A bill to require the President to close the Department of Defense detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that I believe will place the Department of Energy's nuclear waste program back on

track. I am joined by Senator Craig and others to introduce the Nuclear Waste Access to Yucca Bill, or Nu-Way Bill, which I believe will help to resolve the issue of nuclear waste once and for all.

As we all know, the history of the Yucca Mountain project has been rocky at best. The Yucca Mountain project has a very long pedigree, starting back to the late 1950s when the National Academy of Sciences, NAS, reported to the Atomic Energy Commission that burying radioactive high-level waste in geologic formations should receive consideration. NAS stated that ``radioactive waste can be disposed of safely in a variety of ways and at a large number of sites in the United States.''

In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act after a solid consensus had been reached around the major elements of the approach broadly outlined by President Carter. When President Reagan signed it into law the following January, he called the Act ``a milestone for progress and the ability of our democratic system to resolve a sophisticated and divisive issue.''

The Congress was quite optimistic then, so optimistic that we told the Department of Energy, DOE, to enter into contracts with utilities to begin taking nuclear waste off their hands by 1998 in return for the payment of fees. Well, obviously that didn't happen, but the United States government continues to collect the fee at 1mil/KWH electricity generated by nuclear plants. What did happen was that the utilities began to sue DOE for failing to meet its contractual obligation to remove spent nuclear fuel from storage at commercial reactor sites. DOE has been negotiating with various reactor owners since 1999 over the missed deadline for settlement agreements. The first agreement was reached in July 2000 which allowed DOE to pay PECO Energy Co. up to $80 million in nuclear waste fee revenues during the subsequent 10 years. However, other utilities sued DOE to block the settlement, contending that nuclear waste fees may be used only for the DOE Waste Program and not as compensation for missing the disposal deadline. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed that any compensation would have to come from general revenue or other sources than the waste fund.

Today, commercial spent nuclear fuel continues to be stored at plant sites, and DOE is facing more than $6 billion in judgments for failure to dispose the spent nuclear fuel. As for the nuclear waste fund, we now have more than $19 billion of the ratepayer's money in principal and interest.

In addition to civilian spent nuclear fuel, the Department of Energy stores about 2,500 metric tons of defense waste, which includes unreprocessed spent nuclear fuel from its plutonium production reactors, naval propulsion reactors, and research reactors at Hanford, Savannah River, and the Idaho National Laboratory.

While moving more slowly than planned, DOE's nuclear waste program has made progress toward making the goal of a permanent geologic repository for nuclear waste a reality. Originally, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act required DOE to characterize more than one site for two repositories. As the most promising site considered, the Yucca Mountain site was selected by DOE to be the first site to be characterized. In 1987, the act was amended and the Congress directed DOE to focus its siting effort on Yucca Mountain alone and terminated the second repository program.

On February 14, 2002, after carrying out the required ``appropriate site characterization activities'' at Yucca Mountain to determine its suitability, the President recommended Yucca Mountain to Congress as being ``qualified for application for a construction authorization for a repository.''

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act provided the Governor of Nevada the opportunity to object to the site selection and to submit to Congress the reasons. On April 8, 2002, the Governor of Nevada exercised this authority and submitted his notice of disapproval and statement of reasons. Under the terms of the Act, the Governor's notice had the effect of terminating further consideration of the Yucca Mountain site until both Houses of Congress passed and the President signed into law a joint resolution approving the site.

The State veto provisions of the act accomplished their intent, which was to afford Congress another opportunity to review and determine if the objection was sufficient to terminate the program. Based on expert opinion, both Houses concluded that the objection was not sufficient, and that the Yucca Mountain site is geologically suitable for development of the repository. In the national interest, Congress approved the Yucca Mountain site, and instructed DOE to file a license application for the repository with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC. The decision has been made. All the scientific work performed to date supports the decision.

With the siting decision made, it will now be up to the EPA to issue general standards and for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license the facility by evaluating the scientific data and determining whether the repository will permanently, and safely, isolate nuclear waste.

Yucca Mountain is the cornerstone of our national comprehensive spent nuclear fuel management strategy for this country. Let me be clear: We need Yucca Mountain. We must make this program work. I believe the bill introduced today will do that.

This bill will remove unintended legal barriers that will allow DOE to meet its obligation to accept and store spent nuclear fuel as soon as possible, without prejudging the outcome of the NRC's repository licensing decision.

The bill I am introducing today authorizes DOE to permanently withdraw 147,000 acres of Federal land from public use currently controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, the Air Force, and the Nevada Test Site, to satisfy a license condition of the NRC.

This legislation will repeal the arbitrary 70,000 metric ton statutory limit on emplacement of radioactive material at Yucca Mountain. The cap was imposed when Congress was considering two rounds of repositories. I believe that the capacity of the mountain should be determined by scientific and technical analysis, and not by political compromises.

Today, the major facility at the Yucca Mountain site is an ``exploratory studies facility'' with a 25-foot-diameter, 5-mile long, tunnel with ramps leading to the surface. This legislation will allow the DOE to begin construction of needed infrastructure for the repository and surface storage facilities as soon as they complete an environmental impact statement that evaluates these activities.

The ``Nu-Way'' bill also begins to consolidate the defense nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel from defense activities at the Yucca Mountain site. The bill requires DOE to file for a permit to build a surface receipt and storage facility at the Nevada Test Site at the same time it files its license application for a repository at Yucca Mountain.

As soon as the department receives the permit for the surface receipt and storage facility from the NRC, it may begin moving defense fuel and waste to the Nevada Test Site. We are not giving DOE any new authority to move spent fuel. DOE currently has authority to transport and consolidate defense waste at DOE facilities, with the sole exception of Yucca Mountain site. The spent nuclear fuel from our Navy and defense activities that kept us safe during the Cold War should be consolidated and stored securely at the Nevada Test Site. The defense waste is currently stored temporarily in Hanford, Idaho and Savannah River sites.

This legislation further provides that only after the NRC issues a construction permit for Yucca Mountain, may the Department of Energy begin moving civilian spent fuel to the Nevada Test Site. This legislation also lays the foundation to integrate Yucca Mountain Repository Program and Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP, by providing that before civilian spent nuclear fuel is shipped to Yucca Mountain, the Secretary of Energy must determine if it can be recycled within a reasonable time. I might add that the current plans for GNEP do not include recycling all 55,000 metric tons of civilian spent fuel that has already been generated. This proposal will would avoid moving waste to Yucca Mountain Site that should be shipped instead to a GNEP facility.

In the long run, this measure provides DOE with the authorities needed to execute the Yucca Mountain project for long term emplacement and for the

GNEP program to reduce the volume and toxicity of the material to be placed in the repository, thereby eliminating the need for a second waste repository.

This bill will also withdraw land for a rail route Yucca, a vital transportation component. There is also a provision that provides that appropriations from the nuclear waste fund will not count against the allocations for discretionary spending. DOE will have access to the full funds in the nuclear waste fund, moneys collected from electricity rate payers, our constituents, specifically for developing and constructing the waste repository.

To address the liability problem created by Congress when DOE could not remove spent nuclear fuel from the reactor sites, this legislation will authorize DOE to revise the standard contract to accept waste from new nuclear reactors at a more reasonable schedule. By doing all of these things, this bill will establish a comprehensive program that will provide confidence that our Nation's nuclear waste will be managed safely both for current and future reactors.

The issue of Yucca Mountain has been addressed repeatedly by Congress and Presidents. The legislation I am introducing today will not circumvent any environmental standards or regulations, nor will it preempt any State or local government rights.

Despite the great advances that we have made in this Nation on nuclear energy, we are still faced with challenges. EIA estimates that even with a projected increase in nuclear capacity and generation in large, the nuclear share of total electricity is estimated to fall from 19 percent in 2005 to 15 percent in 2030. This is because our energy needs will be great over the next 25 years. For energy security reasons, economic reasons and environmental reasons, we must make nuclear energy a larger part of our mix. To meet the challenge of reducing carbon emissions in order to address climate change, we need nuclear energy. And, if we need nuclear energy, we need Yucca Mountain.

Solving nuclear waste is in the national interest. We can solve this problem and I hope we can move forward together in a new way.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Obama to introduce the Veterans' Mental Health Outreach and Access Act. This bill will require the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs to establish a program for the provision of readjustment and mental health services to veterans who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, with a particular emphasis on those soldiers who served in the National Guard and Reserves.

Operation Enduring Freedom, OEF, and Operation Iraqi Freedom, OIF, are unique in their extensive use of National Guard and Reserve troops and their reliance on repetitive deployments. More than 1,500 National Guard and Reservists from New Mexico have been deployed in support of OIF and OEF. Several hundred of these soldiers have been deployed multiple times. This is a new era for our National Guard and for the Reserve. The role of these organizations in defending our national security has significantly increased. Guard and Reserve members are seeing significant combat action and we know that a number of these soldiers will return with mental and physical wounds suffered in these wars, including post traumatic stress disorder, depression, brain injuries and other traumatic illnesses.

Virtually all returning veterans and their families will face readjustment problems. These soldiers and their families deserve the best care and treatment possible, but where do our National Guard and Reserve soldiers fit into the military and veterans' systems of care? These ``citizen-soldiers'' are not returning to military bases, but rather to communities that are frequently remote from VA medical centers and clinics.

We're quick to urge that VA provide veterans needed treatment for service-related mental health problems, but we also need to do more to remove the barriers such as travel and distance that oftentimes will prevent a veteran from seeking and continuing treatment. The Domenici- Obama bill calls on the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop a national program to reach vets who can't or won't seek VA care. It requires the Secretary to mount a national program to train a cadre of returning servicemembers for positions as peer outreach workers and peer-support specialists. In any remote area of the country in which the VA determines there is inadequate access to a VA medical center, the bill directs the Secretary of the VA to contract with community mental health centers and other qualified entities to provide peer outreach and support services, readjustment counseling and mental health services. However, any resulting contracts would require centers to first train and adhere to the VA's expertise and standards of care in mental health. It also will require any contract-provider to hire a trained peer specialist as well as have its clinicians participate in a training program to be certain they'll provide ``culturally competent'' services.

This bill also gives needed attention to the toll these military operations have on the mental health needs of our veterans' families. These deployments are causing great stress for the spouses and children of these soldiers. Yet despite the recognition of the mental health needs of the family members of the returning veterans, current law limits the ability of the VA to work with these family members. This bill will expand access to mental health services for the immediate family of the veteran so that they may help the veteran recover in the case of injury or illness incurred during deployment. It will also help expand access to services so that the family can better help the veteran adjust back to civilian life, and also help the readjustment of the family to the return of the veteran.

Lastly, this bill will extend the eligibility for health care services from the Department of Veterans Affairs for veterans who served in combat from 2 years to 5 years. Two years is often insufficient time for symptoms related to PTSD and other mental illness to manifest. In many cases, it takes years for symptoms to present themselves, and the difficulty is often compounded by the fact that many servicemembers do not immediately seek the care that they need. Five years provides a more adequate window to address these risks.

Outreach and access to treatment are essential to prevent readjustment problems for our returning veterans and their families. Left untreated, mental disorders like PTSD and depression can become chronic and debilitating. We need systems in place to ensure that OEF/ OIF veterans who are returning to their homes have access to the services they need. It is my hope that this legislation will help close the gaps we currently have in our service delivery systems and provide help to those who have experienced mental health problems as a result of their service to their country.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, since it was created the U.S. Postal Service has provided trusted, reliable delivery to tens of millions of households throughout the country. Today, the USPS stands as the second largest employer in the country with over 700,000 employees and is the most efficient postal service in the world. Last year, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act was passed and signed into law, ensuring the sustainability of the USPS for years to come.

However, recent decisions by the Postal Service have put the success and reliability of mail delivery in jeopardy. Postal delivery managers are now being encouraged to contract out delivery services for all new deliveries, of which there are approximately 1.8 million per year.

Outsourcing the mailman bypasses the process that ensures that only qualified people handle America's mail, leaving open the possibility that convicted felons, identity thieves, or other undesirable workers could have access to the mail stream.

Furthermore, it limits the ability of the Postal Service to prevent, investigate, and prosecute mail theft, mail fraud, and other illegal uses of the mail.

The USPS employs dedicated postal employees who earn solid middle- class wages and have health benefits and pension plans. The quality of service and reliability that the USPS has been known for is threatened if our mail carriers are replaced by low-paid, short-term workers.

This is why I am introducing the Mail Delivery Protection Act of 2007. This bill would prevent the USPS from contracting out the delivery of mail to postal patrons to private individuals and firms.

Each day millions of sensitive materials, including financial statements, credit cards, Social Security checks, passports, and ballots, pass through the mail stream. We cannot afford to allow the safe delivery of these personal, private documents to be granted to the lowest bidder.

In 2006, 379 Members of the House of Representatives voted against a pilot program testing the feasibility of contracted delivery.

However, postal management has increasingly chosen to contract out the delivery of mail, therefore outsourcing their core service function. A fancy restaurant would not contract out its chefs to a cheap fast-food chain to save money. Why should the Post Office outsource its delivery?

We must remember that this is the U.S. Postal Service. This bill will ensure that the safety and reliability we have all come to know from our local mail carriers will continue.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am offering legislation to close the U.S. military presence at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There is remarkable agreement on the need to find a way to close this prison. Our closest allies have all urged that Guantanamo be closed, as have many leaders from across the political spectrum in the United States.

Last June, after three detainees committed suicide in a single day, President Bush acknowledged that the prison has damaged America's reputation abroad. The President said:

No question, Guantanamo sends a signal to some of our

friends--provides an excuse, for example, to say that the

United States is not upholding the values that they're trying

to encourage other countries to adhere to.

The President said:

I'd like to close Guantanamo.

More recently, Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Rice have urged that the prison be shut down. On March 23, the Washington Post, citing ``senior administration officials,'' reported Secretary Gates had ``repeatedly argued that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had become so tainted abroad that legal proceedings at Guantanamo would be viewed as illegitimate.'' According to the Post, Secretary Gates ``told President Bush and others that it should be shut down as quickly as possible.''

Make no mistake, current detainees at Guantanamo include a number of extremely dangerous terrorists with the determination and the ability-- if they are given the opportunity--to inflict grave harm on the United States and its citizens. Among the detainees are 14 senior leaders of al-Qaida, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has confessed to being one of the masterminds of the September 11 attacks, plus others. We must, and we can, hold these enemy combatants in maximum security confinement elsewhere.

But the critics are right. The 5-year-old prison at Guantanamo is a stain on the honor of this country. By holding people at Guantanamo without charge, without judicial review, without appropriate legal counsel, and--in the past--subjecting many of them to torture, we have forfeited the moral high ground and we stand as hypocrites in the eyes of the world.

Perhaps most seriously, from a pragmatic standpoint, maintaining the prison at Guantanamo is simply counterproductive. It has become a propaganda bonanza and recruitment tool for terrorists. It alienates our friends and allies. It detracts from our ability to regain the moral high ground, and rally the world against the terrorists who threaten us.

The administration has repeatedly described detainees at Guantanamo as ``the worst of the worst'' or, as former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld once described them, the ``most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth.'' Unquestionably, some of the detainees fit these descriptions. However, an exhaustive study of Guantanamo detainees conducted by the nonpartisan, highly respected National Journal last year came to the following conclusions: A large percentage, perhaps the majority, of the detainees were not captured on any battlefield, let alone on ``the battlefield in Afghanistan,'' as the President once asserted. Fewer than 20 percent of the detainees have ever been al-Qaida members. Many scores, and perhaps hundreds, of the detainees were not even Taliban foot soldiers, let alone al-Qaida members. The majority were not captured by U.S. forces but, rather, handed over by reward-seeking Pakistanis, Afghan warlords, and by villagers of highly dubious reliability. For example, one of the detainees is a man who was conscripted by the Taliban to work as an assistant cook. The U.S. Government's ``evidence'' against this detainee consists in its entirety of the following:

One, the detainee admits he was a cook's assistant for Taliban forces in Narim, Afghanistan, under the command of Haji Mullah Baki.

Two, the detainee fled from Narim to Kabul during the Northern Alliance attack and surrendered to the Northern Alliance.

This person is still sitting in Guantanamo.

The situation at Guantanamo, I must add, reminds me of an earlier episode in this Senator's life. In July of 1970, I was a staff assistant to a House committee in the House of Representatives. I was working with a congressional delegation on a factfinding trip to Vietnam. I brought back photographs of the so-called tiger cages at Con Son Island, off the coast of Vietnam, where Viet Cong and some North Vietnamese prisoners, as well as civilian opponents of the war, were all being held together, held incommunicado, tortured and killed, with the full knowledge, support, and sanction of the United States Government. We had heard reports about the possible existence of these tiger cages. But our State Department vehemently denied their existence. They dismissed all of these claims as communist propaganda.

Well, I looked into this and believed the reports were credible. I was determined to investigate further to see if they did exist. Thanks to the courage of Congressman William Anderson of Tennessee, Congressman Augustus Hawkins of California, Don Luce, an American working for a nongovernmental organization, and a brave, young Vietnamese man who risked his life and his brother's life, who was still held on Con Son in the tiger cages, who drew us the maps and showed us how to find the tiger cages at these prisons--Nguyen Caoli was the young man's name. He risked it all by trusting us. Thanks to his maps and telling us how to find them, we were able to expose the tiger cages on Con Son Island in July of 1970.

Supporters of the war claimed the tiger cages were not all that bad. But then Life Magazine and other magazines around the world published the pictures I had surreptitiously taken on Con Son, and the world saw the horrific conditions, as I said, with Vietnamese guerrillas, as well as civilian opponents

of the war, all crowded together in these cages, in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, and in violation of the most fundamental principles of human rights.

At the time, the United States Government had been insisting the North Vietnamese abide by the Geneva Conventions in their treatment of United States prisoners in North Vietnam. Yet, here we were condoning, funding, and even supervising the torture of Vietnamese prisoners and civilians, whose only crime was protesting the war, all in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions.

There are disturbing parallels between what transpired on Con Son Island nearly four decades ago and what happened at Guantanamo in recent years. In both cases, prisons were deliberately set up on remote islands, clearly with the intention of limiting scrutiny and restricting access. In both cases, detainees were not classified as prisoners of war, expressly to deny them the protections of the Geneva Conventions. In both cases, detainees were deprived of any right of due process, judicial review, or a fair trial.

They were simply held indefinitely in isolation, in limbo. In both cases, when the mistreatment of detainees was exposed, the United States stood accused of hypocrisy, of betraying its most sacred values, and of violating international law.

So you can see why I have watched what has transpired at Guantanamo, and I have thought back to that episode in my life when all of this came out about the tiger cages and the inhumane treatment of these several hundred prisoners who were there at the time. There was a happy ending to that event. Because of the international outcry, the tiger cages were closed down, the prisoners were released, and people went back to their homes.

Many of them who were in the tiger cages I met later on in life. One became the mayor of Saigon, several became successful businesspeople, and others went on with their lives. But watching what happened at Guantanamo and seeing that many of these people were swept up in a war which some of them--many of them--well, the National Journal says a majority of them were not even engaged.

So it is time to close it down. We need to reverse the damage Guantanamo has done to America's reputation and to our ability to wage an effective fight against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, and the essential first step must be to close the prison at Guantanamo as expeditiously as possible. The bill I am introducing today offers a practical approach to accomplishing this within 120 days of enactment of the law.

As I said, there are known hardcore terrorists at Guantanamo, such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who must continue to be held in maximum- security conditions. Under my bill, these prisoners will be transferred to the U.S. detention base at Fort Leavenworth, KS. This is a state-of- the-art maximum-security facility just opened in 2002. It has adequate capacity to receive these prisoners from Guantanamo. Under my bill, the remaining prisoners, some 365 in number, would have their legal status resolved. In each case, the administration will determine whether the prisoner planned or committed hostile acts against the United States. Those who did plan or commit hostile acts would be charged and transferred to Fort Leavenworth. Those who did not would be released to the custody of their home country or, where necessary, to a country where they would not face torture.

There is a pending bill, S. 1249, to close the prison at Guantanamo. However, that bill gives the administration too much leeway to maintain the status quo in terms of the detainees' legal status. It allows an enemy combatant to be detained indefinitely without charge--that is what is getting us into trouble in the first place--and it does not require that the administration abide by the Convention Against Torture, nor does it give detainees a forum in which to lodge credible claims of torture or abuse. The bill I am introducing does all of that.

The United States has lost its way, both in Iraq and at Guantanamo. We need to wage a smarter, more focused, and more effective fight against the terrorists who threaten us, and we must do so in ways that do not give credence to their anti-American propaganda and do not rally more recruits to their cause. To that end, we must close the prison at Guantanamo as soon as possible. The legislation I am offering today will accomplish this.

This legislation has the enthusiastic endorsement of Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, Amnesty International, and the American Civil Liberties Union. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unamimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to close the U.S. detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Guantanamo has become a lightning rod for international condemnation. Both allies and enemies have decried the stories of detainee abuse and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that the individuals held at Guantanamo are legally entitled to be treated in accord with the Geneva Conventions. In short, the continued use of Guantanamo is causing more damage than benefit in our war on terrorism.

The Supreme Court determined last summer that the Geneva Conventions applies to Guantanamo detainees, and Congress passed the Military Commissions Act in response. There remain court challenges and policy questions as to whether the proceedings at Guantanamo are now legal. What is clear, however, is that, whether legal or not, Guantanamo is harming our national interests.

This is not solely my view.

Secretary of Defense Gates testified recently before the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. He said, ``I came to this position believing that Guantanamo should be closed. I know that people have expressed that as a wish. The president has expressed it as a wish.'' The Secretary remarked that Guantanamo has ``a taint about it.''

According to media accounts, the current and former Secretaries of State, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, share this view.

Unfortunately, these expressions will not necessarily lead to concrete action. On March 23, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow stated that it was unlikely that the Guantanamo detention facility would close during the Bush Presidency.

That is unfortunate, but I think the way forward is now clear. It is time to close the detention facilities at Guantanamo, and it is time for the Congress to act. And so today I am proud to offer legislation to end detention operations at Guantanamo within a year.

Approximately 750 enemy combatants--including individuals believed to be Taliban fighters or al-Qaida irregulars have been sent to Guantanamo since January 11, 2002. Roughly 385 are there today, and it is estimated that only 60 to 80 of them will ever be charged. According to a Pentagon spokesman last month, another 80 detainees remain at Guantanamo despite having been cleared for transfer or release.

This is an untenable situation.

Let me be clear. I have no room in my heart for al-Qaida members or affiliates. I know full well that they would kill innocent Americans given half the chance. But the people in this administration who have made these decisions have never recognized that it is not just for the detainees' sake that we comply with U.S. and international law, it is to our benefit as well.

As Senator McCain and GEN Colin Powell have forcefully argued, we treat individuals in accordance with international law to ensure that Americans captured in battle are treated likewise.

Unfortunately, due to the administration's decision not to apply Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and to allow new interrogation techniques, there have been abuses. These have been documented, among other places, in the official report by Air Force LTG Randall Schmidt on June 9, 2005.

Ironically, use of these techniques not only turned the tide of world opinion and shocked our consciences, but they are inconsistent with producing accurate intelligence.

The second major result from mistaken administration policies has been our fall from the world's leader in the realm of ideals, not just in power.

The detentions at Guantanamo have been decried, from moral leaders such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu to political leaders like Tony Blair.

Archbishop Tutu said, ``I never imagined I would live to see the day when the United States and its satellites would use precisely the same arguments that the apartheid government used for detention without trial. It is disgraceful.''

Prime Minister Blair commented that Guantanamo Bay is an ``anomaly that at some point has to be brought to an end.''

While world leaders and various offices of the United Nations have criticized Guantanamo, terrorists around the world have used it to rally new recruits. Just like the horrible scenes from Abu Ghraib, we have found evidence that the disrespect for Islam and the Koran at Guantanamo has helped breed a new generation of terrorists.

The legislation that I introduce today would close the Guantanamo detention facilities within a year of enactment.

Everyone being held at that time would have to be transitioned to an alternative legal status. There are five major options. Detainees could be transferred to a civilian or military facility in the United States and charged with a violation of U.S. or international law for prosecution in a civilian or military proceeding; transferred to a facility in the United States for continued detention, for individuals judged to be enemy combatants; transferred to any international legal tribunal that may be authorized for this purpose; transferred to their home nation or a third-party government for further processing. This would require that the Government obtain the required assurances that the detainee will not be tortured or otherwise handled in a matter against international law; or for detainees judged to pose no continuing security threat to the United States or our allies, released.

What would this accomplish?

First, and most importantly, it would end the stain on America's reputation and reiterate that we are a nation of laws and justice.

Second, moving trials to the United States, whether under the military commission process or otherwise, would enhance the credibility of those proceedings. As Secretary Gates testified, ``no matter how transparent, no matter how open the trials, if they took place at Guantanamo in the international community, they would lack credibility.''

Finally, moving detainees to the mainland would ease the logistics of trials and oversight. It would obviate the need for the government to run its own airline business shuttling Members of Congress, lawyers, reporters, and military police to Guantanamo.

Some will argue that closing Guantanamo will damage our security. Let me make clear: I am not for releasing any terrorist, any Taliban fighter, or anyone that we will have to face again on the battlefield.

We have high-security prisons and military brigs around the nation and know how to keep prisoners from harming the local population. In fact, the Justice Department has successfully convicted Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman and Ramzi Yousef for their roles in the first World Trade Center bombing. Jose Padilla was held in a naval brig, and is currently awaiting a trial in the United States. Our military and criminal justice systems are up to this task.

Nor is it the case that moving detainees from Guantanamo will hinder our ability to gain intelligence from them. In fact, the majority of detainees are not being interrogated at Guantanamo, and almost none of them have any actionable intelligence left after imprisonment for years.

Finally, I am aware that legislation has been introduced to amend the Military Commissions Act, especially with regard to its habeas corpus provisions. I support these efforts. But legal experts have testified that moving detainees to the United States would have little impact on the Government's ability to prosecute them. The procedures of the Military Commissions Act, or any other court martial or criminal proceeding, do not depend on the location of the trial. Indeed, the Supreme Court has already held that legal process at Guantanamo is subject to U.S. law.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is our responsibility to ensure that the war on terror is being fought in a way that maximizes our ability to prevail. The situation at Guantanamo has impeded our success. It has strained our relations with key allies. It has provided fodder to our detractors. And it has dampened the national support we need to keep fighting our enemies.

After more than 5 years, it is time to close this prison. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to close the U.S. detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Guantanamo has become a lightning rod for international condemnation. Both allies and enemies have decried the stories of detainee abuse and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that the individuals held at Guantanamo are legally entitled to be treated in accord with the Geneva Conventions. In short, the continued use of Guantanamo is causing more damage than benefit in our war on terrorism.

The Supreme Court determined last summer that the Geneva Conventions applies to Guantanamo detainees, and Congress passed the Military Commissions Act in response. There remain court challenges and policy questions as to whether the proceedings at Guantanamo are now legal. What is clear, however, is that, whether legal or not, Guantanamo is harming our national interests.

This is not solely my view.

Secretary of Defense Gates testified recently before the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. He said, ``I came to this position believing that Guantanamo should be closed. I know that people have expressed that as a wish. The president has expressed it as a wish.'' The Secretary remarked that Guantanamo has ``a taint about it.''

According to media accounts, the current and former Secretaries of State, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, share this view.

Unfortunately, these expressions will not necessarily lead to concrete action. On March 23, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow stated that it was unlikely that the Guantanamo detention facility would close during the Bush Presidency.

That is unfortunate, but I think the way forward is now clear. It is time to close the detention facilities at Guantanamo, and it is time for the Congress to act. And so today I am proud to offer legislation to end detention operations at Guantanamo within a year.

Approximately 750 enemy combatants--including individuals believed to be Taliban fighters or al-Qaida irregulars have been sent to Guantanamo since January 11, 2002. Roughly 385 are there today, and it is estimated that only 60 to 80 of them will ever be charged. According to a Pentagon spokesman last month, another 80 detainees remain at Guantanamo despite having been cleared for transfer or release.

This is an untenable situation.

Let me be clear. I have no room in my heart for al-Qaida members or affiliates. I know full well that they would kill innocent Americans given half the chance. But the people in this administration who have made these decisions have never recognized that it is not just for the detainees' sake that we comply with U.S. and international law, it is to our benefit as well.

As Senator McCain and GEN Colin Powell have forcefully argued, we treat individuals in accordance with international law to ensure that Americans captured in battle are treated likewise.

Unfortunately, due to the administration's decision not to apply Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and to allow new interrogation techniques, there have been abuses. These have been documented, among other places, in the official report by Air Force LTG Randall Schmidt on June 9, 2005.

Ironically, use of these techniques not only turned the tide of world opinion and shocked our consciences, but they are inconsistent with producing accurate intelligence.

The second major result from mistaken administration policies has been our fall from the world's leader in the realm of ideals, not just in power.

The detentions at Guantanamo have been decried, from moral leaders such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu to political leaders like Tony Blair.

Archbishop Tutu said, ``I never imagined I would live to see the day when the United States and its satellites would use precisely the same arguments that the apartheid government used for detention without trial. It is disgraceful.''

Prime Minister Blair commented that Guantanamo Bay is an ``anomaly that at some point has to be brought to an end.''

While world leaders and various offices of the United Nations have criticized Guantanamo, terrorists around the world have used it to rally new recruits. Just like the horrible scenes from Abu Ghraib, we have found evidence that the disrespect for Islam and the Koran at Guantanamo has helped breed a new generation of terrorists.

The legislation that I introduce today would close the Guantanamo detention facilities within a year of enactment.

Everyone being held at that time would have to be transitioned to an alternative legal status. There are five major options. Detainees could be transferred to a civilian or military facility in the United States and charged with a violation of U.S. or international law for prosecution in a civilian or military proceeding; transferred to a facility in the United States for continued detention, for individuals judged to be enemy combatants; transferred to any international legal tribunal that may be authorized for this purpose; transferred to their home nation or a third-party government for further processing. This would require that the Government obtain the required assurances that the detainee will not be tortured or otherwise handled in a matter against international law; or for detainees judged to pose no continuing security threat to the United States or our allies, released.

What would this accomplish?

First, and most importantly, it would end the stain on America's reputation and reiterate that we are a nation of laws and justice.

Second, moving trials to the United States, whether under the military commission process or otherwise, would enhance the credibility of those proceedings. As Secretary Gates testified, ``no matter how transparent, no matter how open the trials, if they took place at Guantanamo in the international community, they would lack credibility.''

Finally, moving detainees to the mainland would ease the logistics of trials and oversight. It would obviate the need for the government to run its own airline business shuttling Members of Congress, lawyers, reporters, and military police to Guantanamo.

Some will argue that closing Guantanamo will damage our security. Let me make clear: I am not for releasing any terrorist, any Taliban fighter, or anyone that we will have to face again on the battlefield.

We have high-security prisons and military brigs around the nation and know how to keep prisoners from harming the local population. In fact, the Justice Department has successfully convicted Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman and Ramzi Yousef for their roles in the first World Trade Center bombing. Jose Padilla was held in a naval brig, and is currently awaiting a trial in the United States. Our military and criminal justice systems are up to this task.

Nor is it the case that moving detainees from Guantanamo will hinder our ability to gain intelligence from them. In fact, the majority of detainees are not being interrogated at Guantanamo, and almost none of them have any actionable intelligence left after imprisonment for years.

Finally, I am aware that legislation has been introduced to amend the Military Commissions Act, especially with regard to its habeas corpus provisions. I support these efforts. But legal experts have testified that moving detainees to the United States would have little impact on the Government's ability to prosecute them. The procedures of the Military Commissions Act, or any other court martial or criminal proceeding, do not depend on the location of the trial. Indeed, the Supreme Court has already held that legal process at Guantanamo is subject to U.S. law.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is our responsibility to ensure that the war on terror is being fought in a way that maximizes our ability to prevail. The situation at Guantanamo has impeded our success. It has strained our relations with key allies. It has provided fodder to our detractors. And it has dampened the national support we need to keep fighting our enemies.

After more than 5 years, it is time to close this prison. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a simple bill to try and provide some fairness to States as they struggle to try and implement the new, stringent standards of the welfare reform reauthorization imposed as part of the Deficit Reduction Act on 2007. As a former member of the West Virginia State Legislature and as a Governor, I know that implementation of such mandates can take time.

Let me share the timeline that States face in coping with the new rules on welfare reform, or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF. Most of the pending legislation on TANF, including President Bush's plan had a multiyear phase in proposals for tougher work requirements.

But the legislation that passed was a stark change with no time for States to develop new policy and no time for State legislature to react to new policy. Additionally States could be penalized for their policy even before they get guidance from officials at the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, that their work verification plan is approved. This is just not fair.

Here is the history. In October of 2005, the House Workforce Committee passed legislation to phase-in higher work standards.

In November of 2005, the Senate approved a budget reconciliation bill without new work requirements. Later that month, the House approved a reconciliation bill that phased-in higher work requirements.

On December 19, 2005, the conference agreement on the Deficit Reduction Act imposed tougher work standard that will take effect on October 1, 2007. States will also face penalties if they do not meet new, unpublished work verification requirements.

The President signed the bill into law in February 2006.

The Department of Health and Human Services did not issue regulations to define work activities and outlining the requirements for work verification plans until June 29, 2006.

States had just 3 months to develop their work verification plans based on the new regulations, and the plans are due on September 30, 2006.

On October 1, 2006, the tougher work standards as measured by work verification took effect.

Today, May 22, 2006, no State has received approval of their work verification plans submitted over 7 months ago. But States could be penalized for failing participation standards today before they have gotten guidance from HHS that their work verification plans are approved, and they know what is expected of them.

This is just not fair. States need to know what the rules are for work, and what they can count for work before any penalties should be assessed, even if they are not due until a future date. Some of the potential penalties are harsh, including a 5 percent cut in the State's block grant in the first year, and a requirement to increase State matching funds. Such cuts could be imposed when the value of TANF block grant has shrunk by more than 20 percent since 1996.

My bill is simple fairness. It states that no financial penalties can be imposed on a State until 12 months after a State gets official approval by HHS of its work verification plans. This allows each State a year to come into compliance. States are trying, but they do not yet know what officially counts as work so they should not face any penalties until after the rules are clear.

Welfare reform is not supposed to be about penalties and pushing families off the caseload. Welfare reform is supposed to be about promoting responsibility and self-sufficiency. States, and the families, on the program deserve to know with certainty what it takes to ``play by the rules.''

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Adoption Equality Act of 2007. This legislation is an issue of fairness. It clearly states that every special needs child who needs adoption assistance in order to gain a safe, permanent home deserves it.

Throughout my career in the Senate, I have sought to strengthen and improve policies for the most vulnerable children, children who are at- risk of abuse and neglect in their own homes. While foster care is able to provide for the basic needs of these children, we must ultimately be able to provide them with a safe permanent home.

Congress demonstrated their dedication to this when they passed the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act, which led to the number of nationwide adoptions nearly doubling. But even with

these significant gains we cannot forget over 100,000 children in foster care are waiting for adoption. In West Virginia, there are 94 children waiting for adoption. For some of these children, described as having ``special needs,'' placement in a safe permanent home is especially difficult. Special needs children face increased obstacles in adoption due to factors such as their age, disability, or status as part of a group of siblings needing to be placed together.

In an effort to offer additional support to those in foster care who have the most difficulty finding a safe and permanent home, adoption subsidies are provided to encourage the adoption of ``special needs'' children. These subsidy payments provide essential income support to help families finance the daily basic costs of raising these children, as well as support for special services like therapy, tutoring, or special equipment for disabled children.

Yet, the current law does not make these Federal subsidies available to all families adopting ``special needs'' children. Under this law, only a fraction of the children waiting to be adopted would qualify for support. Federal subsidies are only given to families who adopt special needs children whose biological family would have qualified for welfare benefits. This is, simply, wrong. A child's eligibility for these important benefits should not be dependent on the income of his or her biological parents, these are the parents whose legal rights to the child have been terminated, the parents who have abused or neglected the child.

It is time to create a Federal policy that levels the playing field and gives all children with special needs an equal and fair chance at being adopted. The Adoption Equality Act of 2007 will do this by removing the requirement that an income eligibility determination be made in regard to the child's biological parents, thereby making all children who meet the definition of ``special needs'' eligible for Federal adoption subsidies. The bill would also give States an incentive to make additional improvements to their welfare systems by requiring that States reinvest the moneys they save as a result of this bill back into their State child abuse and neglect programs.

The lack of modest financial resources to support these adoptions is often the only barrier that stands between an abused child and a safe, loving home. This bill is a wise investment if we want to truly help our most vulnerable children find a permanent home.