[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 169 (Monday, November 16, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11362-S11376]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 3082, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3082) making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Johnson-Hutchison amendment No. 2730, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Udall (NM) amendment No. 2737 (to amendment No. 2730), to 
     make available from Medical Services, $150,000,000 for 
     homeless veterans comprehensive service programs.
       Johnson amendment No. 2733 (to amendment No. 2730), to 
     increase by $50,000,000 the amount available for the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs for minor construction 
     projects for the purpose of converting unused Department of 
     Veterans Affairs structures into housing with supportive 
     services for homeless veterans, and to provide an offset.
       Franken-Johnson amendment No. 2745 (to amendment No. 2730), 
     to ensure that $5,000,000 is available for a study to assess 
     the feasibility and advisability of using service dogs for 
     the treatment or rehabilitation of veterans with physical or 
     mental injuries or disabilities.
       Inouye amendment No. 2754 (to amendment No. 2730), to 
     permit $68,500,000, as requested by the Missile Defense 
     Agency of the Department of Defense, to be used for the 
     construction of a test facility to support the Phased 
     Adaptive Approach for missile defense in Europe, with an 
     offset.
       Coburn amendment No. 2757 (to amendment No. 2730), to 
     require public disclosure of certain reports.
       Durbin amendment No. 2759 (to amendment No. 2730), to 
     enhance the ability of the Department of Veterans Affairs to 
     recruit and retain health care administrators and providers 
     in underserved rural areas.
       Durbin amendment No. 2760 (to amendment No. 2730), to 
     designate the North Chicago Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 
     Illinois, as the ``Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health 
     Care Center.''
       Johanns amendment No. 2752 (to amendment No. 2730), 
     prohibiting use of funds to fund the Association of Community 
     Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).
       Akaka amendment No. 2740 (to amendment No. 2730), to extend 
     the authority for a regional office of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs in the Republic of the Philippines.
       Menendez amendment No. 2741 (to amendment No. 2730), to 
     provide, with an offset, an additional $4,000,000 for grants 
     to assist States in establishing, expanding, or improving 
     State veterans cemeteries.
       DeMint (for Inhofe) amendment No. 2774 (to amendment No. 
     2730), to prohibit the use of funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this act to construct or modify a facility 
     in the United States or its territories to permanently or 
     temporarily hold any individual held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
       DeMint amendment No. 2779 (to amendment No. 2730), to 
     prohibit the use of funds for the transfer or detention in 
     the United States of detainees at Naval Station Guantanamo 
     Bay, Cuba, if certain veterans programs for fiscal year 2010 
     are not fully funded.

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as we come back from the Veterans Day 
recess, the Senate resumes consideration of the MILCON-VA 
appropriations bill. As I have stated several times on the floor during 
this debate, this is a vital piece of legislation that needs to be 
passed as quickly as possible.
  As I speak, the VA is operating under a stopgap funding measure. 
Funding the VA in that manner is far from ideal and interrupts planning 
and hiring at VA hospitals. The bill before the Senate today protects 
against this sort of problem in the future by providing $48.2 billion 
in advance appropriations for VA medical care. This is something that 
is supported by both sides of the aisle. In fact, this bill is one of 
the most bipartisan measures that we take up every year. That is why it 
mystifies me that we seem to be in a holding pattern.
  One of the most critical parts of this bill is medical care for our 
Nation's vets. The VA is expecting to treat almost 6.1 million patients 
in fiscal year 2010, an increase of 2.1 percent over last year. 
Moreover, the Department estimates it will see the number of Iraq and 
Afghanistan war vets rise to 419,000 this year, a 61-percent increase 
in patient load since 2008. With these facts in mind, the bill targets 
the vast majority of discretionary funding for vets' medical care. The 
bill provides a total of $44.7 billion for medical care. Additionally, 
it provides $580 million for vital medical and prosthetic research. 
This is one of the many reasons why we need to get this bill passed and 
sent to conference as soon as possible.
  In addition, hundreds of urgent military construction projects are on 
hold awaiting passage of this bill.
  Under a unanimous consent agreement entered into last Monday, there 
are 27 amendments in order to this bill and one motion. As I understand 
it, we will soon be voting on one of the amendments and the motion to 
commit. Between now and the time of the vote, I wish to try to clear 
some of the other amendments that are in order to the bill. I have read 
all these amendments, and the vast majority are not controversial. It 
seems to me we should be able to clear them. If there are objections to 
any of these amendments, I urge my colleagues to come to the floor and 
express what objections they may have.
  Taking care of our vets and our military troops and their families is 
one of the most important tasks of this body. Surely, we can all work 
together and pass this bill quickly.


                Amendment No. 2781 to Amendment No. 2779

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Durbin, I send a 
second-degree amendment to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson], for Mr. 
     Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 2781 to amendment 
     2779.

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

       At the end of the amendment, add the following:
       The provision of the amendment shall become effective 1 day 
     after enactment.

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

[[Page S11363]]

  Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          Guantanamo Prisoners

  Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, I am here to speak about the recent 
decision of the Obama administration to bring five terrorists allegedly 
responsible and who admitted being responsible for planning and 
executing the 9/11 attacks and having them tried in a criminal court in 
New York. This is the group of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other 
alleged 9/11 plotters.
  The reason I stand before you today is to ask you the question: Why? 
Why are we bringing enemy combatants, terrorists, to trial in a civil 
venue in New York? The decision of the Attorney General does not make 
sense to me. It is not sound in terms of our historical precedent for 
these types of hearings, and it puts our national security at risk for 
the future.
  Criminal trials for terrorists are different and should be different 
than criminal trials of those who commit crimes in this country. After 
all, we afford our citizens who commit crimes the presumption of 
innocence. It is part of the bargain we have with our citizens, that we 
will not presume them guilty. We afford them rights--rights that are 
set forth in our Bill of Rights, rights that are guaranteed 
constitutionally. We do not guarantee these rights for people who are 
not U.S. citizens. More importantly, we do not guarantee these rights 
for terrorists who attack our country in an act of war.
  Right now, we are fighting this war in two theaters--in Afghanistan 
and Iraq. These are enemy combatants. They are not U.S. citizens. They 
were not resident in the United States when they committed this crime.
  I wish to go through the rights we afford the criminally accused in a 
normal prosecution in this country and show why they are not suited for 
a terrorist.
  We extend the right to remain silent; the right to have that silence 
not used against you; the right to choose between a public trial before 
a judge or jury; the right to summon and compel the attendance of 
witnesses to testify on the accused's behalf; the right to a speedy 
trial; the right to see all the evidence collected against the accused; 
the right to learn how the evidence was collected; and the right to 
appeal not only the verdict but almost every ruling a judge performs in 
the case.
  Why are we extending these rights to enemy combatants who killed 
nearly 3,000 innocents on 9/11 through an act of war? They did not wear 
a military uniform, and the planes they flew were not the planes of 
foreign countries with foreign flags. But there is no difference 
between the war we are in with them and wars we have had against other 
countries.
  The precedent of what may happen when we afford these rights to these 
terrorists is not good. Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey talked 
about what happened when we tried terrorists in U.S. criminal courts. 
During the trial of Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World 
Trade Center bombing, a part of testimony which we thought was 
innocuous at the time that came out in the public courtroom talked 
about the delivery of a cell phone battery. It tipped off the 
terrorists still at large that one of their communication links had 
been compromised. Mukasey said that link, which had been monitored by 
the government and provided enormous, valuable intelligence, was 
immediately shut down and lost in our war on terror.
  Mukasey also noted that ``In the multidefendant terrorism prosecution 
of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, [also known as ``the Blind Sheik'' for his 
role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings] . . . the government was 
required to disclose, as it is routinely in conspiracy cases,'' the 
names of the unindicted coconspirators, one of whom was Osama bin 
Laden.
  We are giving information in these public trials, which were never 
meant for terrorism, which was never meant for people we are at war 
with, that may be used against us in a future terrorist attack.
  Why are we doing this? What is the purpose? We have military 
tribunals to perform this function. This is not something new to this 
country. We have been using military tribunals since the time of George 
Washington. He used it during the American Revolution to deal with 
British spies. None other than Franklin Delano Roosevelt used them in 
World War II. We had eight German agents who sneaked ashore with the 
intent to plant explosives at railroad facilities and bridges. 
Roosevelt used military tribunals to try and convict those Germans who 
came across in World War II, and the Supreme Court upheld it. These 
military tribunals are not something new. They have to be done right. 
They have to give due process.
  We used them against the driver of Osama bin Laden, and one of the 
charges was dismissed against him. So they are a fair process.
  Why are we bringing the 9/11 terrorists to a criminal court in New 
York? These are not bank robbers. These are people with whom we are at 
war. Why are we affording them extra rights? Why are we affording them 
extra rights when the information that is revealed during the discovery 
process in Federal court may compromise our national security and lead 
to additional terrorist attacks? Why are we doing this? It doesn't make 
any sense to me. It defies history, and it is going to present and 
possibly provide future challenges to our national security.
  Finally, let's think about what these trials are going to be like. We 
are giving these terrorists an international reality show where they 
are going to be able to have a platform each and every day to talk 
about their war against our country and our values. I wish to quote 
from David Brooks in his column in the Washington Post. He said:

       Terrorism is an act of propaganda. So now [Khalid Sheik 
     Mohammed] gets to commit the original act of propaganda, 
     which was the attack, and now he's going to have a long 
     trial, an international reality show, which will be followed 
     here, but more importantly, followed around the world. So 
     he's getting a second bite of the apple at spreading his 
     propaganda message.

  What happens if because of all of the rights that are afforded to a 
person who is tried in a criminal court in the United States, what 
happens if because one of those rights and all of the presumptions 
there are against being found guilty, presumptions that we afford to 
our citizens because they are part of our constitutional democracy, 
what happens if Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, is 
acquitted on a technicality? Then what? What are we going to do with 
him? Are we going to release him? Are we going to let him off on the 
streets in New York? I don't think so. Then we are going to hold him 
again. What does that say to the international community? He had a 
trial, he was acquitted, but we are still going to hold him because we 
think he is a threat. That is going to backfire on this administration.
  In conclusion, I cannot understand why we are doing this. I cannot 
understand, when we have a historical precedent of a military tribunal 
that we have used since the time of George Washington, that we used 
during World War II, why we are going to bring these terrorists who 
killed or were responsible for killing nearly 3,000 innocents on 
September 11, why we are going to try them in Federal court as 
criminals and not understand what they truly are, which are terrorists 
with whom we are at war.
  Mr. 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.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Amendment No. 2746 to Amendment No. 2730

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment so I can call up amendment No. 2746.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2746 to amendment No. 2730.


[[Page S11364]]


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

 (Purpose: To require reporting on alternatives to major construction 
     projects related to the security of strategic nuclear weapons 
                              facilities)

       On page 27, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       Sec. 128. (a) During each of fiscal years 2010 through 
     2014, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report analyzing 
     alternative designs for any major construction projects 
     requested in that fiscal year related to the security of 
     strategic nuclear weapons facilities.
       (b) The report shall examine, with regard to each 
     alternative--
       (1) the costs, including full life cycle costs; and
       (2) the benefits, including security enhancements.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my amendment would enhance the security 
of our strategic nuclear weapons arsenal and help ensure that the 
Defense Department makes the best use of taxpayer dollars. I am pleased 
it has the support of the chairmen of both the Military Construction 
Appropriations subcommittee and the Armed Services Committee.
  The amendment would require the department to submit an analysis of 
alternative designs for any major military construction projects to 
secure our nuclear weapons that it plans to initiate. GAO recently 
found that the Navy initiated two significant new projects without 
fully analyzing all of the alternatives. Therefore, we cannot be sure 
that we have found the safest and most cost effective means of 
protecting our nuclear weapons.
  Ensuring the security of our nuclear materials and weapons is more 
important today that it has ever been. The Commission on the Strategic 
Posture of the United States recently concluded that the threat posed 
by the danger of terrorists accessing nuclear materials is greater than 
the threat that a foreign government would choose to use such weapons 
against us. Unfortunately, in the face of this new threat, our 
stewardship of our own arsenal has grown lax in recent years. All of my 
colleagues are aware of the serious breakdown in leadership which 
resulted in the unintentional shipment of nuclear-related 
intercontinental ballistic missile parts to Taiwan. They are likely 
also aware that a B-52 bomber flew across the continental United States 
mistakenly loaded with five nuclear warheads. These incidents led to 
the resignation of the Air Force Chief of Staff and Air Force 
Secretary. Just recently, a wing commander was relieved of command for 
substandard performance during several nuclear surety inspections at 
Minot Air Force Base. Clearly, this is an area that warrants sustained 
congressional oversight.
  I recently wrote to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global 
Strategic Affairs, Dr. Michael Nacht, asking him to include in the 
Nuclear Posture Review an analysis of the ideal means to secure our 
domestic nuclear complex from a terrorist attack. Securing nuclear 
materials is not just about command and control--it is also about 
ensuring the physical security needed to ward off an attack. In 2008, 
the Department of Energy's Office of Independent Oversight conducted an 
evaluation, including a mock terrorist attack, of a U.S. lab that 
stores weapons-grade nuclear materials. The oversight office found that 
the lab's security program had significant weaknesses. In light of 
these numerous security incidents, Congress must step up its efforts to 
conduct oversight of our nuclear weapons complex.
  This amendment is a small step in that direction. As the Defense 
Department completes the Nuclear Posture Review and stands up a new 
command in the Air Force to handle nuclear weapons, it is important 
that we send a message that we want a careful analysis of the best 
means to secure our nuclear weapons.
  The Defense Department spends roughly a billion dollars annually on 
nuclear weapons security, including about $50 million annually on 
military construction. GAO recently found that ``the Navy plans to 
spend about $1.1 billion on security improvements to protect ballistic 
missile submarines while in transit, but selected one alternative 
without considering the full life cycle costs of the available 
alternatives.'' In particular, the ``Navy did not consider the military 
construction costs of building new facilities to support the new 
security measures. . . .'' In another case, the Navy interpreted DOD 
guidance as ``precluding the considerations of costs and benefits.'' 
This amendment will ensure that this does not happen again.
  GAO also found that DOD occasionally cited costs ``as a criterion for 
deviations from security requirements.'' This amendment will ensure 
that the Department conducts a full cost benefit analysis and provides 
it to Congress. That way we can ensure that DOD is not deviating from 
security requirements unnecessarily for cost.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.


                Amendment No. 2748 to Amendment No. 2730

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if I could, I would like to move on, set 
that amendment aside in favor of bringing up amendment No. 2748.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself and 
     Mr. Sanders, proposes an amendment numbered 2748 to amendment 
     No. 2730.

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

 (Purpose: To make available $5,000,000 for grants to community-based 
   organizations and State and local government entities to conduct 
              outreach to veterans in under-served areas)

       On page 52, after line 21, add the following:
       Sec. 229.  Of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this title, the Secretary shall award $5,000,000 
     in competitively-awarded grants to community-based 
     organizations and State and local government entities with a 
     demonstrated record of serving veterans to conduct outreach 
     to ensure that veterans in under-served areas receive the 
     care and benefits for which they are eligible.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment would establish a pilot 
program to give grants to community-based organizations to conduct 
outreach for veterans. Many veterans are not aware of care and benefits 
available to them through the VA or need help navigating the VA 
bureaucracy to access those benefits.
  The VA has recognized the need to conduct additional outreach to 
veterans but does not have the presence in certain underserved 
communities, including rural areas, to do so directly. This amendment 
would ensure the VA makes grants to organizations, including State and 
local governmental entities, that have a presence in the community and 
experience working with veterans.
  This amendment is based on my Veterans Outreach Improvement Act, 
which I first introduced over 5 years ago. That bill has been endorsed 
by the American Legion; Veterans of Foreign Wars; Paralyzed Veterans of 
America; Vietnam Veterans of America; National Guard Association of the 
United States; Wounded Warrior Project; and the National Association of 
State Directors of Veterans Affairs. The companion bill has already 
passed the House.
  The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee has endorsed the idea of a 
pilot grant program and has authorized the program in the pending 
Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2009.
  The amendment would set aside $5 million in funding for the grants. 
CBO has certified that the amendment has no score and is deficit-
neutral.
  The grants would be awarded on a competitive basis. A wide variety of 
groups could apply for the grants. State departments of veterans 
affairs could apply for the grants. In Wisconsin, the Department of 
Veterans Affairs runs a ``supermarket'' of benefits where veterans can 
come and learn about programs available to them through the VA. In the 
first several years of the program, over 10,000 Wisconsin veterans 
learned about VA programs for which they were eligible. If that many 
veterans in Wisconsin alone were unaware of these programs, you can 
imagine the need for greater outreach nationwide.

[[Page S11365]]

  Other groups that may apply for grants include the county veteran 
service officers who are present in counties throughout most States. 
These individuals have a presence in many rural communities where the 
VA's presence is minimal. Rather than hiring contractors that know 
nothing about veterans issues to conduct outreach by phone to veterans, 
as the VA has done, this amendment would allow the VA to leverage 
existing expertise in the community. Both State and local governmental 
entities are currently conducting outreach notwithstanding the fact 
that this is a Federal responsibility. Given the current strain on 
State and local budgets, we cannot assume that they will continue to be 
able to offer these services.
  Community-based nonprofits with experience working with veterans will 
also be eligible for the grants. These organizations may have special 
skills for working with underserved veterans, such as expertise in 
assisting those with mental disabilities.
  Given the high number of service members returning from Afghanistan 
and Iraq, it is essential that we conduct outreach to these veterans 
now to ensure that they get the services they need from the VA. I urge 
my colleagues to support this amendment.
  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.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Nomination of David F. Hamilton

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise to share some thoughts about the 
Hamilton nomination in particular and some thoughts about the idea that 
judges can be subject to a filibuster. It is a matter that has been the 
subject of discussion in the Senate for a number of years. I wish to 
share with my colleagues how it all came about, where I think we are 
today, and why Mr. Hamilton does not deserve to be confirmed as a 
Federal judge.
  I recognize he has many qualities, and I am not saying anything about 
him personally. But his approach to the law is unacceptable and is 
activist and evidences a philosophy that indicates he would not be 
serving under the law and under the Constitution but, as he has said, a 
judge is free to write footnotes to the Constitution. I don't think 
judges are empowered to write footnotes to the Constitution. According 
to their oath, judges serve under the Constitution. They don't get to 
amend it or footnote it, and they are not above it.
  Back when President Clinton was in office, he nominated a number of 
judges who were activist. I voted for over 90 percent of his nominees. 
But I believed a number were activists, and I opposed them. There was 
much discussion about it. Nominees such as Marsha Berzon and Richard 
Paez I believed, were not going to be faithful to the law if confirmed. 
My instincts in that regard have been proven correct. This was in the 
1990s.
  Regardless, I remember then-majority leader Trent Lott, a Republican, 
moved for cloture on Berzon and Paez. We had votes. I and an 
overwhelming number of Republicans voted for cloture; that is, voted to 
bring up the nominees for a vote. Then a number of us voted against 
them. We didn't think they should be confirmed. But we didn't adhere to 
the view that filibustering was appropriate. That is when President 
Clinton, a Democrat, was in the White House.
  Then, my Democratic colleagues in the Senate opposed filibusters and 
made all kinds of speeches against filibusters and against delaying 
votes.
  Then President Bush, a Republican, got elected. In January, before he 
actually took office or about the time he took office, my Democratic 
colleagues had a retreat. At the retreat they met with legal scholars: 
Laurence Tribe, Cass Sunstein, and Marcia Greenberg. They advised them 
they should no longer follow tradition but should change the ground 
rules. In fact, they did so in a lot of areas. The New York Times 
reported that the decision at this meeting was about changing the 
ground rules on confirmations.
  When President Bush started nominating judges, they were suddenly 
subject to filibuster--consistent, sustained filibusters, vote after 
vote. I believe there were 30 different cloture votes filed to move his 
nominees forward. That is what happened. We ended up with a series of 
nominees who were fabulous nominees President Bush had submitted, and 
they couldn't get a vote. Priscilla Owen, a member of the Texas Supreme 
Court, was given the highest possible rating by the ABA; Judge Bill 
Pryor, now Justice Bill Pryor from Alabama, a fabulous, brilliant 
nominee; Miguel Estrada; Janice Rogers Brown, an African-American woman 
who had been elected to the California Supreme Court and was a fabulous 
nominee. I remember her particularly since she had been born in 
Alabama. We couldn't bring them up for a vote. It went on and on.
  Finally, the only thing that then-majority leader Bill Frist could do 
was to change the rules of the Senate to allow us to vote. He finally 
got the situation to the point that that appeared to be likely to 
occur.
  It was at that point that the Gang of 14--seven Republican and seven 
Democratic Senators--got together and basically said: Too many nominees 
are being filibustered. We are abusing the filibuster rule, but we 
don't think we ought to eliminate the filibuster altogether, but only 
in extraordinary circumstances. If you really think this is not a good 
nominee who should not serve on the bench, vote no. But only if you 
strongly believe there is some serious flaws in this nominee's 
background, only then should you participate in a filibuster. It is 
legitimate if there is extraordinary circumstances. That is what they 
said.
  A number of the judges got through. Several did not. There were 8 or 
10 in controversy at that time for the circuit bench. Priscilla Owen, 
Bill Pryor, and Janice Rogers Brown were confirmed, but several others 
didn't make it from that group.
  Now we have a Democratic President, and his nominees are coming up. 
Justice Sotomayor, whom he nominated to the Supreme Court, was a nice 
person, a capable person. She made some speeches that were troubling. 
We all analyzed that and studied that a good bit. What we concluded 
was--at least what I concluded, I think most of my colleagues did too--
that while we may have serious doubts about whether she should be 
confirmed for the Supreme Court, we didn't think there were 
extraordinary circumstances that would justify a filibuster. So she was 
given an up-or-down vote. I voted against her nomination, but she was 
confirmed.
  That is normally the way things have happened. Robert Bork's 
nomination failed on an up-or-down vote. Justice Clarence Thomas was 
confirmed on an up-or-down vote. However, President Bush's nominee for 
the Supreme Court, Justice Alito, was filibustered. He was a fabulous 
nominee who was so impressive in committee, almost as impressive as 
President Bush's other nominee, Chief Justice John Roberts. He should 
not have been filibustered, but he was. President Obama was one who led 
the filibuster and participated in it. But it failed, and Justice Alito 
was confirmed.
  In 1997, when a Democratic President was in office and they were 
trying to move his nominees forward, Senator Boxer said:

       It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process 
     and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even 
     being given a vote on the Senate floor.

  That is being denied an up-or-down vote by filibuster. She opposed 
that. Yet when President Bush was nominating judges, she voted 35 times 
to block his nominees by filibuster.
  During the Clinton administration, Senator Schumer said:

       I also plead with my colleagues to move judges with 
     alacrity--vote them up or down. This delay makes a mockery of 
     the Constitution, makes a mockery of the fact that we are 
     here working, and makes a mockery of the lives of very 
     sincere people. . . .

  Senator Schumer later voted 34 times to keep President Bush's 
nominees from having an up-or-down vote, in other words, to filibuster 
his nominees.
  Our distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, 
likewise made similar statements. I will not go into all of those, but 
I can do so. I can definitely state time after

[[Page S11366]]

time, Senator after Senator who opposed filibusters when President 
Clinton was sending nominees to the Senate led the filibusters against 
President Bush's nominees.
  The Democrats have a clear majority in the Senate, 60 Members. 
Senator Reid recently came to the Chamber to demand a time agreement 
for Judge David Hamilton's nomination to the Seventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals. Apparently, he was not happy that some of us wanted to have 
more debate about it. He said:

       We are going to do Judge David Hamilton [for the] Seventh 
     Circuit, who has been waiting since April. We have agreed to 
     time agreements. Do you want an hour, 2 hours, 5 hours, 10 
     hours of debate? No, we don't want anything.

  He is speaking for the Republicans.

       They don't want a time agreement. This is so important that 
     we will spend 2 days debating it if we can have a vote. But 
     that is not good enough. No time is sufficient.

  That is what he grumbled about. He has a lot on his plate. But 
Senator Reid has a short memory. When Senator Reid was in the middle of 
filibustering Priscilla Owen, a fabulous nominee, and Senator Bob 
Bennett made a unanimous consent request that the Senate commit 10 
hours to debating her nomination and then give her an up-or-down vote, 
Senator Reid objected. When Senator Bennett asked how much time would 
be sufficient for the nomination, Senator Reid responded by saying:

       [T]here is not a number [of hours] in the universe that 
     would be sufficient.

  Later, Senator McConnell sought a time agreement on Judge Owen. 
Senator Reid responded by saying:

       We would not agree to a time agreement . . . of any 
     duration.

  Majority Leader Reid voted 27 times to filibuster President Bush's 
nominees. There are a number of other statements I could cite that 
demonstrate how some of my Democratic colleagues have forgotten the 
factual record.
  The truth is, my colleagues on the Democratic side fought against 
moving to cloture on 17 of President Bush's judicial nominees on 30 
separate occasions. In doing so, they changed 214 years of Senate 
tradition. That is a fact.
  I remember, as a new Member of the Senate, when President Clinton was 
in office. I believed the Senate should abide by those rules. I 
remember voting for cloture to move two nominations--Berzon and Paez. 
Although I voted against them, I did not support a filibuster. I did 
not think we should change the Senate tradition.
  Once those debates started--colleagues will remember--it was a pretty 
hot debate. We believed strongly that there was no basis to block a lot 
of these nominees. The only thing these judges had in common was that 
they believed a judge should strictly apply the law, that they should 
be objective, that they should not allow their personal feelings to 
enter into their decision-making, or their empathies, and that they 
would be faithful to the law even if they didn't like the law. If it 
was passed by some legislature or the Congress, they ought to be 
enforcing it regardless of what they personally thought. They were not 
elected to make the law; they were elected to enforce the law. The 
American people agreed with that overwhelmingly.
  One night we debated all night. We went all night long to try to 
encourage colleagues to give up on the filibusters. But they didn't. 
That is how we got the Gang of 14 came about and made the rule change.
  So my Democratic colleagues are sort of suggesting, it seems to me, 
that it is somehow improper that on any nominee Republicans would 
demand they achieve a 60-vote margin to move to an up-or-down vote--
what they have been doing time after time. I will just say if we allow 
that to happen, this is the effect of it. It would mean for a 
Republican President who nominates a judge to the bench, his nominee 
would have to get 60 votes in the Senate to be confirmed. But if a 
Democrat is in office, and Republicans are not able to filibuster, it 
would only take 51 votes to get them confirmed.
  That is the kind of situation we are in. So the answer becomes, to 
me, pretty obvious, and I think to others on our side. We had a full 
debate. We had a real battle. We went on for several years. We debated 
the rules of the Senate, and the Senate, in effect, established a new 
rule. The new rule is, filibusters are legitimate, but only if there 
are extraordinary circumstances. I think that is not totally improper. 
I guess we are stuck with it. That is where we are, and I think that is 
probably where we are going to stay for a while.
  So as we go forward today, we will be asking--maybe each of us--what 
``extraordinary circumstances'' is. There is no exact definition of it. 
When is it appropriate to vote against cloture on a judicial nominee? 
What does ``extraordinary circumstances'' mean? Each Senator will make 
up their own mind. There is no firm definition.
  In my view, Judge Hamilton is an example of a nominee who does fit 
the ``extraordinary circumstances'' standard for a number of reasons. 
It is difficult for Members on this side of the aisle to vote to end 
debate on a nominee as controversial as Judge Hamilton. Indeed, we have 
had no debate on him at all on the floor to date. No one on this side 
of the aisle has made a statement similar to the one Senator Reid made 
about there not being enough time in the universe to debate the 
nominee.
  If we look back and see how the decision was made on the nominees who 
came through when the rule was changed, maybe we can get some feeling 
for the appropriate way to view--based at least on what happened 
before--the meaning of ``extraordinary circumstances.''
  As to Judge Bill Pryor, the Democrats forced three cloture votes. 
They blocked him three times. Many of my colleagues who are now arguing 
against a filibuster, saying Judge Hamilton should not be filibustered, 
did not hesitate to vote to block an up-or-down vote on Judge Pryor.
  During his confirmation, then Alabama Attorney General Pryor was 
criticized because he had pro-life personal views, although he had a 
record of showing that he criticized an Alabama law, as attorney 
general, that was anti-abortion, when he felt it was unconstitutional. 
As attorney general, he said it was unenforceable. It was a close 
question, but the Supreme Court had ruled on it, and Bill Pryor said: I 
am a man of the law. Even though I am pro-life, I cannot enforce this 
law.
  That was not good enough. They thought he, as a strong and practicing 
Catholic, was too religious. So now, if we look at Judge Hamilton--I am 
not sure what his religious beliefs are, and it certainly is not a 
matter that is important--but in Hinrichs v. Bosma, in the district 
court where he is a Federal district judge, in 2005, Judge Hamilton 
prohibited prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives that 
expressly mentioned Jesus Christ, saying they violated the 
Establishment Clause of the United States. Yet he would have allowed 
prayers which mentioned Allah. They had an imam pray at the legislature 
too.
  Mr. President, I will wrap up.
  In Grossbaum v. Indianapolis-Marion County Building Authority, he 
denied a rabbi's plea to allow a Menorah to be part of the Indianapolis 
Municipal Building's holiday display. The Seventh Circuit reversed him 
unanimously.
  So I would ask, between the criticism of Judge Pryor and Judge 
Hamilton, who is out of the mainstream? Where is the extraordinary 
circumstance?
  Then there was Priscilla Owen, some of my Democratic colleagues found 
extraordinary her dissents in close, split cases, dealing with parental 
consent. Judge Owen was concerned that a 16-year-old in Texas could get 
an aspirin at school without parental consent but, under Texas law, 
could have an abortion without any parental involvement. She voted to 
uphold the ruling of the lower court judge that parents should be at 
least notified before their daughters underwent an operation, and my 
colleagues did not like that.
  Judge Hamilton, on the other hand, succeeded in blocking the 
enforcement of an Indiana informed consent law for 7 years. In 
reversing him, the Seventh Circuit noted that Judge Hamilton had abused 
his judicial discretion. The court of appeals said this:

       [F]or seven years Indiana has been prevented from enforcing 
     a statute materially identical to a law held valid by the 
     Supreme Court in Casey, by this court in Karlin, and by the 
     Fifth Circuit in Barnes. No court anywhere in the country 
     (other than one district judge in Indiana)--

  They were talking about Judge Hamilton--


[[Page S11367]]


     has held any similar law invalid in the years since Casey. . 
     . . Indiana (like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin)--

  According to the Court--

     is entitled to put its law into effect and have that law 
     judged by its own consequences.

  So between the criticisms of Judge Owen and Judge Hamilton, which one 
is outside the mainstream?
  Well, there are other issues we could talk about and will talk about 
as the debate goes forward. But I just wanted to share that to say I am 
not one who believes we should lightly oppose a nominee. I think they 
should be given some deference, whatever a Senator believes. I believe 
a President's nominee should be given deference. But we are not a 
rubberstamp. We are being asked to give this nominee a lifetime 
appointment. If they believe they have the power to frustrate 
legislative will and popular will, when what the legislature did is not 
in violation of the Constitution, they do not need to be on the bench. 
That is my view and I think a lot of others' view too.
  The American people are unhappy with judges who believe they can 
allow their feelings, their empathies to cause them to render opinions 
that do not follow the law. The great American heritage is an objective 
view of the law, and the oath that a judge takes is to be impartial and 
to serve under the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
  Because I am deeply troubled by Mr. Hamilton's record--not by his 
personal qualities, but his record and his speeches--I will be opposing 
the nomination and not voting for cloture.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Nomination of Judge David Hamilton

  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I rise today to speak on behalf of Judge 
David Hamilton whom the President has nominated to serve on the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
  I first had the pleasure of supporting David Hamilton almost 15 years 
ago when he was nominated to the Federal district court. I said then 
that ``the high quality of his education, legal experience, and 
character well prepare him for this position'' and expressed my belief 
that ``his keen intellect and strong legal background will make him a 
great judge.'' This confidence in David Hamilton's character and 
abilities was shared by all who knew him regardless of political 
affiliation throughout Indiana's legal and civic communities.
  I have known David since his childhood. His father, the Reverend 
Richard Hamilton, was our family's pastor at St. Luke's United 
Methodist Church in Indianapolis where his mother was the soloist in 
the choir. Knowing firsthand his family's character and commitment to 
service, it has been no surprise to me that David's life has borne 
witness to the values learned in his youth.
  David graduated with honors from Pennsylvania's Haverford College, 
won a Fulbright Scholarship to study in Germany, and then earned his 
law degree at Yale. After clerking for the Seventh Circuit Court, David 
joined the Indianapolis office of Barnes & Thornburg where he became a 
partner and acquired extensive litigation experience in the Indiana and 
Federal judicial systems.
  When our colleague, Senator Evan Bayh, was elected Governor of 
Indiana, he asked David to serve as his chief legal counsel. Among 
other achievements in that role, David supervised the overhaul of State 
ethics rules and guidelines and coordinated judicial and prosecutorial 
appointments.
  In the latter capacity, David worked closely with Judge John Tinder, 
then a President Reagan appointee to the district bench, whom President 
Bush recently appointed to the Seventh Circuit with the unanimous 
support of the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate.
  When David was nominated to the district court, Judge John Tinder 
wrote to me that David was ``meticulous in asking the difficult 
questions of and about judicial nominees.'' He said his approach to 
these duties ``typifies the deliberate and sensitive way in which he 
approaches matters in his professional life.''
  The same is true of David's approach to his judicial duties. Leading 
members of the Indiana bar testify to his brilliance and, as important, 
to his character, dedication, and fairness. Geoffrey Slaughter, 
president of the Indiana Federalist Society, also endorsed Judge 
Hamilton's nomination, saying:

       I regard Judge Hamilton as an excellent jurist with a 
     first-rate intellect. He is unfailingly polite to lawyers. He 
     asks tough questions to both sides, and he is very smart. His 
     judicial philosophy is left of center, but well within the 
     mainstream.

  His colleagues on the Southern District of Indiana bench--a talented 
and exceptionally collegial group from both parties--unanimously 
endorse that conclusion.
  I recognize some of my colleagues do not share this view. Specific 
charges have been levied that Judge Hamilton has used his position on 
the Federal courts to drive a political agenda. I believe a closer look 
at his record will reveal that Judge Hamilton has not been a judicial 
activist and has ruled objectively and within the judicial mainstream.
  Upon receiving a letter from my good friend and colleague, the 
ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I asked Indianapolis 
attorney and former Associate Counsel to President Ronald Reagan, 
namely, Peter Rusthoven, to review concerns raised regarding David 
Hamilton's nomination.
  Judge Hamilton has been criticized for a speech delivered in 2003 
when he cited that judges ``write a series of footnotes to the 
Constitution.''
  It has been suggested that this comment is evidence of a judicial 
activist philosophy. However, Judge Hamilton never wrote that judicial 
decisions are an appropriate means to change the Constitution. The 
footnotes comment means simply that judicial decisions illustrate how 
the Constitution applies to particular circumstances. For example, 
Chief Justice Marshall's seminal Marbury v. Madison decision, 
establishing judicial authority to pass on the constitutionality of 
actions by the political branches, illustrates a vital aspect of how 
the Constitution applies, but does not assert judicial power to amend 
the Constitution, much less based on a judge's personal views.
  Another charge levied is that Judge Hamilton prohibited public 
prayers involving Jesus Christ but allowed prayers invoking Allah. 
However, Judge Hamilton did not say, as some suggest, that prayers in 
the Indiana Legislature ``Allah'' as the Muslim deity were permissible 
while prayers to Jesus Christ were not. He in fact said that using 
Allah as a generic reference to the deity could theoretically be 
permissible in nonsectarian prayer, as would be true of using the word 
for God in any language. Judge Hamilton was clear that legislative 
prayer advancing the religion of Islam would be prohibited. I support a 
more permissive approach to public prayer than Judge Hamilton, but 
clearly his ruling comports with Supreme Court authority. As Justice 
Antonin Scalia explained, government-sponsored endorsements of religion 
are sectarian if they ``specify details upon which men and women who 
believe in a benevolent, omnipotent Creator and Ruler of the world are 
known to differ, for example, the divinity of Jesus Christ.''
  Also contrary to certain charges, Judge Hamilton's ruling on the 
issue was not reversed. The Seventh Circuit's later reversal did not 
involve the merits, but the separate, procedural issue of whether the 
taxpayer plaintiffs had legal standing to challenge the legislative 
practice. In this case, a subsequent Supreme Court ruling created a new 
precedent which led to the reversal.
  A similar reversal situation occurred regarding an effort to compel 
local officials to include a Menorah as part of a holiday display in 
the Indianapolis City-County Building. The Seventh Circuit opinion by 
Reagan appointee Judge Ripple makes this point in its opening 
paragraph, saying Judge Hamilton's ruling had been made ``without the 
benefit of the Supreme Court's recent guidance in this area.''
  There have have also been claims, citing the Almanac of the Federal 
Judiciary, that Judge Hamilton is one of the most lenient judges in his 
district in criminal matters. However, the Almanac cited 
extraordinarily high

[[Page S11368]]

praise for Judge Hamilton. The Almanac summary states: ``Hamilton is 
fair when it comes to sentencing, according to lawyers.'' Practitioners 
consistently stated that he is objective and shows no bias.
  In demonstrating this alleged leniency, critics have cited a case in 
which Judge Hamilton ``used his opinion to request clemency for a 
police officer who pled guilty to two counts of producing child 
pornography.'' Judge Hamilton in fact imposed the 15-year sentence 
required by sentencing guidelines even though he believed it excessive 
in the circumstances. Doing what the law requires even when a judge may 
personally disagree is a textbook example of judicial restraint. 
Further, there were, indeed, circumstances in the case that might 
properly be considered in a later executive clemency request, which is 
all that the unpublished decision was pointing out. In other cases with 
different circumstances, Judge Hamilton has imposed rigorous sentences 
for child pornography as long as 100 years.
  Critics also point to another case in which they argue that Judge 
Hamilton disregarded an earlier conviction in order to avoid imposing a 
life sentence on a repeat offender. In this particular case, Judge 
Hamilton made a mistake and has admitted it. Judge Hamilton initially 
imposed a 25-year sentence for drug and firearms offenses on a 55-year-
old man taking into account a 10-year-old prior conviction. The issue 
was whether the sentence should be further enhanced based on a 35-year-
old prior conviction on marijuana charges under the now repealed 
Federal Youth Corrections Act. Judge Hamilton now believes the Seventh 
Circuit was correct to apply a sentence enhancement, and he imposed a 
life sentence on remand.
  Another complaint is that Judge Hamilton used his position to 
purposely delay enforcement of Indiana's informed consent abortion laws 
for 7 years. Judge Hamilton's analysis in the Indiana case differs from 
my own, but his actions were defensible in the context of what lower 
courts must do in the field of abortion law jurisprudence.
  As those who believe Roe v. Wade was fundamentally mistaken would 
argue, ``undue burden'' issues of the sort Judge Hamilton and the 
Seventh Circuit wrestled with in the Indiana litigation are an 
unfortunate, inevitable consequence of what Justice Scalia has called 
the Supreme Court's continued effort to craft an ``abortion code'' 
without grounding in the text of the Constitution. Hence, it is hardly 
surprising that jurists will come out on different sides of undue 
burden inquiries. They necessarily entail judges weighing what is or is 
not undue by a standard that is unguided by any constitutional 
language. The Supreme Court itself continues to struggle to articulate 
tests that will elucidate this matter of law.
  One illustration of that point is that five members of the full 
Seventh Circuit--including Judge Posner, a Reagan appointee--voted to 
grant rehearing en banc of the 2-1 decision reversing Judge Hamilton's 
ruling. Further, even in reversing, the Seventh Circuit did not hold 
that Judge Hamilton's fact findings were ``clearly erroneous,'' which 
is the pertinent appellate review standard on evidentiary questions.
  The delay assertion unfairly ignores that the delay was due in very 
large part to litigation decisions made by the State of Indiana itself. 
Judge Hamilton's preliminary injunction decision in 1995 was 
immediately appealable by the State as a matter of right; but the State 
chose not to appeal. The same was true of Judge Hamilton's 1997 
decision modifying that injunction; again, the State chose not to 
appeal. Thereafter, the State as well as the plaintiffs sought 
continuances of the trial, including to permit further discovery on 
complex statistical issues that are an aspect of the undue burden 
analysis. The notion that Judge Hamilton was in any way trying 
personally to delay the case, whether based on his personal views on 
any issue or for any other reason, is unfounded.
  Allow me to close with a few further thoughts on our nominations 
process. When I introduced now Chief Justice John Roberts to the Senate 
Judiciary Committee in 2005, I expressed my concern that the Federal 
judiciary is seen by many as another political branch. The confirmation 
process is often accompanied by the same oversimplifications and 
distortions that are disturbing even in campaigns for offices that are, 
in fact, political. This phenomenon is most pronounced at the Supreme 
Court level, and traces to several causes that I will not try to 
address today. I mention this, however, to underscore my commitment to 
a different view of judicial nominations, which I believe comports with 
the proper role of the judiciary in our constitutional framework.
  I do not view our Federal courts as the forum for resolving political 
disputes that the legislative and executive branches cannot, or do not 
want to, resolve.
  This is why I believe our confirmation decisions should not be based 
on partisan considerations, much less on how we hope or predict a given 
judicial nominee will rule on particular issues of public moment or 
controversy. I have instead tried to evaluate judicial candidates on 
whether they have the requisite intellect, experience, character and 
temperament that Americans deserve from their judges, and also on 
whether they indeed appreciate the vital, and yet vitally limited, role 
of the Federal judiciary faithfully to interpret and apply our laws, 
rather than seeking to impose their own policy views. I support Judge 
Hamilton's nomination because he is superbly qualified under both sets 
of criteria.
  Finally, permit me to thank my colleague from Indiana, Senator Evan 
Bayh, on the thoughtful, cooperative, merit-driven attitude that has 
marked his own approach to recommending prospective judicial nominees 
from our State. The two most recent examples are his strong support for 
President Bush's nominations of Judge Tinder for the Seventh Circuit 
and of Judge William Lawrence for the Southern district of Indiana.
  Thank you for this opportunity to express my support for Judge David 
Hamilton. I am hopeful that my colleagues will vote tomorrow to end 
debate on this important nomination.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. 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. JOHNSON. I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will so state.
  Mr. JOHNSON. How much time is remaining on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the minority side, 16\1/2\ minutes; on the 
majority side, 46\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Motion to Commit

  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I know we are going to vote at 5:30 on 
an amendment and on a motion to commit. I send a motion to commit to 
the desk at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] moves to commit the 
     bill H.R. 3082 to the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate with instructions to report the same back to the 
     Senate with changes to reprioritize spending within the bill 
     in order to provide sufficient funding to ensure coverage of 
     medically necessary care and payment of caregivers for 
     disabled veterans, including but not limited to those who 
     fought in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, 
     Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm, Operation 
     Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and any combat 
     zone in the War on Terrorism, and that such funding for 
     veterans' assistance should be paid for with reductions in 
     spending for earmarks for less urgent projects and other 
     unnecessary programs not requested by the Commander in Chief.


[[Page S11369]]


  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I think under the agreement I will have 
30 minutes to discuss this and the other amendment I have; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator may consume 30 
minutes.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the Chair. I will try not to consume that amount 
of time to move this along.
  Last weekend, the Senate, prior to Veterans Day, had the urgency of 
passing a bill that will, in fact, help a specified group of veterans, 
but it won't help veterans who have identical needs to that group of 
veterans because they were excluded from it.
  The Caregivers Act also will require, at a minimum, $3.7 billion in 
spending over the next 5 years, and none of it--there was no decision 
to make in terms of that bill on any priorities about what we get rid 
of. As a matter of fact, the intent, as stated by the majority whip, 
was that we needed to pass this before last Wednesday so that people 
could get care. Well, the truth is, no care will come about if there is 
no money in this bill for that program.
  The whole purpose for this motion to commit is to do two things: One, 
send the committee back and eliminate the discrimination against 
veterans in the first gulf war, against veterans in the Vietnam war, 
the Korean war, and World War II who have identical needs that require 
family caregivers and include them in it. The second aspect of the 
motion to commit is to find it from the available funds we have today. 
We suggest some opportunity for that but don't mandate where it comes 
from. But we should reduce spending somewhere else to pay for this. The 
reason that is important is, this past year, 43 cents out of every 
dollar we spent we borrowed from our grandchildren.
  So in making a motion to commit this bill, we are doing three 
essential things. No. 1 is that we are actually being truthful that we 
really want to take care of this need and will do it in this fiscal 
year. No. 2 is that we are not discriminating against other veterans 
who have identical needs. No. 3 is that we are not discriminating 
against our children and grandchildren by not making hard choices to 
pay for it within existing funds.
  I have no illusions that this motion to commit will succeed. But it 
doesn't change the very real facts that are in front of this Nation--
that we cannot continue to spend money without making choices about 
what is most important. None of us disagree that taking care of those 
who have sacrificed for us has to become No. 2 behind the defense of 
this Nation in terms of the priorities for this country. Nothing else 
is higher in priority. Yet the bill we have before us doesn't make that 
a priority and the authorizing language doesn't make that a priority. 
As a matter of fact, the bill before us asks the VA to study this issue 
rather than actually go on and fund this issue by making the 
appropriate changes.
  There is a significant increase in this bill, and outside of foreign 
expenditures, it is over 5.5 percent. It is not objectionable that it 
would be there, that kind of increase, given the demand our troops have 
had and their injuries and what they have suffered in terms of 
defending this country and fighting two ongoing wars. However, some of 
that money ought to be winnowed down so that we can take care of the 
very people who protect us.
  We have had these tremendous speeches on why we have to do it now. If 
those speeches aren't going to ring hollow, we ought to commit the bill 
to make sure we have money for the Veterans Caregiver Act.


                           Amendment No. 2757

  The other area I wish to spend time on is that in this bill we also 
have various and sundry reports that have been requested by the 
committee of different branches of the Federal Government. One of the 
most important ways to build trust in the Congress today is for us to 
create and increase the level of transparency for the American people 
to see our actions. This amendment is simply an amendment that says any 
reports that do not divulge or put at risk national security data 
should be made available to all the Senators, all the Congress, and all 
of the American people. This has been in several of the appropriations 
bills we have passed in the Senate. Unfortunately, rarely has it stayed 
in the conference report because there are those who don't want the 
American people to see what we are doing and how we are doing it.
  I will sum up. We find ourselves in a big pickle right now as a 
nation. We soon will be voting in this body to increase the debt limit 
to $12.1 trillion. That figures out as a significant amount of money 
for every individual in this country--well over $35,000--but it is a 
very small amount compared to what is getting ready to happen in the 
next 9 years as our debt triples. Our debt will triple in the next 9 
years, which means we will go from 30-some thousand dollars per 
individual to very close to $100,000 per individual.
  That doesn't compare to the unfunded liability. If you take everybody 
in this country who is 25 years of age and younger--that is 103 million 
Americans--and you ask what is the consequence to those young Americans 
20 years from now, the consequence is that they are going to be paying 
for another $1 million in debt for which they got no benefit, and the 
interest costs on that alone will be over $70,000 per year, per 
individual under age 25 today and under 45 20 years from now and all 
their kids.
  The idea that we ought to pay for the new things we do by eliminating 
the things that aren't important, that we ought to pay for the new 
things we do by eliminating some of the $300 billion worth of waste, 
fraud, and duplication in the Federal Government every year is not a 
novel idea outside Washington; it is only a novel idea inside 
Washington--the very fact that the next generation will be put at a 
disadvantage because we lack the same courage and clarity of moral 
character our troops have in terms of making tough choices.
  My hope is that with the motion to commit, in fact, the body will 
look and say we really can fund this and find waste and we can make 
choices about what is most important versus what is not most important, 
and not only will we help the veterans who are deserving of our 
assistance at this time, but we will also help the veterans' children 
and grandchildren by not plugging a credit card in and saying: Whatever 
we are going to do for veterans today, we are going to charge to you.
  Instead, I hope that we are going to carry the load and that we are 
going to embrace the heritage of our country, the heritage of sacrifice 
and of creating opportunity that is better for the generations that 
follow than the opportunities that were given to us. That is not 
happening right now in our country. We are going to have a larger 
deficit next year than we have this year. We are going to take 43 cents 
out of every dollar we actually spend next year and we are going to 
charge that all to those two generations that follow us. That is not 
what made this country strong. That is not what our veterans fought 
for. That is not the country they want to see in the future. It is time 
we made some hard choices.
  The resistance will be: I don't want to eliminate my earmark; I don't 
want to eliminate the parochial things I have done for my State to take 
care of veterans. They will not come out and say that, but that will be 
the result of the vote. The vote is, take care of the politicians, say 
you are taking care of the veterans, but undermine the future of the 
next two generations. That is what the vote is going to be about on the 
motion to commit--a lot of controversy and emotion associated with not 
doing things on time. But I would rather do things right and do things 
that will secure the future rather than destroy it. I would rather do 
things that honor the sacrifice rather than dishonor the sacrifice.
  We can claim all we want when we pass a veterans caregiver bill, but 
if we don't fund it and there is no money for it, it is an announcement 
that we care but no action behind it. If we don't cover all the 
veterans who have the same need, we know it is political only. The 
motion to commit makes sure that we cover all veterans, that we treat 
them all equally, and if they have the same kinds of needs, they will 
get the same kinds of service--not because they are young and served in 
the war on terror but because they served this great Nation and 
preserved it with their courage, valor, and commitment.
  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.

[[Page S11370]]

  Mr. JOHNSON. 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. JOHNSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that no 
amendments be in order to the Coburn amendment or motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, the MILCON-VA bill before the Senate 
today funds critically important programs for our Nation's military 
forces and their families and for our vets. Most of the funding was 
requested by the President, but certain programs were enhanced or 
augmented by the committee after careful consideration and evaluation 
of the budget request. Let me give two examples of the funding in this 
bill that was not requested by the President that would be stripped out 
under the mandate of the motion to commit: $50 million for community-
based outpatient clinics for vets in rural areas underserved by VA 
medical centers. These clinics serve as medical lifelines for vets in 
rural areas who do not have ready access to a VA Hospital.
  There is $50 million in a pending amendment to renovate excess 
buildings on VA medical campuses for homeless vets shelters and 
services. An estimated 131,000 vets are homeless on any given night. 
Secretary Shinseki has made it a priority to eliminate homelessness 
among vets, and this bill supports that effort.
  There is $300 million to complete the funding requirement for the 
expanded Homeowners Assistance Program for military personnel, to 
protect military families under orders to move during the current 
mortgage crisis from disastrous losses on home sales and to shield 
wounded warriors and surviving spouses from the financial ravages of 
the mortgage crisis.
  There is $7.5 million for a chapel center at Dover Air Force Base, 
DE, to replace a wood-frame chapel built in 1956. The existing chapel 
has asbestos in the ventilation system, the roof is too unstable for 
maintenance personnel to walk on, and the Chaplain Command has rated 
the current chapel as the worst in the command. Yet this decrepit 
facility serves as the primary site for hosting families waiting to 
view the dignified transfer of the fallen from the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. This project was not included in the President's budget 
request but was added by the committee.
  These are but a few examples of the types of programs and projects 
funded in the bill that were not requested by the President. They are 
not, as this motion would suggest, less urgent or unnecessary simply 
because they were not requested by the President. They are the product 
of careful analysis and evaluation by the committee of jurisdiction and 
developed in close consultation with the authorizing committees.
  I urge my colleagues to support the committee-passed version of the 
MILCON-VA bill and reject the motion to commit it to the committee.
  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. 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 know my colleague, the chairman of 
the Veterans Affairs and Military Construction Subcommittee, has 
already spoken on the bill. I rise to make a couple of points.
  First, I thank the Senate for not meeting on this bill last Tuesday, 
when it was scheduled to be taken up and passed and, instead, allowing 
so many of our colleagues to go to the memorial service at Fort Hood in 
Killeen. It was a wonderful service. So many of our colleagues were in 
attendance from all over the country to show their support for the 
troops, to show sympathy for the families. There were approximately 200 
family members there. Of course, the President and Mrs. Obama were 
there. There were many House Members. It showed to the base and to the 
thousands of troops who attended how much we care about them. I am 
grateful to my colleagues for that gesture.
  We have a good bill. My colleague Senator Johnson and I have worked 
together on this bill. We have stayed within our budget. We have tried 
to make sure we are covering the needs of our veterans.
  The emphasis in the veterans section is in health care. We know we 
must do more for the mental health and getting people who have been in 
Afghanistan or Iraq back into the mainstream so they can lead normal 
lives. We have done that. We have put over $4 billion into mental 
health funding. We are setting up centers now for mental health 
excellence. I am pleased we are making that a priority.
  In addition, spinal cord and traumatic brain injuries. We know so 
many of our wounded soldiers suffer traumatic injuries. We need to make 
sure we have the ability to give them all of the rehabilitation 
necessary for them to reenter a life of quality. We are adding one more 
tier 1 polytrauma center. We have four. We are adding one more in San 
Antonio, TX, in the VA center, which we are very pleased to be able to 
do.

  The homeless veterans program is also being augmented in this bill, 
and I applaud Senator Johnson's efforts for creating the initiative 
last year to increase the VA footprint in our rural areas for our 
health care facilities. I think this is very helpful and warranted.
  On the military construction side, this morning I was at Dyess Air 
Force Base, where we broke ground on two incredible facilities. One 
will be a maintenance facility for both the B-1 bombers and also the C-
130s and new C-130Js that are going to be coming into our system next 
year. It is going to be a great facility, and we are very excited about 
that. We have a Reserve training headquarters there at Dyess, as well, 
and we broke ground on that building today.
  In addition, our BRAC has been fully funded. That was a priority of 
mine because I thought it was very important we fully fund our BRAC.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President. I wish to go ahead to the 
vote because I know it is important. But I will just say, I fully 
support our bill and look forward to working on the amendments and 
passing this bill, finally, tomorrow.


                           Amendment No. 2757

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, evenly 
divided, on Coburn amendment No. 2757.
  The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I support the amendment from the 
Senator from Oklahoma, amendment No. 2757, disclosure of reports. Our 
side was willing to agree to this amendment by unanimous consent or 
voice vote.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I also support this amendment. I 
think the reporting requirements are absolutely the right thing to do.
  Madam President, I yield back the rest of my time and ask for the 
vote to commence.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Kaufman), the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Delaware (Mr. Kaufman) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Isakson), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 0, as follows:

[[Page S11371]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 344 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     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
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Byrd
     Graham
     Isakson
     Kaufman
     Lieberman
     Vitter
     Whitehouse
  The amendment (No. 2757) was agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Motion to Commit

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes evenly divided on the 
Coburn motion to commit.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, this motion to commit is based on the 
fact that we have a need among veterans that has an upcoming 
authorization bill but there is no money in this bill for it. The 
motion to commit would instruct the conferees to expand those eligible 
to all veterans who have the same need, to find the money to pay for 
the first year of this in that bill and not charge it to the next 
generation.
  The idea behind the motion to commit is that our veterans are a 
priority, and if they are, we ought to defund things that are less of a 
priority and make sure we take care of them. The obligation for us to 
fulfill our commitment to veterans is not obviated by the lack of our 
obligation to fulfill our commitment to the generation that follows.
  I would appreciate the support of my colleagues on the motion to 
commit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the motion? The Senator 
from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, as I have indicated before, I strongly 
oppose the motion to commit this bill with instructions.
  This bill funds programs that are vitally important to America's 
military troops and their families and to our Nation's veterans. Most 
of these programs were funded in the budget request but not all. This 
bill includes additional funding for such programs as housing for 
homeless veterans, rural clinics for veterans in underserved areas, 
mortgage relief for military personnel under orders to move during the 
current mortgage crisis, and for wounded veterans and surviving spouses 
and funding for an array of regionally needed military construction 
projects not included in the budget request.
  The MILCON-VA bill before the Senate is a good piece of legislation. 
Likewise, the veterans caregiver assistance authorization bill is 
important legislation. The two bills should not be confused. Congress 
should pass both the MILCON/VA appropriations bill and the caregivers 
assistance authorization bill without further delay.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Kaufman), the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Delaware (Mr. Kaufman) would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Isakson), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The result was announced--yeas 24, nays 69, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 345 Leg.]

                                YEAS--24

     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hutchison
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Thune

                                NAYS--69

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Byrd
     Graham
     Isakson
     Kaufman
     Lieberman
     Vitter
     Whitehouse
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. PRYOR. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSON. 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. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed 
to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Congressional Award Act 30th Anniversary

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, today I rise to recognize the 30th 
anniversary of Public Law 96-114, which is the Congressional Award Act. 
My predecessor, Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming, was a champion of 
this program.
  In 1979, the late Congressman James Howard of New Jersey and Senator 
Wallop introduced the Congressional Award Act legislation.
  Thirty years ago, as you recall, America was still living with the 
Cold War. The country was in the middle of a serious national 
conversation, one that would require America's young people to 
participate in a period of national service. It was a controversial 
concept, in part because the country had eliminated the armed services 
draft. Legislation to establish the congressional award had been 
introduced in Congress for several sessions, but no action had yet been 
taken. When Senator Wallop was approached as someone who might have an 
interest, he quickly understood and embraced the core of the program.
  Our Nation's young people have worthy contributions to make to the 
world around it, he thought and he said, and the process required to 
earn an award was a productive path to determine their future. Senator 
Wallop felt that if America was thinking about requiring national 
service, then Congress should recognize and thank America's youth for 
their positive contributions made through the course of their own 
lives. He saw the congressional award as the perfect opportunity to do 
this.
  When Senator Wallop agreed to serve as a sponsor of the congressional 
award, he made it a full commitment. The legislation quickly moved 
through

[[Page S11372]]

Congress, and it became law in his very first term of the three terms 
he spent in the Senate.
  The congressional award is available to any young person in our 
country aged 14 to 23, no matter their life circumstances or their 
current abilities. Through goal setting, participants move from where 
they are to where they can be, providing service to others and 
exploring their own interest in the process.
  Recipients of the award are not selected for it. The recipients of 
the award earn it. It has been my privilege to witness the success of 
this program both in my home State of Wyoming and around the country. I 
thank all of the Members of Congress who are involved in the 
congressional award in their own States and districts. I encourage 
those who have not yet done so to bring this program to their young 
constituents. And most of all today, I thank our former colleague, 
Senator Malcolm Wallop, for his gift--a gift of opportunity for 
America's young people through the creation of a congressional award, 
an award that was signed into law 30 years ago today.
  Madam President, 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. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I have come to the Chamber pretty often 
in the last 3 months, as we continue the debate on health care, to 
share letters from people from Ohio, from Steubenville, from Wauseon, 
from Ashtabula, from Hamilton and Middletown, people who write me 
concerned with the direction of our health care system.
  What I find in almost every one of these letters that have come from 
Ohioans and people I mostly don't know, although I hear these stories 
in person--last night I heard them in Cleveland, a few days in 
Columbus; I have heard them from all over the State--is that so many 
people, a year ago, if you had asked these same people who wrote the 
letters, are you happy with your health care plan, they would have said 
yes. But something happened in the last year.
  Maybe they had a child born with a preexisting condition. Maybe they 
got really sick and their insurance was canceled because it cost the 
insurance company too much money or their premiums were high or they 
owned a small business with 20 employees and one of their employees got 
especially sick and the insurance price spiked and they could no longer 
afford the insurance for any of their 20 employees.
  The other thing I hear over and over is--a lot of people who send me 
letters who have lost their insurance, they are my age or a little bit 
older. I turned 57 last week. These are letters from people who are 57 
or 62, particularly in their early sixties. They say it is so important 
to them to turn 65 so they will have insurance. Think of that: I can't 
wait until I am a little older so I can then have the security and 
peace of mind and put that anxiety behind me. We have a health care 
system now where people think they want to be a little bit older so 
they can qualify for Medicare, to have the stability of Medicare. 
Something is wrong with that. Those are the two things I hear over and 
over: I need to be 65 so I can get Medicare because I know it is 
reliable and stable or I used to be satisfied with my insurance but 
look what happened.
  Let me share some of these letters. Karen from Mahoning Valley, 
around Youngstown, Poland, Austintown, that area of Ohio. She writes:

       I am a high school art teacher. Last week I was speaking to 
     one of my students who said she had a health issue. I 
     suggested she go see a doctor but she said she can't because 
     her family doesn't have health insurance. I have suggested 
     she at least go see the school nurse but I know she needs 
     regular visits to a physician. I am appalled at the lack of 
     concern shown by many Members of Congress and by the special 
     interests trying to control the health reform process. Please 
     make the changes for the people who elected you and reap the 
     benefit of seeing positive change in our country.

  Do you know what will happen? I don't know the student's health 
problem, but what people would say about this is, if her student gets 
sick, she can go to the emergency room and get health care. But that is 
not the best way to deliver health care. But forget about the best way 
to deliver it. What happens to the student? Maybe the student has 
asthma. My wife almost died of asthma when she was a teenager, but she 
had good health insurance because her dad carried a union card and 
worked for a local utility company and was able to make sure she got 
the care she needed. This young woman, say she had asthma. She would 
only get coverage in the emergency room if she had an asthma attack. 
She wouldn't get any help from the emergency room to manage her asthma 
or any of the medicines she needs for asthma or any of the kinds of 
things my wife's insurance pays for for her asthma and so many others 
who have insurance. So what we are doing is jeopardizing this girl's 
life and her health, and we are also costing the system more money 
because instead of managing the asthma, she has to go for acute care.

  So the emergency room does not mean everybody has health care 
coverage in this country. It means they will take care of you if you 
are really sick and you have some acute attack of something. They will 
not take care of you to manage your diabetes or manage your asthma or 
manage your heart disease. They only take care of you--the emergency 
room--when you have a heart attack, if you are uninsured. What kind of 
health care system is that? It is not as humane as it should be, and it 
is way more expensive and it jeopardizes people's lives.
  Margaret is from Clermont County, the whole other end of the State. 
Clermont County is on the Ohio River, just east of Cincinnati, Batavia, 
that part of Ohio.

       My oral cancer was diagnosed in 2005. It came back in 
     December 2007, September 2008, and February 2009.
       We've been lucky and found it early each time, which 
     allowed me to avoid radiation therapy--so far.
       I worry all the time that eventually I won't be able to 
     work and would lose my health insurance.
       My husband will retire in 2011, when he qualifies for 
     Medicare. But I'm only 61 and have to wait four years before 
     enrolling in Medicare.
       I don't understand how opponents of reform can be 
     unsympathetic to the plight of millions of people who have 
     preexisting conditions or have to lose everything to qualify 
     for Medicaid.
       We need reform now.

  So here is another example. Margaret from southwest Ohio says: I am 4 
years away from Medicare. My husband can retire and get Medicare. I am 
still 4 years away. What are my options? Do we spend everything we 
have--basically spend whatever their net worth is--to qualify for 
Medicaid, which is available to many low-income people, or do I just 
hope my cancer does not act up again before I turn 65? But again, she 
needs maintenance of care, some medication to help her so she can make 
it through this time.
  Margaret, as Karen's student and Karen's student's family, could 
benefit from a public option because it would give them more choice.
  In Clermont County in southwest Ohio, two insurance companies have 85 
percent of the insurance business in that area, that, I believe, four 
county area: Hamilton, Clermont, Butler, and Warren Counties. Two 
companies have 85 percent of the business. That means the quality of 
insurance is less and the cost of the insurance is more. That always 
happens when there is no real competition. So that is why it is so 
important people have the public option, so Margaret can get insurance, 
she can choose the public option or she can choose Aetna or WellPoint 
or Cigna or Medical Mutual--any company she wants.
  But it also means the public option will keep the price down because 
more competition means better quality; more competition means keeping 
the price down. As the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Oregon, said 
in a meeting I was just in, one of the things the public option does 
is--we tell people: You need to get insurance. There are a number of 
people who, I am sure, have come up to him in Eugene or Portland or 
places in Oregon, as they have come up to me in Mansfield and Ashland 
and Galion and Crestline, OH, and said: You are going to make me

[[Page S11373]]

buy insurance. I don't want my insurance dollars to go to a private 
company. I want the choice of letting them go to the public option, a 
Medicare-like plan, so I have that choice and I can direct my insurance 
dollars to the place I want them to go.
  A third letter I will read--I have two more to share with my 
colleagues--is from Bill from Cuyahoga County, which is the Cleveland 
area. Bill writes:

       My spouse was diagnosed with breast cancer over two years 
     ago. She worked for a commercial airline for 36 years, but 
     along with other employees in their mid-50s, she was asked to 
     take early retirement or face the possibility of reduced 
     retirement benefits.
       She took the early retirement package and subsequently 
     found a part-time job with a local bank.
       The health insurance coverage is inadequate and barely pays 
     any benefits.
       We have been together for more than 10 years, and during 
     that time she didn't have so much as a cold.
       But boom, the next thing you know she is sick with breast 
     cancer, with chemo and medications that weaken her.
       After her treatment sessions, she would then go off to work 
     because she needed to keep her health benefits.
       But finally, a few weeks ago, se quit her job. She's on 
     COBRA now which we hope will last until she turns 65 years 
     old and is eligible for Medicare.
       My wife paid her [insurance] premiums for 36 years--

  When she was with the airline--

     while she was healthy but now that she is older and needs 
     insurance, the benefits are cut or non-existent.

  Bill's story is what we hear over and over, and it is in this same 
letter. Bill's story is: My wife paid for insurance all these years. We 
thought we had good insurance, and we did have good insurance until we 
needed it, until my wife got sick. Then the insurance was not so good. 
And Bill's story, with his wife, is: She looks forward to being 65 so 
she can have Medicare coverage.
  Again, what kind of health care system does that? The insurance is OK 
until you really need it, and then they cut you off if you are too 
expensive, they cut you off if you have a preexisting condition, or 
they cut your son or daughter off because a baby is born with a 
preexisting condition. What kind of health care system says: Boy, I 
can't wait until I am 3 years older so I can have that good government 
plan, that Medicare plan that will mean stability and predictability?
  We clearly need to help people get through this anxiety that so many 
Americans have because they just hope they do not get sick before they 
turn 65 or they hope they do not get too expensively sick, if you will, 
because they are going to lose their insurance because their insurance 
company will cut them off. That is why we need the public option. We 
need insurance reform. We need no more preexisting condition 
exclusions. We have done that in the bill.
  No more discrimination based on gender or disability or race or age 
or geography. We have done that in the bill. No more disqualifications 
or annual cap because your health care costs too much, you spent too 
many days in the hospital, went to too many expensive doctors, had too 
much treatment. It is so expensive the insurance company is going to 
cancel your insurance. We are going to say: No more of insurance 
companies gaming the system.
  We know--and the Senator from Oregon was on the floor with me a 
couple weeks ago and talked then--that insurance companies are making 
more and more profits, a 400-percent increase from 7 years ago. 
Insurance company CEOs' salaries--the Aetna CEO makes $24 million a 
year. The CEOs of the 10 largest insurance companies in the country 
average $11 million in pay.
  How are they doing that? They are doing that by cutting off people 
such as Bill's wife. They are doing that by using preexisting 
conditions and keeping people from getting insurance. That is why the 
public option for Bill and his wife would mean they would be in a 
situation where they could have more choice--those insurance reforms I 
talked about. The public option would help to enforce those insurance 
reforms so Aetna and Blue Cross and WellPoint and these companies could 
not game the system the way they have so they can pay these huge 
salaries and have these increasingly huge profits. The public option 
will simply give people more choice. And it is only an option.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BROWN. Sure.
  Mr. DURBIN. I tell the Senator, I was back home in Illinois during 
the break and went to southern Illinois, which is an area the Senator 
would be familiar with in a second. It is a small town, rural area. I 
love it. That is where my roots are in our State. I stopped at a hotel 
in the area of Marion, IL, and there is a nice lady who fixes breakfast 
in the morning for the guests. Her name is Judy. She could not be any 
kinder and nicer and always has a warm greeting.

  She came up to me, as she was getting a cup of coffee, and said: Is 
this health care thing going to help me?
  I said: Do you have health insurance?
  She said: Oh, no. I've never had health insurance.
  Judy, I am guessing, is about 60 years old.
  I said: Well, I can tell you, if you just give me an idea about 
yourself, I will give you kind of an idea of what you might expect.
  She said: Well, they keep cutting our hours at the hotel here. I am 
down to 30 hours a week, and I get paid about $8 an hour.
  So I said: Well, I'll do a quick calculation. I think you make about 
$12,000 a year.
  She said: Yeah.
  Imagine, living on $12,000 a year, which is what her gross income is.
  I said: By most of the bills that are going through Congress now, 
unless you are making over $14,000 or $15,000 a year, you will be 
covered by Medicaid, which means you are going to have health insurance 
for the first time in your life through Medicaid.
  She said: I don't have to pay for it?
  I said: No. You're in a low-income situation. You wouldn't have to 
pay for it at $12,000 a year.
  I say to the Senator, I thought, as the Senator was just speaking, 
what if she were making $15,000 a year and her employer did not offer 
health insurance? As I understand it, at that point, most of the bills 
say: It is time for you to find a way to find health insurance. And the 
insurance exchange will give you some options from which to choose.
  What the Senator is saying--what I believe, and I think what the vast 
majority of our people believe--is, one of those options should be a 
not-for-profit plan, the lowest cost for Judy to buy into. As the 
Presiding Officer pointed out in an earlier meeting we had, if we were 
to say we are going to impose an obligation on people to buy health 
insurance but only give them private health insurance options, I think 
most people would say: Wait a minute. If you are going to impose an 
obligation on me to buy health insurance, give me some affordable 
options.
  Our support for a public option is to come up with a not-for-profit 
plan that is not trying to please shareholders, that is not advertising 
on radio and television, and that does not hire lots of people, clerks 
to say no. That, to me, is a sensible outcome for the obligation to buy 
health insurance because it gives people choices.
  I salute Senator Harry Reid because, as our Democratic leader, he 
said maybe there are some Governors, some States, some people who just 
do not want a public option. Let them decide to opt out of the system. 
They can opt out. They are not going to be forced in. They can opt out. 
I think that is a reasonable way to move.
  So I say to the Senator from Ohio, you probably have a lot of your 
constituents, just like mine--like Judy who works down at this hotel--
who are uninsured at the moment. She has diabetes, incidentally. She 
told me she had some medical issues and could not even go to a doctor, 
see a doctor, because she just does not make enough money. That is the 
reality of life for a lot of hard-working people in Illinois, and in 
Ohio, I am sure.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank Assistant Majority Leader Durbin.
  That story is so common. I was in a restaurant in Columbus one day 
and had breakfast with my daughter, who lives there. The young woman 
who waited on us, who is working probably about the same number of 
hours--she is waiting tables. She is doing a little better than that, I 
think, in terms of her income. She is also tutoring some music students 
because she went to college and got a degree in music. She hopes to 
turn that into a business. She

[[Page S11374]]

is making more money than what would qualify her for Medicaid. With the 
legislation, she would get the opportunity.
  She said: Are you going to pass this bill?
  I said: Yes.
  She said: Are you going to have a public option?
  I said: Majority Leader Reid is putting the public option in the 
bill. The House passed a bill with the public option. So I believe we 
are going to have a public option in the bill.
  So again, as Senator Durbin said, depending on their income, people 
will take their personal money, adding it to help they get from the 
government, to be able to pay the premiums. Let them decide for 
themselves. We do not want to tell them they have to go into a 
Medicare-like public option. We do not want to tell them they have to 
go to Aetna or Cigna or Blue Cross or WellPoint. Give them that chance 
and give them that choice. They can compare on cost. They can compare 
what kind of service they get, what kind of illnesses are covered.
  Then, as Senator Durbin pointed out, one of the things with private 
health insurance is that a big part of their profits--and their profits 
have gown, as have their salaries for the top executives--a big part of 
their profits comes from hiring bureaucrats who deny care. They first 
try not to insure you by invoking a preexisting condition or something 
so you cannot get insurance. They hire a bunch of people to deny you 
even getting the insurance.
  Then, if you are able to qualify for insurance because you do not 
have a preexisting condition, and you get sick, then they hire a bunch 
of bureaucrats who process your claim and many times turn you down. 
About a third--almost a third--of claims initially are turned down by 
an insurance company. More of them are accepted after you appeal.
  But, for example, take Judy in Marion, IL, who the Senator just 
talked about. If she were to have coverage from a private health 
insurance company--you know how hard people work in hotels, whether 
cleaning rooms or waiting tables, or being at the front desk or 
whatever they are doing, and doing maintenance work there. They are 
working so hard. They are very tired at the end of the day, as are most 
Americans. They file a health care claim that is legitimate. The 
insurance company tells them no. Then they have to find the time during 
the work day, if they work when the insurance companies' lines are 
open, to call and call and call.
  Some of them call their Congressman or Senator, and we try to help 
people all the time push the insurance companies. They will talk to us. 
We are much more likely to be able to help them than they can help 
themselves when we call in. But why should that be? Why should they 
have to call their Members of Congress or call Senator Durbin or 
Senator Merkley or me to help fight an insurance company?
  When people are sick, the last thing they want to do is fight an 
insurance company to get reimbursed.
  We know what the President said during the 2008 Presidential race 
about his own mother, that she was dying from cancer and had to fight 
with insurance companies. It is simply not the kind of health care 
system we should have.
  I have met so many Judys from Marion, IL, in places such as 
Steubenville and Cambridge and Lima and Findlay, OH, who work so hard 
and cannot get insurance and cannot manage their care, cannot manage 
their health. People like that die younger than people who dress like 
this and have good insurance. People like that so often--Judy has not 
been able to take care of her diabetes. My son-in-law has diabetes. He 
was diagnosed with type I diabetes at the age of 29. That was about 5 
years ago. He works for Ohio State. He has a good health care plan. He 
takes really good care of himself, but he has the support of a health 
care system to do it. He is in the capital city with great private 
hospitals and public hospitals, with good insurance, but there are so 
many who can't go to those hospitals unless they are so acutely sick. 
Then they go to the emergency room. Why do we want people with diabetes 
or asthma or a heart condition to wait until they are sick to go to an 
emergency room instead of managing their care?

  Our health care system in this country, as good as it is to so many 
people who have good insurance, is the worst anywhere. Let me put it 
this way: We have more people in the hospital who have chronic 
conditions such as diabetes and heart disease and asthma, conditions 
that one can manage outside a hospital at a much lower cost. In this 
country, they are more likely to end up in a hospital than in any other 
country in the world, and that is one of the things our legislation 
will fix.
  Let me share one last letter, and I appreciate Senator Durbin joining 
us. This is from Deborah from Columbiana County, a county just like 
Marion, IL; a small, rural county; a pretty low-income county, a lot of 
job loss, just south of Youngstown along the Ohio River. Deborah is a 
56-year-old wife of a disabled retiree who suffers from a heart 
condition, arthritis, and three ruptured discs in his back.
  Within 1 month of his retirement, the steel company he worked for 
filed for bankruptcy and went out of business. This left them with a 
reduced monthly pension and the loss of all health care coverage that 
he worked for 33 years to earn. They went without insurance from 2003 
until he qualified for Social Security disability and Medicare in 2008. 
Deborah doesn't qualify, however, for either Social Security disability 
or Medicare. She has tried to get private health care coverage, but 
they can't afford the $2,400 to $3,000 a month for premiums.
  She says:

       My question is this: In the health care reform, will there 
     be a public option that doesn't disqualify me because of my 
     preexisting condition? Will I have to continue trying to 
     purchase coverage from private insurance companies?

  Exactly what Senator Durbin said: You never hear of Medicare denying 
somebody coverage because of a preexisting condition. We are certainly 
hearing about it from Wellpoint and CIGNA. We certainly hear about it 
from other private insurance companies. But we are never going to hear 
about the public option--once we enact it as part of U.S. law, we are 
never going to hear about the public option disqualifying people 
because of a preexisting condition.
  So what Deborah wants and needs is the choice. She can choose a 
private plan or she can choose the public option. But she can be 
assured the public option will not disqualify her or her husband or 
anybody else with a preexisting condition. She knows even if she gets 
sick and she spends a lot of money for her health care and for 
hospitals and treatments and doctors visits that her insurance would 
not be cut off because her care costs so much money. That is the beauty 
of the public option. It brings in competition, it keeps prices down, 
and it protects the public from being denied care because of a 
preexisting condition or illness.
  In the next few weeks, Senator Reid plans to bring this bill to the 
Senate floor. It will include a strong public option with a State opt-
out, as Senator Durbin said, so if a State such as Arkansas or Nebraska 
or wherever decides this is not for them, they can go and talk to their 
Governor and to their legislature and they can opt out of it. I don't 
think very many States will because I think the public option will 
matter for millions and millions of Americans. I believe hundreds of 
thousands of people in my State will decide they want to be in the 
public option. But even if they don't, they will understand--people 
will know their private insurance will be better, it will be a higher 
quality and less cost because of the competition from the public 
option.
  I thank the President, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I speak with gratitude to Senator Brown 
from Ohio who regularly comes to the Senate floor to address this issue 
which will be pending soon before the Senate and which may be the most 
important issue we will face during our lifetime. So I am glad his 
leadership is demonstrated again this evening on this issue.


                             Guantanamo Bay

  When people are asked about our troops on Veterans Day, there is a

[[Page S11375]]

warm feeling about the sacrifice and courage they show by volunteering 
to serve our country. We were all saddened by the tragedy at Fort Hood. 
We are saddened to learn that even more soldiers are dying overseas. We 
are worried about the multiple deployments and the conditions they face 
overseas. We are worried, when they come home, to keep our promise to 
them that they get the medical care they need.
  One of the issues that relates directly to our troops and their 
safety is the issue of Guantanamo. Guantanamo is a detention facility 
that was created by the previous President after 9/11 in an effort to 
try to gather those we thought were dangerous to the United States and 
other places and hold them safely. That facility was opened and 
expanded at considerable expense, but, unfortunately, during the course 
of its early history it became controversial, particularly overseas. 
Guantanamo came to symbolize in the minds of many overseas an image of 
the United States of which they were critical. Whether that was just or 
unjust, it is a fact.
  As a result, GEN Colin L. Powell, who served as Chairman of our Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, as well as Secretary of State under President George 
Bush, said--and I paraphrase him--I wouldn't close Guantanamo tomorrow, 
I would close it this afternoon. Similar statements have been made by 
Admiral Mullen, who is now Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff, about 
the danger that Guantanamo poses as long as it is open. GEN David 
Petraeus, who has served and commanded our troops overseas and knows 
terrorism, as it has stared him in the face, and who has seen its 
results, has said Guantanamo should be closed. Former President George 
W. Bush on eight different occasions called for the closure of 
Guantanamo. It has been a strongly held position by the former 
President and many in his Cabinet, a position shared by many of us in 
Congress, and a position which was the leading position taken by our 
new President when he was elected earlier this year--the closure of 
Guantanamo.
  The obvious question was, What do we do with the remaining prisoners? 
Some of them are safe to release; others are not. What happens to those 
who are not? We have had a debate back and forth on the floor of the 
Senate. The position taken by most on the Republican side of the aisle 
is to oppose the closure of Guantanamo. They oppose the position taken 
by General Powell and General Petraeus and so many others, but that is 
their right to do. Many of them have challenged this President, if he 
is going to close Guantanamo, to say what he would do with these 
detainees.
  Over the weekend there was a disclosure of a plan the President is 
developing. They have not made a final decision on where these 
detainees will go, but one of the options they are considering is in my 
home State of Illinois. It is in a small community called Thomson, IL, 
in Carroll County. You will find it on the northwest corner of our 
State about 50 or 60 miles north of the Quad Cities, Rock Island area, 
about 50 or 60 miles southwest of Rockford. It is a very rural county. 
It is a county that has faced enormous difficulties in the past and 
faces high unemployment today.
  About 8 or 9 years ago, the State of Illinois built a state-of-the-
art, maximum security prison in Thomson, IL. It holds 1,600 beds and 
the latest technology to safely contain the prisoners who were sent 
there. Then my State fell on hard times and couldn't open the prison, 
and it sat there. The town of Thomson, Carroll County, made 
infrastructure investments in anticipation of this prison coming and 
new employment coming to the area. Now, for the last 8 years, they have 
paid the bills on that infrastructure but have had very few jobs at the 
prison.
  Currently, there are about 100 inmates being held in a minimum 
security setting. The prison has not been utilized as it should be or 
could be. So the mayor of the town, who is a very good man--we call him 
Village President back in Illinois--Jerry ``Duke'' Hebeler, wrote a 
letter to me and to Governor Patrick Quinn and to the President and 
said: I hope you will consider our empty prison sitting in Thomson, IL, 
as a place for Federal prisoners, including the detainees at 
Guantanamo.
  Well, I saw this letter and thought that may be the answer. I 
submitted the letter to the administration. Governor Quinn hand carried 
it to the President of the United States and asked him to consider the 
Thomson facility.

  They are now, as of today, on the ground looking at what they would 
do to convert this into a Federal prison, but also a prison that would 
house the Guantanamo detainees. It is a little complicated because 
under the Geneva Convention, those who are arrested in war have to be 
held in a setting separate from the ordinary corrections facilities of 
our government. So the Department of Defense maintains a military 
prison at Guantanamo and would at Thomson as part of that prison 
facility, but it is separate. It is run by the Department of Defense, 
not by the Bureau of Prisons.
  So the idea is to take about one-fourth of the Thomson facility and 
set it aside for the Guantanamo detainees. I don't know the exact 
number we would have transferred there, but we are told it would be 
fewer than 100 prisoners. That leaves the rest of the facility with 
over 1,000 beds to alleviate some of the overcrowding we have in 
Federal prisons today.
  The net result of this would be dramatic in terms of the local 
economy. It is estimated it would create anywhere between 1,800 to 
3,200 jobs, some 1,800 at the prison itself and others in the community 
for businesses that would support the prison. The economic activity 
associated with this new prison is estimated to be over $200 million a 
year, which means in a 4-year period of time anywhere from $800 million 
to $1 billion will be spent in this community.
  I need not tell the Presiding Officer, as you reflect on your own 
home State of Oregon, what it means for a small town in a rural 
community to have that kind of influence of people and spending. Twenty 
percent of the jobs will likely go to people living in Iowa across the 
river, easily accessible, 80 percent on the Illinois side. That is just 
the best estimate. But the net result of it would be a positive 
injection of jobs and economic activity into a very tough environment 
economically.
  When we talk about creating jobs, most of us would turn cartwheels as 
Senators and Congressmen to announce 100 jobs coming to any town. The 
notion of 2,000 to 3,000 jobs coming is unimaginable, and it is a once-
in-a-lifetime opportunity.
  Governor Pat Quinn has endorsed it. I have endorsed it as well. We 
are working out the details and getting questions answered to see if we 
can move forward and do it on a timely basis.
  Not surprisingly, critics have appeared, some within our own State. 
The Republican--not all of the Republicans in Congress in our State, 
but many of them--have held press conferences opposing the sale of the 
Thomson prison to the Federal Government. They are entitled to their 
point of view, and I respect them even though we may disagree. But I 
will tell my colleagues that several of the arguments they are making 
against the use of the Thomson prison are just plain wrong.
  One of them--I think the overriding argument--is that we should be 
afraid of what it means to bring Guantanamo detainees to the United 
States, on our soil. What they fail to acknowledge is that currently we 
have 340 convicted terrorists in America's prisons today, and 35 in the 
State of Illinois, some of them convicted for al-Qaida activities. It 
has not endangered the people living near those prisons. In fact, they 
may not even be the most dangerous people in these prisons. The fact 
is, they are there. The idea of bringing in fewer than 100 into the 
Thomson prison is not going to change this calculus much, if any. There 
will still be terrorists held in other prisons in our State, and 
terrorists would be held there, and that is something our prison people 
do, and do well. The guards and the administrators know how to handle 
these prisons safely and securely.
  When this Thomson prison is reconfigured, if it is chosen, it will be 
safer than any supermax facility in the United States, and there has 
never been an escapee from a supermax facility. That is a fact.
  The second argument made by one of the Congressmen is one that is 
troubling because he said he feared that

[[Page S11376]]

these detainees would be released into the United States. That 
Congressman should know better. We have passed two bills signed by 
President Obama which prohibit releasing detainees from Guantanamo into 
the United States. It is not going to happen. It shouldn't happen. So 
that is a fear that should be dispelled.
  The third argument this Congressman made was that under the rules, 
every detainee would be entitled to 10 visitors a year, which meant if 
there is 100 detainees there would be 1,000, as he called them, Islamic 
followers, jihad followers, coming into the State of Illinois, landing 
at O'Hare and heading over across our State to the Thomson area.
  Well, he is just plain wrong. The detainees currently held at 
Guantanamo are not entitled to any visits from family and friends. 
None. The only visits come from attorneys, their legal counsel, and 
that rule would still apply at the Thomson prison. So this notion of a 
thousand jihadist visitors coming to Illinois isn't going to happen. It 
wouldn't happen.

  The fourth point that has been raised is one that I really think gets 
to the heart of the issue. It is the argument that if we brought these 
detainees to the United States and put them in a prison, there would be 
retaliation against the United States.
  This one Congressman has gone so far as to pinpoint specific 
buildings in Chicago in which he thinks the terrorists would try to 
destroy and kill innocent people. I think that kind of designation of 
specific buildings crosses a line we should not cross. I don't know 
that it gives ideas to terrorists, but to speak of this so casually is 
wrong. I wish he hadn't said that. Think about what he is arguing. He 
argues that if we capture, prosecute, and incarcerate those who would 
terrorize the United States, we run the risk of retaliation. His 
argument is: Let's not make them mad. Well, I couldn't disagree with 
him more. As heartbreaking as 9/11 was, after that day we came forward 
with a determination to tell the world that the United States was going 
to make those responsible answer for the violence of that day and any 
other violence perpetrated upon the United States. That is what we are 
doing.
  We have 340 terrorists currently incarcerated across America. The 
fact that we have successfully prosecuted 195 of them since 9/11 says 
we are going to use our system of justice to bring justice to this 
situation. If we are going to cower in fear, believing the enforcement 
of our laws and the incarceration of terrorists will provoke more 
terrorism, then we will have lost our way as a nation. We need to show 
the courage of our convictions to let people know the rule of law will 
be applied in the United States to all who harm us. That is what this 
incarceration at Thomson would do.
  I don't know if President Obama will make the final decision to send 
these detainees to his home State of Illinois. I believe we can work 
with the Bureau of Prisons and the Department of Defense to make 
certain that they are held safely, that they pay the price for what 
they have done, and that they are held as long as necessary to avoid 
any danger to people of the United States. We can do this in a humane 
fashion, and we can do it in a professional fashion. We don't have to 
apologize or run scared, as some of the critics of this idea are today.
  In conclusion, I am proud of the people of Carroll County in Thomson, 
IL, for stepping up and realizing they desperately need help 
economically, seeing a great asset in that community that can be 
utilized to not only serve our State but to serve our Nation and to put 
our best foot forward to show we will apply standards of justice there 
that are applied across America--standards that are fair, standards 
that recognize the basic freedoms we hold dear and the system of 
justice we hold dear that says those who are guilty of crime will pay a 
price.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________