorists, one 
while he was traveling in the United States. Under enhanced 
interrogation, Zubaydah also revealed the identity of another September 
11 plotter, Ramzi bin al Shibh, and provided information that led to 
his capture. U.S. forces then interrogated him. Information that both 
he and Zubaydah provided helped lead to the capture of Khalid Shaikh 
Mohammed, the person who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.
  Khalid Shaikh Mohammed also provided information to help stop another 
planned attack on the United States when he was interrogated. KMS 
provided information that led to the capture of a terrorist named 
Zubair, and KMS's interrogation also led to the identification and 
capture of an entire 17-member Jemaah Islamiya terrorist cell in 
Southeast Asia.
  According to President Bush, information obtained as a result of 
enhanced interrogation techniques also helped stop a planned truck bomb 
attack on U.S. troops in Djibouti. Interrogation also helped stop a 
planned car bomb attack on the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan, and it helped 
stop a plot to hijack passenger planes and crash them into Heathrow 
Airport in London. On September 6, President Bush said:

       Information from terrorists in CIA custody has played a 
     role in the capture or questioning of nearly every single al-
     Qaida member or associate detained by the United States and 
     its allies.

  He concluded by noting that al-Qaida members subjected to 
interrogation by U.S. forces have painted a picture of al-Qaida's 
structure and financing, communications and logistics. They identified 
al-Qaida's travel routes and safe havens and explained how al-Qaida's 
senior leadership communicates with its operatives in places such as 
Iraq. They provided information that has allowed us to make sense of 
documents and computer records that have been seized in terrorist 
raids. They have identified voices in recordings of intercepted calls 
and helped us understand the meaning of potentially critical terrorist 
communications. Were it not for the information obtained, our 
intelligence community believes that al-Qaida and its allies would have 
succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland. By 
giving us information about terrorist plans we would not get anywhere 
else, this program has saved innocent lives.
  Well, this was information obtained in the last administration as a 
result of the enhanced interrogation techniques of al-Qaida detainees. 
It allowed us to stop terrorist attacks. It allowed us to learn about 
al-Qaida communications, how it responded and operated. It even allowed 
us to capture Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the organizer of 9/11. I don't 
think anybody here can reliably contend that this information was not 
valuable. It was valuable.
  We have to be careful how we conduct interrogations. I believe the 
debate over this has helped us clarify the responsibility we have to 
not participate in torture. But it does not mean that we cannot used 
enhanced techniques to move a person to the point they are providing 
information that can help protect this country. We have to be careful 
that we don't go too far. We have a history of going too far in 
reaction to matters like this.
  One of the things we did is we put a wall between the CIA and the 
FBI. We said the CIA should not deal with dangerous thugs around the 
world to get information. After 9/11 it was clearly determined that 
both of those were bad ideas, and we reversed them immediately.
  Nobody in this Congress should suggest that we are incapable of 
making a mistake. But we have gone 8 years without an attack. That is 
something of significance. We should be proud of that. We have men and 
women in the CIA, in the FBI, and in the U.S. military, who are putting 
their lives on the line right now. I remember being, several years ago, 
in a foreign country with a history of some violence and terrorism. A 
man from the CIA met with us. He worked 7 days a week. He had dinner 
with us at 8 o'clock. He said that was the earliest he had been off 
duty since he had been there.
  They are putting their lives at risk for us, and we need to back them 
up when we can. If they make a mistake, they need to be held to account 
for it.
  Madam President, I see my colleague from Texas. I assume she would 
like to make some remarks. I am not sure what the expectation is, but I 
will just wrap up and say a few more things. This is an important 
issue. I just don't believe this issue has only one side. I have to 
tell you, I believed that the President's remarks today reflected a 
view that only he had the correct view of how these matters should be 
conducted, and that everybody else who disagreed had less decency than 
he. I don't think there is any doubt that the work this Nation did 
after 9/11 stopped further attacks and saved the lives of Americans. It 
can and should be done, consistent with the laws of this country. But 
that doesn't mean that unlawful terrorists--not legitimate prisoners of 
war--cannot be subjected to interrogation. They can be and they have 
been. I trust that they will be in the future.
  The President argued today that releasing the Office of Legal Counsel 
memos from the Department of Justice and exposing the details of the 
interrogation and actually tricks that CIA has used will not harm 
national security because this President has decided not to use those 
techniques. I simply point out that the war with al-Qaida will not

[[Page S5793]]

end with this administration, and future administrations--and even this 
administration--may need to have access to reasonable interrogation 
techniques, and providing this information is not the right thing.
  It is odd that of all the material released, we have not had further 
information released from the intelligence agencies that would provide 
evidence of interrogations that have enabled us to stop other attacks 
on our country. I don't know why they would not want to release that; 
they want to release the techniques and a lot of other things.
  When the President released the legal counsel's interrogation memos, 
he excised certain information from the memos and left out other memos 
entirely. These other memos describe in detail the information that was 
obtained as a result of the enhanced interrogation of al-Qaida 
detainees.
  If the President really believes these interrogations don't work, I 
urge him to release these other memos, the ones Vice President Cheney 
called on to be released. If he believes in full transparency, why 
don't we see that? We know some of it because it was in President 
Bush's September 2006 remarks.
  Madam President, to sum up, we are in a great national effort. We are 
now sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan. I think President Obama 
studied that carefully. I know he, like myself and most of us, doesn't 
look forward to having to send more troops there. He decided it was 
important for America and our allies and stability in the region and 
the world that they be sent there. This Congress supported that. So we 
continue the struggle. It is going to be a long time.
  Intelligence is a critical component of our success against the war 
against the terrorists. That is what the 9/11 Commission told us. That 
is what the American people understood with clarity. Good intelligence 
prevents attacks and saves lives. Good intelligence is so valuable, it 
is almost invaluable. We have to be careful when we set about passing 
more and more rules that chill the willingness of our investigators and 
military people to do their job. As we have found from previous spasms, 
harm to our intelligence community can be the result of irrational, 
reactionary decisions. We didn't wisely consider this when we put a 
wall between the FBI and we limited the CIA in these dangerous areas of 
the world in getting information. I share a deep concern about that.
  There is one more thing I will conclude with. The President talked 
repeatedly in his speech, in a most disparaging manner, about 
Guantanamo. I think inadvertently, and I am sure unintentionally, I 
believe he has cast a shadow over the fabulous men and women who serve 
us there, who participate in running a very fine facility. I would have 
appreciated it if he had taken the opportunity to clear the air about 
Guantanamo, our military prison.
  Do you know that not one single person was subjected to waterboarding 
at Guantanamo? Actually, there were only three instances of it, all 
done by our intelligence agency in a different place. None of that 
occurred there. I wish he had said that. I wish he had quoted from one 
of the investigative reports of what happened at Guantanamo.
  This is what the finder found: They found one incident in which a 
series of techniques were used during interrogation, not one of which 
would have amounted to torturing that person, but all together they 
concluded it put too much stress on that individual and that it 
violated the law against torture. Well, that should not have been done.
  But to hear the talk about Guantanamo, you would think we are 
waterboarding people and torturing people constantly. That is just not 
what happened there. I have been there twice. These are great men and 
women down there trying to serve our country. They are absolutely 
committed to trying to extract as much good information as they could 
to protect America. They are not abusing detainees nor are they 
violating the law. If they cross that line, they should be disciplined 
for it. But it is not the kind of thing that is or was systematically 
occurring.
  I wish the President had taken the opportunity--as Commander in Chief 
of our men and women who sends them into harm's way--to defend and 
explain that a lot of the allegations about Guantanamo were exaggerated 
and false.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add more 
cosponsors to amendment No. 1189. They are Senators Collins, Specter, 
Kohl, Dorgan, Webb, Wicker, and Cornyn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, we are up to 35 Members, over one-
third of the Senate, who are saying we need to help the Chrysler 
dealers who got the blow on May 14 saying they had 3 weeks to basically 
shut down an entire dealership.
  I have been talking to so many of my colleagues on the floor since I 
offered this amendment who have had stories of friends and people they 
know, people who sometimes own the largest employer in a city or a 
county, and the hardship these people are facing. They are facing the 
likelihood--unless we can get some closure--that they are going to 
lose, perhaps, their dealerships, and many are going into bankruptcy. 
They all have big real estate investments, we know that. A car 
dealership has large amounts of real estate. Usually, it is very 
expensive real estate. They still owe money, and they are in dire 
straits right now.
  What the negotiation is right now is this: I talked to the president 
of Chrysler this morning at 8:30. I have talked to the people at the 
White House who are the task force, the people overseeing the Chrysler 
and General Motors project, and to Senator Stabenow from Michigan, who 
has been so helpful in trying to put this together and work with me in 
a bipartisan way because while she has a Chrysler manufacturing plant, 
she also has dealers in Michigan, as does Senator Levin. So the 35 
cosponsors of the amendment are completely bipartisan because we all 
have these stories, and we know these dealers are not getting a fair 
chance.
  I talked to the President of Chrysler, and he said there would be a 
letter forthcoming where he would lay out how Chrysler is going to help 
take the inventory off the books of these dealers that are being shut 
down--789 across the country. We are talking about 40,000 people 
working in these dealerships.
  We are talking about a lot of lives that are being affected. He said 
they would put out a letter today--he didn't say close of business, but 
we agree we both want something out today--that would give these 
dealers a definitive plan so they would know what they could count on. 
Not having to worry about inventory was No. 1 on the list. These 
dealers buy these cars and trucks. They buy them. It is their expense. 
They buy the parts. They buy the equipment that is unique for the 
repair of these cars. So they have the risk. Yet they could be stuck 
with 30 cars or 100 cars. This is sinking them.
  I said: I hope you are going to give us something definitive. He said 
and I believe he is trying to do just that without in any way delaying 
or disrupting the exit out of bankruptcy, which is in everyone's 
interest because the taxpayers are paying for the exit out of 
bankruptcy, and the quicker the better, that is for sure. But these 
dealers are about to go bankrupt too. We are talking about 40,000 
employees of these dealers. I think it is important that we look at 
them as effective people.
  It is now a quarter of six. I just talked again with the president of 
Chrysler. He says we will have a letter within minutes. Actually, it 
was 15 minutes ago that I talked with him. He said it would be just a 
few minutes and they would get something to me.
  I am going to tell you right now, Madam President, and I am going to 
tell all of my colleagues, we are not passing this bill. We are not 
going to shorten the time. We are not going to have a unanimous consent 
agreement until I have a letter that will assure these dealers of what 
they can expect from Chrysler that will, hopefully, give them the 
clarity they need to be able to say: OK, I don't have to worry about 
cars and trucks and parts and specialized equipment. I can now worry 
about making the payments on my real estate. I can worry about my 
employees

[[Page S5794]]

whom we are having to let go and worry about the effect on the 
community. I can worry about all those things, but the big things that 
can be handled by Chrysler and the task force will be handled. That is 
what I am looking for.
  I am putting everyone on notice that this bill is not going to have 
any shortened time period under a UC until I can see that letter. 
Senator Stabenow stands with me to try to make sure we are doing 
something that will be adequate.
  I will say, Senator Rockefeller, too, is very concerned. He and 
Senator Byrd sent a letter to the CEO of Chrysler and General Motors to 
object strongly to the handling, the treatment of the dealers. Senator 
Rockefeller as the chairman and I as the ranking member of the Commerce 
Committee are now talking about having a hearing with those CEOs and 
representatives of the dealership group as soon as we get back. That 
will be the week after next.
  I am waiting, hoping, with all of the good-faith efforts that have 
been made today by the White House, by the president of Chrysler and 
his team, and all of the Senators who have signed on as cosponsors of 
this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Lincoln be added as a cosponsor 
of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I think the Senator from Arkansas, 
who is working very hard on trying to get an amendment into this bill 
as well. She is in the Chamber. I appreciate her also coming in and 
saying: We are a bipartisan team, and we want results for these dealers 
who have been so badly treated up to this point. I am hoping that will 
change in the next few minutes and we will see a light at the end of 
the tunnel for these dealers.
  Madam President, 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.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I state for the record that the 
Commerce Committee hearing on the auto dealerships has been set for 
June 2 at 2:30 p.m. This is a very important hearing where we are going 
to have representation from the automobile manufacturers, as well as 
the automobile dealers. I hope that will shed some light on what we can 
do to help these dealers.
  Madam President, 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. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). Without objection, 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we have an emergency situation 
all over, in about 20 or 25 States, that I explained to the Senate 
yesterday, involving imported Chinese drywall which, when exposed to 
heat and humidity, is emitting gases that are making people sick in 
their homes, that is in fact corroding all of the metal, that is going 
after the copper tubing in the plumbing and the air conditioners--so 
much so that they are having to replace the air conditioners--in some 
homes, over the course of the last 3 or 4 years, having to replace the 
air conditioner three times.
  We had, in front of Senator Inouye's former committee, the Commerce 
Committee, of which he obviously is still a member but he is now the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee--we had in front of the 
committee a panel of the people from the various agencies, and the 
representatives from the Consumer Product Safety Commission as well as 
the EPA wanted to do the next test. They did the first test and they 
compared Chinese drywall to American drywall and they found out that 
what was different is that the Chinese drywall had sulfur, it had 
strontium, and it had elements found in acrylic paint. But they drew no 
conclusions, so they want to do the next test.
  The next test would be under controlled conditions, to put it in a 
situation where they simulate heat of the United States summer, and 
humidity, and then see the gases that are emitted from it and determine 
to what degree, then, are they harmful to people who are having all 
these effects of respiratory problems, they can't breathe--it is 
exacerbating their allergies, it is exacerbating things such as 
asthma--and in some cases their pediatricians have said to the mom and 
the daddy: Get these children out of the house. Yet they still have a 
mortgage payment and where are they going to go? If they don't have 
other family to move in with, they have to rent, yet still pay on the 
mortgage. And oh, by the way, the bank is not working with them to give 
them some relief on their mortgage. So we have homeowners who, as we 
say in the South, are in a fix; they do not know what to do.
  We need to go to the second test. That second test is estimated to be 
$1.5 million.
  Senator Landrieu, Senator Vitter, and a whole bunch of us had offered 
an amendment that was going to say it had to come out of the CPSC's 
funds, no new appropriation, but we can't get this passed here since we 
are in gridlock over this supplemental appropriations bill and we are 
down to the wire.
  What I would like to do--and only by the gracious generosity of the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee--he has offered to indicate 
his interest and willingness to make sure that the EPA and the CPSC are 
being directed by the Congress to do this test so we can get it to the 
next step without wasting any more time.
  The CPSC told us today, in the Commerce Committee, they have plenty 
of money to do it. The EPA said they have funds to do it. And they are 
both willing to do it. The problem is we don't know, since they are 
midlevel managers, if the head of the CPSC is going to be willing to do 
this, since the head is a short termer and she has not been that 
cooperative in the past.
  So I invite the very distinguished Senator from Hawaii, the chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee, to state if he, as he indicated so 
graciously, would be willing to pour the full weight of the 
Appropriations Committee behind this effort not to waste any time and 
to have the EPA and CPSC do this test for the sake of the health of our 
people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. I shall be honored and privileged to join the Senator in 
his mission. It is a valid one and I hope one this full Senate can 
approve at some later date. I will be most pleased to join him in any 
sort of letter he will be writing to the authorities. I can assure my 
colleague that the full impact of my office will be at his disposal.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator is so gracious, and he always has 
been, I say to my colleague, Senator Inouye.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Florida yield?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Yes, absolutely, to the distinguished Senator 
from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I happen to chair the subcommittee responsible for the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission and I have listened to the Senator's 
presentation. The Senator told me last night that some of this suspect 
Chinese drywall may be in my home State so I want to get ahead of the 
curve and join him in this effort. Let's get this analyzed as quickly 
as possible, and if it poses any danger we ought to know it. I put the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission on notice, with Senator Inouye and 
yourself and many others, that we expect them to take this very 
seriously on a timely basis.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. With those very generous assurances by these 
esteemed Senators, I am grateful, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE. 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.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.

[[Page S5795]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Human Rights

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for the past year, I have been working to 
bring attention to the human rights abuses occurring around the world, 
including little-known political prisoners who are languishing in 
prisons in farflung reaches.
  Too many jails still overflow with prisoners of conscience whose only 
crime is to expect basic freedom, human rights, and due process. I 
undertook this effort with the understanding that it would not be easy. 
I have dealt with these governments in the past, and many times they 
are unresponsive. Few repressive regimes want to address human rights 
records, and in some of the smaller countries where these human right 
abuses are taking place, it takes quite an effort to get their 
attention.
  Through our annual human rights reporting at the State Department, 
our diplomacy and steady public pressure on basic human rights, the 
United States has traditionally been a champion and source of hope 
around the world for those suffering human rights violations.
  I might add, parenthetically, that I wish to thank Senator Patrick 
Leahy for, again, this morning reauthorizing my Subcommittee on Human 
Rights and the Law, a subcommittee which I chaired over the last 2 
years.
  I worried that in recent years America has not raised its voice 
enough in these kinds of cases, and we should not forget that for some 
people whose lives seem so desperate, a little effort on our part can 
make a dramatic difference.
  Take, for example, the appeal made by Burmese Nobel Prize winner Aung 
San Suu Kyi, who has remained under house arrest in Burma for most of 
the last 19 years. She is in deteriorating health and was apparently 
moved to a notorious prison this week.
  I think this is clearly a situation where we know she needs our 
attention and help. Most people have read the account in the newspapers 
about her problems and understand she was victimized by an American who 
somehow managed to get into her home, and in entering her home and 
staying overnight, violated the law, or apparently violated the law.
  I certainly hope, at the end of the day, that her house arrest will 
come to an end and this poor woman will be given a chance to have 
freedom which she richly deserves. I am not going to read this entire 
statement, as it contains many names of foreign origin that may be 
difficult for me to pronounce and for our reporter to keep up with.
  Today, I am pleased to report the release of one of the first of the 
political prisoners my efforts have focused on, specifically a case in 
Turkmenistan.
  Earlier this year I raised my concerns with the Government of 
Turkmenistan about four Turkmen political prisoners. These prisoners 
have languished in jail for years after being convicted of spurious 
charges at trials that failed to meet minimum international standards. 
Some have families with children; some are of advanced years and 
reportedly in poor health.
  I had hoped that the new government in Turkmenistan would take 
important and forward-thinking steps toward releasing political 
prisoners from an earlier era.
  Earlier this month, one such political prisoner in fact, the longest 
serving political prisoner in Turkmenistan Mukhametkuli Aymuradov, was 
unconditionally released after 14 long years of confinement.
  I want commend this decision and strongly encourage the Government of 
Turkmenistan to take similar actions for all other remaining political 
prisoners, including: Gulgeldy Annaniyazov, a long-time political 
dissident who was arrested, apparently on charges that he did not 
possess valid travel documents, and sentenced to 11 years imprisonment; 
and Annakurban Amanklychev and Sapardurdy Khadzhiev, members of the 
human-rights organization Turkmenistan Helsinki Foundation, who were 
sentenced to 6-to-7 years in jail for reportedly ``gathering slanderous 
information to spread public discontent.''
  The freeing of Mr. Aymuradov is an important first step, but more are 
needed.
  I want to conclude by returning to the still unresolved case with 
which I started this effort, that of journalist Chief Ebrima Manneh 
from the small west African Nation of The Gambia.
  Mr. Manneh was a reporter for the Gambian newspaper, the Daily 
Observer. He was allegedly detained in July 2006 by plainclothes 
National Intelligence Agency officials after he tried to republish a 
BBC report mildly critical of President Yahya Jammeh.
  He has been held incommunicado, without charge or trial, for 3 years. 
Amnesty International considers him a prisoner of conscience and has 
called for his immediate release.
  Three years without the government even acknowledging it took one of 
its own citizens, without telling his family where he is being held, 
this is reprehensible. It is outrageous.
  The Media Foundation for West Africa, a regional independent 
nongovernmental organization based in Ghana, filed suit on Mr. Manneh's 
behalf in the Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of 
West Africa States in Nigeria. This court has jurisdiction to determine 
cases of human rights violations that occur in any member state, 
including The Gambia.
  In June 2008 the Court declared the arrest and detention of Mr. 
Manneh illegal and ordered his immediate release. A petition has also 
been filed on his behalf with the United Nations Human Rights Council's 
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and a decision from this body is 
expected soon.
  Yet despite the judgment of the court, as well as repeated requests 
by Mr. Manneh's father, fellow journalists, and me, the Gambian 
Government continues to deny any involvement in his arrest or knowledge 
of his whereabouts.
  Mr. President, America has been wrongly defined by our critics since 
9/11. We need to define our values as a caring Nation, dedicated to 
helping improve the lives of others overseas, including those living 
under repressive governments. Doing so is an important statement of who 
we are as a Nation.
  Five other Senators, including Senators Feingold, Casey, Murray, 
Lieberman, and Kennedy, joined me in a letter last month to Gambian 
President Jammeh about the detention of a Mr. Manneh. Our request was 
simple, and I hope the Gambian leadership will respond to it.
  We are in contact with them in an effort to try to come to some 
reasonable conclusion to this situation. Doing so is so important for 
the people whose lives are at risk and for our reputation in the world.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. 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. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Trade Policies

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, our economy, as we know so well, struggles 
with massive job losses, a shrinking middle class, and an economic 
crisis that undermines the pursuit for far too many Americans and the 
American dream.
  In 2006, voters in my State of Ohio, from Marietta to Cleveland, from 
Van Wert to Youngstown, spoke out with one voice demanding a change in 
our Nation's trade policy. In 2008, they reaffirmed that call with good 
reason, as Senator Obama, again, pointed out the problems with Bush 
trade policy that our trade deficit was literally $2 billion a day 
during the last 2 years in the Bush administration.
  Ohio has suffered more than 200,000 manufacturing job losses since 
2001. The first President Bush pointed out that a billion dollars in 
trade deficit translates into 13,000 lost jobs. Do the math. For too 
long we have been without a coherent trade strategy with no real 
manufacturing policy.
  Most of our trade deficit is due to a manufacturing deficit. Current 
policies have failed to deliver on good jobs and on stability.
  Today, in committee, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on 
the

[[Page S5796]]

Panama Free Trade Agreement. I do not think the American people are 
demanding a trade agreement with Panama. What I hear people in Ohio 
demanding is a new direction. I hear people demanding change on trade, 
change on our economic policy, change on our Nation's economic 
strategy. I hear people asking lots of questions about the economic 
course we are on.
  I hear people worried about our manufacturing base. I hear Ohioans 
say that for every day not spent enforcing trade law and not reforming 
our trade policy, there are manufacturers eliminating jobs.
  Since 2000, the United States has lost 4 million manufacturing jobs, 
not all because of trade but for a lot of reasons--but much because of 
trade. In the last decade, some 40,000 factories have closed 
nationwide, 40,000 factories have shut down.
  A continuing loss of U.S. manufacturing means more unsafe imports, a 
greater dependence on foreign factories to produce both our everyday 
consumer goods and for our national security and military hardware.
  A 2008 EPI study found the United States has lost more than 2.3 
million jobs since 2001 just as a result of our trade deficit with 
China. Again, our trade deficit with China is over $200 billion. The 
first President Bush said that a billion-dollar trade deficit was 
13,000 lost jobs.
  China uses illegal trade practices, such as dumping, such as 
subsidies, such as currency manipulation, to undercut U.S. 
manufacturers.
  When Congress approved China's PNTR, Permanent Normal Trade 
Relations--when Congress approved the legislation to start the ball 
rolling on China's inclusion into the World Trade Organization, then it 
made commitments, China made commitments to gain greater access to U.S. 
markets. They got the access to the U.S. markets, but, unfortunately, 
China has not been held to those commitments.
  Think about toxic toys, think about the toys with lead-based paint on 
them that came into the United States, think about the ingredients made 
in China put in Heparin, the blood thinner that killed several people 
in Toledo, OH, and others around the Nation.
  These are the trade issues people want action on, on jobs, on safety, 
on consumer protection. These are the trade issues I hope the Obama 
administration is focused on, not the trade agreement with Panama.
  Let's talk for a moment about the Panama agreement. It is, of course, 
an agreement negotiated under the Bush administration's fast-track 
negotiating. This is not an Obama trade agreement, this is a Bush trade 
agreement. As we remember, Senator Obama in his campaign was very 
critical of the Bush administration's trade policy.
  The Presiding Officer was in the House of Representatives in those 
days, as I was, in 2002, when fast track--the negotiating authority 
extended to President Bush to give him more power to negotiate trade 
agreements--passed the House by three votes in the middle of the night, 
and the rollcall was kept open for over 2 hours in the last week before 
the August recess.
  The Panama agreement was one of the last deals negotiated and signed 
by President Bush. Under the fast-track authority given to him that 
night in 2007, there were important improvements to the labor and the 
environment chapters of the Panama agreement. This reflected the work 
of many in Congress, including the Finance Committee in the Senate, the 
Ways and Means Committee in the House.
  Yet there remains serious concerns about this agreement. Many in 
Congress have expressed concerns about the safe haven Panama affords to 
companies looking to skip out on their taxes. What does that mean? It 
means there is a way to evade taxes by moving business activity 
offshore.
  Yesterday, Congressman Sander Levin and Congressman Lloyd Doggett 
wrote the Panama's serious tax evasion issues require a serious remedy 
before Congress can even consider the Panama trade agreement.
  The issues about tax evasion are even more serious when the Panama 
Free Trade Agreement includes rules on corporate investor protections. 
These are rules that shift more power to corporations and away from the 
democratic process. In other words, these trade agreements have loaded 
up in them all kinds of protection for the drug companies, the 
insurance companies, the energy companies, not so many protections for 
workers, for the environment, for consumer protection, for food safety.
  It is part of the old model that gives protections to the large 
companies, protections to large corporations, protections to Wall 
Street, while not ensuring protections for workers and food and product 
safety.
  Panama and the free-trade agreement, as it is written, means more of 
the same failed trade policies rejected by working families across the 
Nation. For too long we have seen the pattern: the North American Free 
Trade Agreement, NAFTA; the Central American Free Trade Agreement, 
CAFTA; China PNTR, the Panama Free Trade Agreement.

  We need to stop the pattern where the only protectionism in free-
trade agreements are protecting the drug companies, protecting the oil 
industry, protecting the financial services companies, many that have 
created the economic turmoil we now face.
  Let me explain it another way. This is not actually the Panama Free 
Trade Agreement, but it is about this length. It looks about that much. 
If we were concerned with tariffs, which is what they always say when 
they talk about the Panama trade agreement, this trade agreement, to 
eliminate tariffs on American products in Panama, this trade agreement 
would only need to be about three or four pages.
  But it is much longer. You know why? You have to have this section 
for protection for oil companies. You have to have this section for the 
protections for the insurance companies. You have to have this section 
for the protection for the banks. You have to have this section for the 
protection for the drug companies.
  But there is nothing left protecting consumers, protecting food 
safety, protecting workers, protecting the environment. These are 
protectionist trade agreements, all right, but they are protecting 
again the drug companies, the insurance companies and other financial 
institutions and others.
  If this trade agreement were solely about trade and tariffs, 
literally, it would be only this long. It would simply be a schedule of 
how you eliminate these tariffs, just repeal the tariffs that apply to 
American goods that are sold in Panama.
  When people say Panama has access to the U.S. market, all we are 
asking is to eliminate the tariffs so we have access to the Panama 
market. People who tell you that are the same lobbyists around here who 
represent the drug companies and the insurance companies and the banks 
and the oil companies. Remember that.
  For too long we have seen the status quo in trade policy that gives 
protections to big oil and big business. That is not acceptable.
  A status quo trade policy that suppresses the standards of living for 
American workers, and I would also say suppresses the standard of 
living of what we should do in the developing nations for workers, that 
is not acceptable. A status quo trade policy that fails to effect real 
change on how we do business in China is not acceptable.
  For 8 years, the Bush trade policies were, in fact, protectionist--
protecting the oil industry, protecting the insurance companies and the 
banks and the drug companies. They were protectionist and they were 
wrong-headed.
  We should not continue these Bush trade policies. That is what is 
disturbing about this body. Even considering the Panama Free Trade 
Agreement, we know the Bush economic policies did not work and look at 
the damage to our economy. Look at our trade deficit. Look at our 
budget deficit. Why would we adopt a Bush trade agreement when we know 
its trade policies failed us abysmally?
  In November 2008, voters from Toledo to Athens, from Lorain all the 
way down south to Ironton demanded real change, not symbolic change. We 
need agreements to be reshaped by the Obama administration, not just 
tinkered with around the edges and then stamped ``approved.'' Make no 
mistake, as Senator Dorgan from North Dakota says, we want trade, and 
we want plenty of it. But we don't want trade under rules that protect 
insurance companies, drug companies, financial institutions, and the 
oil industry. We want agreements that work for workers and

[[Page S5797]]

consumers, for children, with safer toys. It is not a question of if we 
trade but how we trade and who benefits from trade. We must create a 
trade policy that helps workers and businesses thrive, especially small 
businesses and manufacturing, that will raise standards abroad, 
increase exports, and rebuild middle-class families in Ohio 
communities.
  Our new trade policy must provide critical solutions to the Nation's 
economic recovery strategy. Reforming trade policy starts with a 
comprehensive review of the overall trade framework. We need a review 
of trade negotiating objectives. That is what I am bringing to the 
floor in legislation. We need a review of the programs responsible for 
enforcing trade rules and promoting exports. I am asking the GAO to 
look at many of these questions as we prepare for the trade act and 
other legislation we will consider. It is only one step.
  We have a responsibility to deliver on the demand to change trade 
strategy. Recycling of Bush-negotiated trade agreements such as that 
with Panama is not a first step. It is the wrong step. The Obama 
administration, I hope, will join with Congress in review and reform of 
our trade strategy. The days of turning away from our responsibility 
are over.
  I yield the floor and 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, the Senator from Michigan, Ms. 
Stabenow, and I have been working all day with the Chrysler president 
and his team and with the White House and their team and the task force 
and their team to try to give the assurances to the 789 dealers who are 
going to be put out of business across our country by Chrysler--with 
the 3-week notification--that they will be able to recoup the cost of 
the inventory that has been left on their property and in their 
dealerships.
  I said I was going to hold up any shortening of time period for this 
bill to be considered until I got a letter of assurance. The original 
amendment, for which we have 37 cosponsors, was to extend the time by 3 
weeks to allow the dealers to be able to sell more inventory, have a 
more orderly transition.
  In fact, what we have done, in consultation with the dealers, I think 
is going to be much better. It is not everything they had hoped for, 
but if there is good faith in this effort, it is going to be good for 
the dealers. But it will take good faith.
  Here is the letter the president of Chrysler, James Press, has sent 
to me. And Senator Stabenow as well has been one of the people who has 
been talking about this and negotiating.
  The letter says:

       Dear Senator Hutchison:
       I assure you that our process for redistributing the 
     product from OldCo dealers--

  Who are the old company dealers who are going to be put out of 
business--

     to NewCo dealers--

  Who are the dealers who will survive--

     is designed to assure that products flow quickly and 
     efficiently from every OldCo dealer. As part of this process, 
     we will ensure that the OldCo dealers receive a fair and 
     equitable value for virtually all of their outstanding 
     vehicle and parts inventory. We have more than 200 
     representatives in the field that are working to ensure that 
     we make good on this commitment as quickly as is practical. 
     We have a very robust system in place to manage the sales to 
     NewCo dealers as well as the inspection and shipment to the 
     new dealer.
       Thanks to your input today we have added a new set of 
     assurances and information for the OldCo dealers, with the 
     intention of removing some of the uncertainty that naturally 
     surrounds this process. Each OldCo dealer will receive a 
     daily report which specifically outlines each unit of 
     inventory and its place in the transition process.
       We share the objective of selling these vehicles as quickly 
     as possible to protect residual values. We are committed to 
     sell every unit possible by June 9, prior to resumption of 
     production [of the company].
       Thank you for your time and interest today. Our goal is to 
     ensure that every dealer realizes a soft landing and is able 
     to transition smoothly.

  Senator Stabenow and I called Mr. Press for a clarification of some 
of the parts of this letter. The biggest concern, of course, that the 
dealers have is getting the inventory they have paid for off their 
books. That is their biggest concern.
  We were assured that the 200 representatives who are going out to 
help this orderly and quick transition will make every effort to 
expedite the transition to the surviving dealerships as quickly as 
possible. This will include specialized tools, as well as parts, 
inventory, and outstanding vehicles.
  I said: What happens after June 9? Because the June 9 deadline is 
good when you are trying to expedite, but then you are not saying that 
you will not keep helping after June 9. They said: Absolutely not. Mr. 
Press said they will certainly continue to help until every part of 
this transition of this inventory is disposed of. And the help will be 
there after June 9. That was the assurance that was given.
  The major thing that has happened that has been helpful is that GMAC 
has received--as we all know because it is public--in the range of $7.5 
billion for financing, which will be available to the new surviving 
dealerships--Chrysler, and I am sure General Motors as well--and so the 
new dealers will have the ability to finance the taking of the 
inventory off of the dealers who are going to be put out of business.
  So that is probably one of the most important components here because 
there had to be a lending source for the new dealers to absorb the new 
inventory.
  I think the biggest concern left for the dealers is the floor plan 
loans they have for the inventory that is there and how that would 
change after June 9. I asked that question. And basically the answer 
is: We are going to try to do everything possible to get these 
transitions out before June 9 so you will not have, hopefully, the 
problem of loans being modified.
  So that is the essence of the conversation and questions I asked for 
clarification. I ended by saying that I think we are much further ahead 
now than we were when the letter arrived on May 14 to the dealers 
saying: We are not going to buy inventory, we are not going to buy 
parts, and we are not going to buy the specialized tools, and you have 
3 weeks to deal with this. We have come a long way from there.
  I said to Mr. Press, and to his team, that I did appreciate this 
effort and the better clarification, but we will know in 2 weeks if the 
good faith that is represented in this letter is, in fact, implemented. 
And they agreed with that.
  I think we have made a step in the right direction--when my dealers 
call and say: Under the circumstances, it is not what we had wanted, 
but we have been treated as fairly as possible and have certainly 
gotten the relief from the burden of inventory so we can deal with the 
employees who will not be with us anymore, and the land and the real 
estate and the other costs of closing an ongoing business.
  So I will say to my colleague from Michigan, I do not think any of 
this would have happened without her stepping in. And hands-on efforts 
were made to bring the White House in, Chrysler in, my staff, her 
staff. So it was certainly a team effort.
  I want to thank the 37 cosponsors of my amendment because I think 
that was a clear indication that over one-third of this Senate was not 
going to let this go the way it had been left at the time. So if there 
is good will in this whole effort for the next 2 weeks, then I am 
optimistic it will have a good result.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter written to me 
by James Press today be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     Chrysler,

                                                     May 21, 2009.
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hutchison: I assure you that our process for 
     redistributing the product from OldCo dealers to NewCo 
     dealers is designed to assure that products flow quickly and 
     efficiently from every OldCo dealer. As part of this process, 
     we will ensure that the OldCo dealers receive a fair and 
     equitable value for virtually all of their outstanding 
     vehicle and parts inventory. We have more than 200 
     representatives in the

[[Page S5798]]

     field that are working to ensure that we make good on this 
     commitment as quickly as is practical. We have a very robust 
     system in place to manage the sales to NewCo dealers as well 
     as the inspection and shipment to the new dealer.
       Thanks to your input today we have added a new set of 
     assurances and information for the OldCo dealers, with the 
     intention of removing some of the uncertainty that naturally 
     surrounds this process. Each OldCo dealer will receive a 
     daily report which specifically outlines each unit of 
     inventory and its place in the transition process.
       We share the objective of selling these vehicles as quickly 
     as possible to protect residual values. We are committed to 
     sell every unit possible by June 9, prior to resumption of 
     production.
       Thank you for your time and interest today. Our goal is to 
     ensure that every dealer realizes a soft landing and is able 
     to transition smoothly.
       Please feel free to contact me anytime.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James E. Press,
                                        Vice Chairman & President.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield for Senator Stabenow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Of course I want to thank Senator Hutchison. Without her leadership, 
without her effort and her amendment, we would not have what I believe 
and am very hopeful will be an important, positive solution to help our 
dealers rather than leaving them on their own in the middle of what has 
been a very horrible time as it relates to Chrysler and General Motors 
and actually the auto industry around the world in terms of what has 
been happening.
  I thank Senator Hutchison because she has been very tenacious and 
very effective, and it has been my pleasure to partner with my friend 
from Texas to achieve something that I believe is positive.
  Before we started this process, the dealers were on their own. That 
was wrong. As a result of working together, and I should say working 
with Chrysler--and I appreciate all of their efforts in, obviously, an 
extremely difficult time for them. I appreciate their working with us. 
I appreciate President Obama and the auto task force for being the 
linchpin in terms of giving us a solution in terms of what they were 
able to do around financing. And I thank all of our colleagues who have 
been involved.
  But we basically have two things. We have the dealers being able to 
get floor plan financing, which we have been working on for a long 
time--to be able to get that so, as Senator Hutchison said, the 75 
percent of the dealers who will remain in business will have the 
opportunity to finance the purchase of the acquisition of inventory 
from the dealers who are going to be going out of business.
  The second thing is there is now a plan and a commitment to work 
through this process in terms of inventory and being able to support 
the dealers in a very difficult time.
  I feel very close to this issue, not just because I represent 
Michigan, an automobile State, but my father and grandfather were car 
dealers in a small town in northern Michigan. I grew up on a car lot. 
My first job was washing the automobiles on the dealership lot. I know 
what this is about: small businesses all across Michigan, all across 
this country, folks who do sponsor the Little League teams. Senator 
Hutchison and I were talking about the ads in the paper, and the 
supporting the community, and all that goes on. I lived it. I saw 
it. It is absolutely critical we do everything we can in this 
incredibly difficult time to support them.

  So I am very pleased we have been able to come together with this. I 
do wish to put in one little plug for when we come back from this next 
week. Senator Brownback and I are offering a bipartisan effort in the 
form of an amendment to incentivize purchasing vehicles which, I 
believe, is really the second stage to helping these dealers. It has 
been dubbed the ``cash for clunkers'' or fleet modernization. The 
bottom line is we want to be able to incentivize getting people back 
into those dealerships to be able to buy automobiles. I am going to put 
a big sign out saying ``Buy American'' because that is what we want 
everybody to do.
  So I am hopeful phase 2 will come after the break. This is very 
important. I would again say it would not have happened without Senator 
Hutchison and all of her leadership. It has been my great pleasure to 
work with her in crafting this solution.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to thank again the Senator from 
Michigan. It was certainly a difficult position for her to, of course, 
have the manufacturers--GM and Chrysler--but also to have the dealers 
that are all over Michigan. I think the tireless efforts we had all day 
today will hopefully end in the next 2 weeks with the implementation of 
as fair as possible dealings with the dealers that we could possibly 
have.
  Mr. President, I wish to add Senator Thune as a cosponsor of 
amendment No. 1189.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague, and I so 
appreciate the 39 cosponsors of this amendment who stepped up to the 
plate and said this has to be fixed. In the end, that made a big 
difference. I wish to thank my colleagues who have been very 
bipartisan.
  Mr. President, 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. REID. 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.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask it be in order to make a point of 
order en bloc against the pending amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Therefore, Mr. President, I make a point of order en bloc 
that all pending amendments are not in order postcloture except the 
following: Leahy, No. 1191; Brown, No. 1161; Corker, No. 1173; Kaufman, 
No. 1179, as modified; McCain, No. 1188; and Lieberman-Graham, No. 
1157; further, that amendments No. 1161, No. 1173, No. 1188, and No. 
1157 be modified with changes at the desk, and once those are modified, 
the above six amendments, as modified if modified, be agreed to en 
bloc; that the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc; and 
the following amendments be considered and agreed to in the order 
listed: Lincoln, No. 1181 and Hutchison amendment No. 1176, as 
modified; and that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table; 
further, that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and the Senate 
proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that upon passage, the Senate 
insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and that 
the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees, with the Senate 
Appropriations Committee appointed as conferees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, regretfully I have to reserve the right 
to object. I have to check on one thing. Shall we enter a quorum call?
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. I renew my unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Amendments Nos. 1167, 1189, 1143, 1147, 1156, 1164, 1144, and 1139 
are non-germane, and they fall for that reason.
  Amendment No. 1185 is ``sense of the Senate'' language and is 
therefore dilatory under cloture. It falls for that reason.


 Amendments Nos. 1191; 1161, as Modified; 1173, as Modified; 1179, as 
      Modified; 1188, as Modified; and 1157, as Modified, En Bloc

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendments Nos. 
1191; 1161, as modified; 1173, as modified; 1179, as modified; 1188, as 
modified; and 1157, as modified, are agreed to en bloc, and the motions 
to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table.
  The amendments Nos. (1191 and 1179, as modified) were agreed to.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S5798, May 21, 2009, the Record reads: The amendment 
(No. 1191) was agreed to.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The amendments 
(Nos. 1191 and 1179, as modified) were agreed to.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


[[Page S5799]]

  The amendments as modified, were agreed to as follows:


                    amendment no. 1161, as modified

       On page 107, line 16, insert the following:
       (d) The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United 
     States Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund 
     to use the voice and vote of the United States to oppose any 
     loan, project, agreement, memorandum, instrument, plan, or 
     other program of the Fund to a Heavily Indebted Poor Country 
     that imposes budget caps or restraints that do not allow the 
     maintenance of or an increase in government spending on 
     health care or education; and to promote government spending 
     on health care, education, food aid, or other critical safety 
     net programs in all of the Fund's activities with respect to 
     Heavily Indebted Poor Countries.


                    amendment no. 1173, as modified

       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 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the President 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 
     120 days thereafter until September 30, 2011, the President, 
     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.


                     amendment no 1188, as modified

       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 ``Assistance for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia'' 
     may be increased by up to $42,500,000, with the amount of the 
     increase to be available for assistance for Georgia.


                    amendment no. 1157, as modified

       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 that was taken between September 
     11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 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 certify, 
     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 (3) shall expire 3 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.
       (4) A timely notice of the Secretary's certification shall 
     be provided to Congress.
       (d) Nondisclosure of Detainee Records.--A covered record 
     shall not be subject to--
       (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) Nothing on this section shall be construed to preclude 
     the voluntary disclosure of a covered record.
       (f) 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.

     SEC. ___. SHORT TITLE.

       This section may be cited as the ``OPEN FOIA Act of 2009''.

     SEC. ___. SPECIFIC CITATIONS IN STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS.

       Section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statue 
     (other than section 552b of this title), if that statute--
       ``(A)(i) requires that the matters be withheld from the 
     public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the 
     issue; or
       ``(ii) establishes particular criteria for withholding or 
     refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; and
       ``(B) if enacted after the date of enactment of the OPEN 
     FOIA Act of 2009, specifically cites to this paragraph.''.


          Amendments Nos. 1181 and 1176, as Modified, En Bloc

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendments Nos. 1181 
and 1176, as modified, are agreed to, and the motions to reconsider are 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The amendment (No. 1181) was agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1176), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:


                    Amendment No. 1176, as modified

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec._. For purposes of qualification for loans made under 
     the Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program as allowed under 
     Public Law 111-5 relating to disaster declaration DR-1791 
     (issued September 13, 2008) the base period for tax 
     determining loss of revenue may be fiscal year 2009 or 2010.


                           Amendment No. 1139

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week, Senator Cornyn insisted on 
offering an amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill 
that is most unfortunate. It is an amendment that is so broad in scope 
and, I believe, wrongheaded, that I felt I should note my disagreement. 
As a former prosecutor, I am troubled that the Senate is being called 
upon to prejudge matters that have yet to be fully investigated. This 
amendment is a classic example of putting the cart before the horse.
  I have proposed a Commission of Inquiry in order to move these 
debates outside of partisan politics. An independent and nonpartisan 
panel taking a comprehensive approach is better positioned to determine 
what happened. Before the Senate starts pontificating about who should 
and should not be investigated, sanctioned, ethically disciplined or 
prosecuted, would it not be a good idea to know what took place?
  I was encouraged to hear Senator Cornyn call for ``an end to the 
poisonous environment that has overtaken the debate about detention and 
interrogation policy in the aftermath of September 11th, 2001.'' I 
agree and that is why I proposed taking the matter out of partisanship 
and away from political institutions. That is not what the amendment 
does, however. First, Senator Cornyn styled this as a sense of the 
Senate making overly broad findings, now he has stripped those findings 
from this amendment, and is doing something even more nonsensical, 
trying to prohibit the use of funds for something that funds are not 
even provided for in the emergency supplemental.
  An amendment politicizing decisions about investigations and 
prosecutions is not the right approach. We should have closed the book 
on efforts to have partisan interests infect Federal law enforcement 
decisions when we lifted

[[Page S5800]]

the veil on the Bush White House's manipulation of U.S. attorney 
firings. Some of us have worked very hard to restore the U.S. 
Department of Justice to be an institution worthy of its name and to 
again command the respect of the American people.
  Senator Cornyn spoke on the floor this week about learning together 
from our past mistakes. I, again, invite all Senators from all parts of 
the political spectrum to join my call for a nonpartisan investigation 
to do just that.
  The Justice Department has yet to finish a 5-year inquiry regarding 
whether some of the lawyers responsible for the Office of Legal Counsel 
opinions that justified brutality acted in ways that failed to meet 
professional and ethical standards. It was a Republican ranking member 
on the Judiciary Committee who earlier this year said that if the news 
reports of how those memoranda came to be generated are true, there may 
have been criminal conduct involved. President Obama and the Attorney 
General have been very forthright in saying that those who relied on 
and followed the legal advice in interrogating prisoners would not be 
prosecuted.
  What needs to be determined, and has not, is how we came to a place 
where the United States of America tortured people in its custody in 
violation of our laws. Those legal opinions have been withdrawn. One of 
the earliest was withdrawn by the Bush administration in advance of the 
confirmation hearing on Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General, and 
others were limited in the final days of the Bush administration. What 
we do not know and what this amendment is geared toward covering for, 
is the role of the former Vice President and his staff, the role of the 
Bush White House in generating those opinions legalizing brutal 
interrogations.
  Last week, the Judiciary Committee held our most recent hearing into 
these matters. I thank Senator Whitehouse for chairing the hearing 
before the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. 
Philip Zelikow testified about how dissent over the legal 
justifications and implementation of these practices was stifled and 
overridden. Ali Soufan, the FBI interrogator of Abu Zubaydah, testified 
about his success using traditional interrogation techniques, and about 
how ineffective and counterproductive the use of extreme practices was 
in that case. And Professor David Luban critiqued the released 
memoranda as legally and ethically dishonest.
  Last week also evidenced, yet again, why the approach of an 
independent, nonpartisan review is the right one. Partisans defending 
the Bush-Cheney administration's actions chose not to look for the 
truth, but to mount partisan attacks. They have succeeded in fulfilling 
the prophecy they created--that any effort to consider these matters 
would break down into partisan recriminations--by themselves doing just 
that. They elevated the minor role of a former minority member of the 
House Committee on Intelligence into their principle concern, thereby 
ignoring the driving force of the former Vice President, other 
officials in the Bush-Cheney administration, and the complicity of the 
Republican congressional officials who were in control of both the 
House and the Senate. They raised straw men, went on witch hunts, and 
sought to distract from the fundamental underlying facts. All they 
really succeeded in demonstrating is that they will continue to view 
these matters through a partisan lens, and that they have yet to show 
any willingness to join in a fair, nonpartisan inquiry. Their recent 
actions reinforce why we need the independent, nonpartisan inquiry for 
which I have been calling over the last several months.
  For those who have reflexively opposed my proposal for a 
comprehensive, nonpartisan, independent inquiry, I ask these questions: 
If we never find the truth and understand the mistakes we have made, 
what incentive is there to avoid them in the future? What guarantee is 
there that the Government will not repeat the same mistakes? What 
incentive will future administrations have to respect the very rule of 
law that distinguishes us as a nation? The risk that the past will 
again be prologue is too great to take simply because it is not easy to 
face the truth.
  I continue to believe that we must know what happened, and why, to 
ensure that America does not go down this dark road, again. Before we 
turn the page, we need to read the page. We should proceed without 
partisanship, not as Republican or Democratic politicians, but as 
Americans who recognize, as Philip Zelikow testified last week, that 
torture was ``a collective failure and it was a mistake.''
  During the last several weeks, we have seen the release of the Senate 
Armed Services report documenting the complicity of top Bush-Cheney 
administration officials. News reports have indicated that in April 
2003, after the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. arrested a top officer in 
Saddam Hussein's security force, and that some acting on behalf of then 
Vice President Cheney urged the use of waterboarding in an effort to 
coerce a ``confession'' supporting the link between al-Qaida and Iraq. 
That link, of course, has proven to be an illusory justification for 
the war, as were the nonexistent stockpiles of nuclear weapons and 
others weapons of mass destruction. Likewise, COL Larry Wilkerson, 
former chief of staff to President Bush's first Secretary of State, has 
written that these brutal interrogations, conducted in the spring of 
2002 before the legal authorizations of the OLC memoranda were crafted, 
were aimed at the ``discovery of a smoking gun linking Iraq and al 
Qaida.'' Perhaps these reports help explain why former Vice President 
Cheney continues to adamantly support these discredited practices. 
Perhaps they explain why the proposed amendment's language is so vague 
with regard to those who, in its words, ``provided input into the legal 
opinions.''
  There are strong passions on all sides. It is not only former Vice 
President Cheney and his apologists who feel strongly. There are those 
who will not be satisfied by anything less than prosecutions for war 
crimes. I have always believed that there is a fundamental middle 
ground, one that focuses on the most important issue at stake--finding 
out what happened and why.
  I appreciate the support of so many who have rallied to this idea of 
a nonpartisan commission and a comprehensive review of what took place. 
Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Philip Zelikow, the executive director 
of the 9/11 Commission and a former State Department counselor, have 
both testified in favor of this idea. Former Bush administration 
official Alberto Mora, and the former FBI Director under President 
Reagan, Judge William Sessions, have both recognized the need for 
accountability. Distinguished former military officers, who are 
familiar with commissions of inquiry, have been supportive. These 
officers include ADM Lee Gun and MG Antonio Taguba, as well as the 
National Institute of Military Justice. Senators Feingold and 
Whitehouse, both members of the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence 
Committees, have strongly endorsed the idea, as has Senator Robert 
Byrd. The Speaker of the House has spoken favorably about getting to 
the bottom of these matters, and she has shown her willingness to 
cooperate with such an inquiry.
  Human rights leaders and organizations have endorsed the approach, 
including Amnesty International, the Constitution Project, the 
International Center for Transitional Justice, Human Rights Watch, 
Physicians for Human Rights, the Open Society Institute, the Brennan 
Center, Human Rights First, and others. Prominent religious leaders 
such as those represented by the National Religious Campaign Against 
Torture, which is composed of a broad spectrum of religious 
denominations, support this idea.
  Thoughtful commentators like Jon Meachem, Nicolas Kristof, Tom Ricks, 
Frank Rich, and Maureen Dowd have come to endorse a nonpartisan 
commission. Editorials in support of a nonpartisan commission have 
appeared over the last several weeks in The New York Times, The 
Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, and in Vermont's 
Rutland Herald.
  Last week, the Attorney General of the United States testified that 
the Justice Department would, of course, cooperate with such a 
commission were Congress to establish one. The President of the United 
States has said that he, too, feels that such a pursuit would be better 
conducted ``outside of the typical hearing process'' by a bipartisan 
body of ``independent participants who are above reproach and have 
credibility.''

[[Page S5801]]

  I urge those Republicans who truly believe, as Senator Cornyn said, 
that in looking at these matters we must ``maintain our sense of 
perspective and objectivity and fairness'' to join in a bipartisan 
effort to provide for a nonpartisan review by way of a commission of 
inquiry. Such a commission would allow us to put aside partisan 
bickering, learn from our mistakes and move forward.
  Just as partisan Republicans were wrong to try to hold up the 
confirmation of Attorney General Holder to extort a pledge from him 
that he would not exercise independent prosecutorial judgment, it is 
wrong to shoe horn this amendment onto this emergency spending bill. I 
opposed the effort by some Republican Senators who wanted the Nation's 
chief prosecutor to agree in advance that he would turn a blind eye to 
possible lawbreaking before investigating whether it occurred. 
Republican Senators asked for such a pledge, a commitment that no 
prosecutor should give. To his credit, Eric Holder did not.
  Similarly, passing a broad and unrelated amendment on an emergency 
appropriations bill that seeks to instruct the Attorney General how to 
fulfill his constitutional responsibilities is not the path forward. 
Before we even know how these legal opinions were generated and who was 
responsible for what, this amendment calls for the Senate to usurp the 
Justice Department's role in determining whether and, if so, who to 
investigate or prosecute. Any former prosecutor, any lawyer and any 
citizen should know that it is not the decision of or an appropriate 
role for the U.S. Senate.


                           Amendment No. 1156

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support Senator Lieberman's amendment 
relating to Army end strength. By clarifying existing law contained in 
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008 and 
providing $400 million for personnel and O&M costs, it ensures soldiers 
already on Active Duty or who are about to be enlisted are able to 
serve. It does not create new authority for more Active-Duty soldiers, 
rather it corrects an erroneous legal interpretation about which end 
strength number should be used to calculate percentages for additional 
troops. I applaud Senator Lieberman's commitment to this goal.


                      Status of Forces Agreements

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee for all of the great work he has done to put 
this supplemental together.
  It is my understanding that the House version of the bill includes a 
study aimed at examining how the terms of the Status of Forces 
Agreement will be met, specifically as the agreement relates to 
withdrawal timelines.
  As the conferees work to resolve the differences of the two bills, I 
look forward to working with the gentleman to ensure this report 
remains in the final bill language.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the gentleman from Oregon for his request. I 
appreciate his concerns and look forward to working with him on this 
matter.


                       MRAP-All Trerrain Vehicle

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to see that the committee 
provided more than $3 billion for smaller, more agile, but still highly 
protective vehicles know as the MRAP-all-terrain-vehicle. That is $1.55 
billion above what the administration requested in the fiscal year 2009 
supplemental. We received a lot of testimony on this armored vehicle 
program from witnesses before our subcommittee, including the Chief of 
Staff of the Army, and I had a personal conversation with Secretary of 
Defense Gates. Everyone said that the MRAP-ATV, as it is known in 
short, is absolutely critical to achieving our goals in Afghanistan.
  Mr. INOUYE. I appreciate that comment from my good friend and 
colleague, the senior Senator from Vermont. The MRAP-all-terrain-
vehicle is very important to protecting our forces in Afghanistan. 
Since 2005, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee has allocated well 
over $25 billion to purchase MRAP vehicles, which have a V-shaped 
bottom and several unique features that deflect energy from roadside 
bomb blasts, prevent fragments from penetrating, and, in turn, save 
people from attack.
  The original versions of the MRAP have saved thousands of lives in 
Iraq; however, they are very large, and this array of vehicles does not 
fully suit the more rugged environment our deployed forces faces in 
Afghanistan. There, we see very few paved roads. Many are simple dirt 
roads, slit through the sides of mountains at higher altitudes. Our 
forces need a vehicle that possesses a lower center of gravity and that 
can go off-road, but possesses the same level of protection as the 
original version of the MRAP.
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senator is so right, and I appreciated the way the 
subcommittee thoroughly looked at the administration's budget request, 
scrubbed the numbers, and listened to what our senior defense leaders 
had to say. The 86th Infantry Brigade Combat Team of the Vermont 
National Guard--the only Army brigade in the Army with a ``Mountain'' 
fighting designation, comprised of upwards of 1,800 proud citizen-
soldiers from Vermont--will begin a yearlong deployment to Afghanistan 
next year. They will help train the Afghan National Army, which is 
critical to our success there. We want all our deployed forces--from 
Vermont, Hawaii, and every State, and every armed service--to have the 
best protection from roadside bomb attacks. That need is reflected in 
the urgent request from Central Command, in the so-called Joint Urgent 
Operational Needs Statement.
  Mr. INOUYE. We have seen a rise in roadside bomb attacks in 
Afghanistan this year, and it was very clear that, as we went through 
the request, we had to accelerate this critical force protection 
program. The administration's request in the fiscal year 2009 
supplemental includes $1.5 billion for approximately 1000 vehicles. The 
fiscal year 2010 overseas contingency operations budget request 
included roughly $1.5 billion for about the same number of vehicles. 
The Defense Subcommittee added $1.55 billion for the MRAP ATV to 
accelerate the procurement of these critical vehicles.
  Mr. LEAHY. I think it is tremendous that the subcommittee has shown 
such leadership on working to secure funds that we all know is 
essential to protecting our brave men and women deployed abroad. I look 
forward to continuing to work with my good friend and colleague from 
Hawaii to hold this funding in our conference negotiations with the 
House of Representatives.
  I thank the esteemed chairman.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I intend to vote against the current 
emergency supplemental spending bill--the second one of this fiscal 
year--and I would like to briefly list my concerns before explaining 
them in more detail. For years I have been fighting to bring an end to 
our involvement in the misguided war in Iraq. While I am pleased that 
President Obama has provided a timeline for redeployment of our troops, 
I am concerned that he intends to leave up to 50,000 of the United 
States troops in Iraq. I am also concerned that this supplemental may 
pad the defense budget with items not needed for the war. We should be 
paying for such items through the regular budget, not running up the 
deficit to purchase them. Finally, while the President clearly 
understands that the greatest international security threat to our 
Nation resides in Pakistan, I remain concerned that his strategy 
regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan does not adequately address, and may 
even exacerbate the problems we face in Pakistan, problems made even 
more clear by the current rising tide of displaced civilians.
  I do want to make clear, however, that there are a number of 
provisions in the bill I support, including funding for humanitarian 
and peacekeeping missions. In addition, I am pleased that the bill 
addresses the increased demand for direct farm loans through the USDA's 
Farm Service Agency, FSA. As of May 7, the FSA reports backlogs of 
nearly 3,000 loans, including $250 million in ownership loans and over 
$100 million for operating loans. With many States having already 
completely utilized their initial fiscal year 2009 allocations of 
direct loan funds, the emergency addition of $360 million for direct 
farm ownership loans and $225 million for direct operating loans in the 
supplemental will help ensure that credit is available to farmers and 
ranchers. I was also encouraged that an additional $49.4 million was 
included for the costs associated with modifying existing

[[Page S5802]]

FSA farm loans, which will help ensure that FSA is able to work with 
farmers who are viable to avoid foreclosure.
  Let me start by focusing on Iraq. President Obama has taken a 
necessary and overdue step by outlining a schedule to safely redeploy 
our troops from Iraq. This will help us focus on al-Qaida and its 
affiliates elsewhere, which continue to be the main threat to U.S. 
national security. I was disappointed, however, that the President 
decided to draw out the redeployment over 3 years. Furthermore, recent 
press reports indicate that in order to meet the June 30 deadline for 
U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraqi cities, certain military 
officials may redraw city borders instead of relocating nearly 3,000 
Americans, as required under the Status of Forces Agreement. This kind 
of fluidity is troubling as it would further delay an already too long 
schedule for redeployment. While we have an obligation to help 
stabilize the region over the long term, we must not lose sight of the 
fact that our very presence has a destabilizing impact and the vast 
majority of Iraqis support a prompt withdrawal of U.S. troops. I am 
concerned that if the United States does not appear to be moving to 
redeploy consistent with the bilateral agreement negotiated with Iraq, 
there could be a surge in violence against the troops of the United 
States.
  Finally, I note that the Bush administration chose to negotiate that 
deal as an executive agreement when its scope clearly exceeds that of 
any previous Executive agreement and extends far beyond the kinds of 
issues addressed in a mere status-of-forces agreement. It should have 
been submitted to the Congress as a treaty and been subjected to the 
requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate. The Congress 
always retains the ultimate authority to determine whether to continue 
to fund military operations abroad so it is in the interest of the 
President to seek Senate approval. Our national security is best served 
when the two branches work together to determine our policy on matters 
of such profound importance to the United States. The Congress should 
make clear that, in the future, any such agreements must be submitted 
for ratification.
  President Obama's strategy review for Afghanistan and Pakistan 
finally focuses the Government's attention and resources where they are 
most needed. After years of our country being bogged down in Iraq, 
President Obama has brought to the White House an understanding that 
the key to our national security is defeating al-Qaida, and that to do 
so we must refocus on this critical region.
  But while the President clearly understands that the greatest threat 
to our Nation resides in Pakistan, I am concerned that his announced 
strategy has the potential to escalate rather than diminish this threat 
without making things better in Afghanistan. According to credible 
polls, the majority of Afghans do not support a surge in U.S. forces 
and a majority in the south even oppose the presence of U.S. troops. 
For years, the Bush administration shortchanged the mission in 
Afghanistan, with disastrous results. But we cannot simply turn back 
the clock. Sending significantly more troops to Afghanistan now could 
end up doing more harm than good--further inflaming civilian resentment 
without significantly contributing to stability in that country.
  Furthermore, sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan before 
fully confronting the terrorist safe havens and instability in Pakistan 
could very well make those problems even worse. And don't just take my 
word for it. When I raised this point with Ambassador Holbrooke during 
a recent hearing, he replied:

       [Y]ou're absolutely correct that . . . an additional 
     [number] of American troops, and particularly if they're 
     successful in Helmand and Kandahar could end up creating a 
     pressure in Pakistan which would add to the instability.

  By providing additional funds for our troops in Afghanistan, this 
supplemental may actually undermine our national security as increasing 
numbers of the Taliban could seek refuge in Pakistan's border region. 
Already, the Taliban's leadership has safe haven in Quetta, while the 
Pakistani military fights militants in the north. Without a concurrent 
plan for Pakistan, the movement of Taliban across the border could 
further weaken local governance and stability, while a flood of 
refugees from Afghanistan would compound Pakistan's already dire IDP 
problem. And let's not forget, we are talking about instability in a 
country with a nuclear arsenal that according to the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff is being expanded.
  The emergence of a new civilian-led government offers the United 
States an opportunity to develop a balanced and sustained relationship 
with Pakistan that includes a long-term counterterrorism partnership. I 
am pleased that this administration, unlike the last, has extended its 
engagement to a broad range of political parties and encouraged the 
development of democracy. I am also pleased that there are efforts to 
significantly increase nonmilitary aid and to impose greater 
accountability on security assistance. After years of a policy that 
neglected Pakistan's civilian institutions and focused on short-sighted 
tactics that were dangerous and self-defeating, this is a refreshing 
step in the right direction. Make no mistake about it, the threat of 
militant extremism has been and continues to be very real in Pakistan, 
but by embracing and relying on a single, unpopular, antidemocratic 
leader we failed to develop a comprehensive counterterrorism sustained 
strategy that transcended individuals. As a result, we must now recover 
from a policy that led Pakistanis to be skeptical about American 
intentions and principles.
  While I support efforts to build a sustained relationship with 
Pakistan, I remain concerned that, even as we continue to provide 
support to the Pakistani military, elements of the Pakistani security 
forces remain unhelpful in our efforts to cut off support for the 
Taliban. During a recent hearing before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, Senator McCain asked Admiral Mullen if he still worries 
about the ISI cooperating with the Taliban. Admiral Mullen responded 
that that he did. This bill contains over $1 billion for the Pakistani 
military, and while we must not over generalize or take an all or 
nothing approach, it would be unwise and very dangerous to convey to 
the Pakistani military that it has our unconditional support.
  That would be especially dangerous now as recent fighting between 
militants and Pakistani forces has reportedly displaced nearly 1\1/12\ 
million people--the greatest displacement there since 1947. This is 
very troubling, and has potentially grave strategic implications for 
U.S. national security. As General Petraeus has said, ``We cannot kill 
our way to victory.'' As we continue to provide assistance to 
Pakistan's military, we must ensure they--and we--have the support of 
the Pakistani people. No amount of civilian aid after the fact can make 
up for military operations that are not tailored to protect the 
civilian population in the first place.
  We must also recognize that, while the Pakistani security forces are 
undertaking operations in the Swat Valley, there are individuals in 
Baluchistan who also present a significant threat to our troops in 
Afghanistan. When I asked Ambassador Holbrooke if he knew whether the 
Pakistani Government was doing everything it could to capture Taliban 
leaders in Baluchistan, he replied that he did not know and that while 
they have ``captured . . . killed and eliminated over the years a good 
number of the leaders of the Taliban and al-Qaida [while] others have 
been under less pressure.'' I encourage the Obama administration to 
engage in tough negotiations with the Pakistani Government on this 
issue and to prepare contingency plans in the event that we continue to 
see members of the security services supporting militants.
  We must continue to ensure al-Qaida and the Taliban are the key 
targets in Pakistan, but strategic success will also depend in part on 
the ability of the Pakistani military to demonstrate they are pursuing 
a targeted approach that seeks to protect the civilian population. For 
example, we should work to ensure that the Pakistani Government has 
taken steps to detain known militant leaders and is providing 
assistance to those who have been displaced by the ongoing violence. On 
the civilian side, working to help reform and strengthen vital 
institutions, including

[[Page S5803]]

the judiciary and education and health care systems, is essential. We 
must also work to reform the police, whose permanent presence in the 
community is less likely to engender hostility than the military's. In 
short, we must focus on helping to build the civilian institutions that 
are part of a responsive, accountable government needed to ensure al-
Qaida and militant extremists do not find support among the Pakistani 
people.
  Lastly, I would like to address an issue that has received much 
attention. A number of my colleagues have spoken on the floor in 
opposition to the President's commitment to close the detention 
facility in Guantanamo bay. I believe it is time for Guantanamo to be 
closed. Senator McCain, Senator Graham, Colin Powell and James Baker 
share this view. The facility has become a rallying cry and recruiting 
tool for al-Qaida. It contributes to extremism, anti-American sentiment 
and undermines our ability to build the international support we need 
to defeat al-Qaida.
  Secretary Gates has testified that ``the announcement of the decision 
to close Guantanamo has been an important strategic communications 
victory for the United States.'' The Director of National Intelligence, 
Admiral Blair, has stated that:

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

  And, former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora testified to the Senate 
Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that

       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.

  There are many unresolved questions about the process we will use to 
prosecute these detainees. We need to resolve those tough questions, 
but we should not use them as an excuse to avoid taking a step that is 
so important to our national security.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I wanted to make a brief statement today 
on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's 
consideration of S. 692, a bill to ensure that a valuable collection of 
historical papers pertaining to President Franklin Roosevelt, known as 
the Grace Tully Archive, can be transferred to the Roosevelt 
Presidential Library in Hyde Park. NY.
  The Grace Tully Archive is considered the most important collection 
of documents and memorabilia related to President Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt currently in private hands. The collection was directly given 
to and/or gathered by FDR's personal secretary for decades, covering 
both his private and public career as Governor of New York and 
President. The donation of the collection to the Roosevelt Presidential 
Library has been supported by the National Archives--NARA--and 
described as a matter of ``overwhelming public interest.''
  The acting Archivist of the United States, Adrienne Thomas, wrote to 
Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins about this bill earlier 
this month, and I will ask that a copy of that letter be printed into 
the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  After Grace Tully died in 1981, her collection was sold into private 
hands, and it has since changed hands several times. The current 
private owner obtained the collection in 2001 from a well-known New 
York rare book dealer in a widely publicized sale.
  Although no previous claims had been made after other sales, the 
Archives stepped forward in 2004 to make a claim of ownership to 
certain specific documents contained in the larger Tully collection. 
They claimed that certain documents were ``Presidential papers'' and 
should have originally been given to the Archives, not Grace Tully yet 
the laws governing such documents and the establishment of Presidential 
libraries was not passed until after the death of President Roosevelt. 
So there are some legal ambiguities. But for several years, this 
dispute over the ownership of a small portion of the collection has 
prevented the donation of the entire collection.
  Both sides wish to avoid litigation, since the collection is being 
donated to the FDR Library anyway indeed, the collection is already at 
the Roosevelt Library in sealed boxes waiting for the matter to be 
resolved. Both sides prefer that the matter be solved via Federal 
legislation that will clarify the ownership issue and ensure that the 
Archives and the American people receive this important historical 
collection.
  Since the papers are already at the FDR library, my bill seeks only 
to clarify the ownership issue in order to facilitate the completion of 
the donation of a collection of immense value to historians. The 
current owner of the collection will have to abide by current tax rules 
governing such donations, including obtaining appropriate appraisals. 
All my bill seeks to accomplish is to allow the donation to move 
forward without the time and expense of litigation.
  Last year, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee 
also reported out this bill, but it was stalled by year-end disputes 
over unrelated unanimous consent requests. Since there is no objection 
to this bill, I am hopeful that the Senate can take it up and pass it 
unanimously very soon, so the gift of the papers can be completed this 
year.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous cnsent to have the letter to which I 
referred printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             National Archives and


                                       Records Administration,

                             College Park, Maryland, May 18, 2009.
     Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
     Chairman,
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     Ranking Member, United States Senate, Committee on Homeland 
         Security and Government Affairs, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins:
       Last September, former Archivist of the United States Allen 
     Weinstein wrote to Senator Schumer to express NARA's strong 
     support for his effort to facilitate the donation of the 
     ``Tully Archive'' to the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential 
     Library (located in Hyde Park, NY), a part of the National 
     Archives and Records Administration, through legislation that 
     was pending in the last Congress. I write now to express 
     NARA's continuing support of this effort in the current 
     Congress, as encompassed in S. 692 (introduced by Senator 
     Schumer).
       As we have explained, the Tully Archive is a significant 
     collection of original FDR-related papers and memorabilia 
     that had been in the possession of President Roosevelt's last 
     personal secretary, Miss Grace Tully. Due to the efforts of 
     your committee to move the issue along, we are now very close 
     to resolving this matter after several years of uncertainty.
       Successful resolution of this case through a donation to 
     the National Archives, as facilitated by this legislation, 
     would culminate several years of serious discussion between 
     the Government and the private parties involved. It will also 
     result in substantial savings to the government, by obviating 
     the need for a lawsuit to claim and assert government 
     ownership over a small portion of the collection--an action 
     that would take years, require substantial resources, and 
     result in our obtaining only a limited portion of the Tully 
     Archive. I recognize that there are complex issues involved 
     in this case and consider the Committee's approach to be the 
     best available under the circumstances.
       The entire Tully Archive includes some 5,000 documents, 
     including over 100 FDR letters with handwritten notations; 
     dozens of speech drafts and carbons; hundreds of notes (or 
     ``chits'') in FDR's handwriting; letters from cabinet 
     officials and dignitaries, including a letter from Benito 
     Mussolini congratulating FDR on his 1933 inaugural; Eleanor 
     Roosevelt family letters; and photographs, books, framed 
     items, etchings, and other memorabilia.
       Although Miss Tully died in 1984, the extent of the 
     collection only came to the attention of the National 
     Archives in 2004 when a team from the Roosevelt Library and 
     NARA's Office of General Counsel had the opportunity to 
     examine the materials. Although there has been a minor 
     dispute over ownership of a small portion of the collection, 
     this is very close to being resolved. The entire collection 
     is currently in sealed boxes at the Roosevelt Library waiting 
     for the gift to be completed. I believe that the National 
     Archives and the American people are best served by receipt 
     of the entire collection.
       It is very important to NARA, and for future historians 
     that might want to study these papers, for the Tully Archive 
     to be kept intact and made fully accessible to the American 
     people in a public government archives. This result will 
     increase the ability of scholars to learn about our 32nd 
     president and his extraordinary life and times.
       There is an overwhelming public interest in making this 
     collection available to the

[[Page S5804]]

     public. I personally thank you for your efforts to ensure 
     that the issue is finally resolved in the 111th Congress.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                  Adrienne Thomas,
                            Acting Archivist of the United States.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
  Mr. REID. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the 
Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. 
Carper), the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Hagan), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), 
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), the Senator from New 
Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Udall) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) would vote ``aye.''
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Hatch).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 202 Leg.]

                                YEAS--86

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

                                NAYS--3

     Coburn
     Feingold
     Sanders

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Begich
     Byrd
     Carper
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Kennedy
     Murray
     Rockefeller
     Shaheen
     Udall (CO)
  The bill (H.R. 2346), as amended, was passed, as follows:
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment, requests a conference with the House, and the Chair 
appoints Mr. Inouye, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
Kohl, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Johnson, 
Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Reed, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. 
Pryor, Mr. Tester, Mr. Specter, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Bond, Mr. McConnell, 
Mr. Shelby, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Bennett, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Brownback, Mr. 
Alexander, Ms. Collins, Mr. Voinovich, and Ms. Murkowski conferees on 
the part of the Senate.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to speak 
about the National Guard and the need for this Federal Government to 
better equip our Guard and Reserve units. Senate amendment No. 1143, 
which I offered to the supplemental appropriations bill, would have 
done just that. Although the Senate did not adopt this sensible 
measure, I will continue to seek creative ways to support the National 
Guard and pursue this responsible and reasonable expenditure.
  Simply put, my amendment would have appropriated $2 billion to the 
National Guard and Reserve equipment account. This money would have 
come from unobligated funds made available by the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009. The rescissions would not have applied to 
amounts relating to the Department of Defense, the Department of 
Homeland Security, Military Construction, or the Veterans 
Administration.
  In recent years, our National Guard and Reserve forces have faced 
substantial shortfalls in equipment, and the military budget requests 
have been insufficient to remedy the problem. Even prior to 9/11, our 
National Guard and Reserve forces had equipment deficiencies. Since 9/
11, due to an especially high operational tempo in the Iraqi and Afghan 
Theaters of Operations, our National Guard and Reserve equipment is 
being worn out and exhausted more quickly than anticipated. Combat 
losses are also contributing to shortfalls. Compounding the problem, in 
order to provide deployable units, the Army National Guard and the Army 
Reserve have had to transfer large quantities of their equipment to 
deploying units, exacerbating shortages in nondeploying units. Also, 
some National Guard and Reserve units, at the end of their deployments, 
have had to leave significant quantities of equipment overseas. If 
these equipment shortfalls are not remedied, our National Guard and 
Reserve forces run the risk of further deterioration of readiness 
levels and capability.
  In my estimation, it seemed reasonable to move $2 billion in 
unobligated stimulus spending to fund necessary procurement of new 
National Guard and Reserve equipment, which was tragically overlooked 
during the stimulus debate. The National Guard and Reserve equipment 
account is a critical resource for funding procurement of new equipment 
for our National Guard and Reserve forces. This $2 billion increase in 
equipment funding would have provided much-needed modern equipment for 
our National Guard and Reserve forces, better enabling them to meet 
mission and readiness requirements. In addition, this funding, which 
would have to have been spent by the end of fiscal year 2010, would 
have provided a stimulative effect to the U.S. economy.
  New equipment would also directly benefit our Nation's homeland 
security missions and disaster response efforts, both of which are 
frequently assigned to National Guard forces. The Guard's ability to 
carry out these responsibilities depends on the availability of 
necessary equipment. Much of the equipment that would otherwise be used 
in these missions remains deployed overseas and is therefore 
unavailable.
  In closing I want to reiterate my commitment to the National Guard 
and Reserve. Going forward, I will continue to fight to ensure that our 
Guard and Reserve units have the resources and equipment necessary to 
complete their missions. They make every American proud, and I am 
committed to maintaining a healthy and well-equipped National Guard and 
Reserve for years to come.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________