A bill to prohibit authorized committees and leadership PACs from employing the spouse or immediate family members of any candidate or Federal office holder connected to the committee.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that earlier in the day my good friend from Illinois was suggesting that I had been a Johnny-come-lately on the issue of Guantanamo. So I would like to remind my colleagues that I offered an amendment 2 years ago right here on the floor of the Senate that passed 94 to 3 opposing bringing people at Guantanamo to the United States, and I believe my good friend from Illinois was not among the 3.

I would also remind him that I differed with the opinion of the previous President that Guantanamo ought to be closed. I don't think it ought to be closed; I think it ought to be left open. I also have differed with other Republicans on our side who have believed that Guantanamo ought to be closed, but none of them have said: Until you have a game plan for what to do with them.

We had the vote earlier today, with only six Senators dissenting on this Guantanamo issue and about whether there would be money not only in this bill but in any other bill spent for the purpose of bringing these detainees to the United States.

Now let's talk about what this amendment does--the one the Senator from Illinois was just describing incorrectly, in my view. My amendment calls on the administration to share its findings with Congress in a classified report--a classified report--that would indicate the likelihood of detainees returning to terrorism--we know many of them have been doing that--the likelihood of their returning to terrorism. It would also report on any effort al-Qaida might be making to recruit detainees once they are released from U.S. custody. The last requirement is particularly important, given that many of the remaining 240 detainees at Guantanamo are from Yemen, which has no rehabilitation program to speak of, and from Saudi Arabia which has a rehab program but which hasn't been entirely successful at keeping detainees from rejoining the fight after rehabilitation.

This is a simple amendment that reflects the concerns that Americans have about the danger of releasing terrorists, either here or in their home countries, where they could then, of course, return to the fight. Until now, the administration has offered vague assurances--quite vague assurances--that it will not do anything to make Americans less safe. This amendment says Americans expect more than a vague assurance, and it would require it.

Some have argued such a reporting requirement would reveal classified information. We just heard the Senator from Illinois say that. Nothing could be further from the truth. It would simply require the administration to share this information with a very limited, specific group in Congress with relevant oversight responsibilities which already has access to the most classified information imaginable--the very same people who already have access to this information.

Some have said a reporting requirement isn't necessary. This is also false. First, because we know the recidivism rate of detainees who weren't even considered a serious threat--this is the people they let go because they didn't think they were a serious threat--12 percent of them have gone back to the fight. It is perfectly clear we need to know whether any of the current detainees who may be released in the future pose a similar or even greater threat of returning to the battle. Moreover, a reporting requirement has proven to be necessary by the simple fact that the administration has been so reluctant to share any details whatsoever about its plans for the inmates at Guantanamo.

Senator Sessions, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, has made at least two formal requests for information from the Attorney General: First, in a letter of April 2 and, second, in a letter of April 4. To this day, Senator Sessions has not received a reply to either one. If the administration isn't willing to share information on these terrorists voluntarily, except, of course, with those folks in Europe, then Congress will have to require it through the kind of legislation my amendment represents.

Some have argued this reporting requirement would also hinder prosecutions by making evidence public. We just heard that from my good friend from Illinois. This is also false for reasons I have already enumerated. It would only require a summary of the administration's findings, and the summary would only have to be shared with a small group--a very small group--of Members in a classified setting. This has never disrupted prosecutions in the past. It will not disrupt prosecutions in the future.

Some have further suggested that a reporting requirement would be onerous. This is false. The administration says it already has begun its review of detainees. My amendment simply asks that it share with us the details of that review. Subsequent reports would be made on a quarterly basis, which is hardly onerous, particularly given the gravity of the issue.

Americans would like to have assurance that the President's arbitrary deadline to close Guantanamo by next January will pose no threat to themselves or their families. In fact, just today--this very day--FBI Director Mueller testified before a House Judiciary Committee about his concerns that detainees who are currently held at Guantanamo could present a serious risk not only upon transfer to their home countries but even upon transfer to maximum security prisons in the United States. He cited concerns for their ability to radicalize others and to conduct terrorist operations.

As to the latter, he cited gang leaders who have been able to run their gangs from prison as proof that terrorists could--I will continue on leader time, Mr. President.

The FBI Director just today cited the following: The possibility that gang leaders who have been able to run their gangs from prison as proof that terrorists could do the same. Imagine that. Terrorists in a prison in your home State organizing other prisoners.

The Director of the FBI has access to classified information. We recognize him as one of our Nation's top law enforcement officials. He is someone who should be taken seriously. That is what he said today.

Americans don't want terrorists plotting attacks against us anywhere. They certainly don't want them doing so in our backyards or down the road in the local prison. And Americans don't want terrorists whom we release attacking our service men and women overseas. That is why the administration should be required to let us know whether any terrorists released or transferred from Guantanamo pose a risk to our military servicemembers overseas. That is what my amendment would do.

With all due respect to my friend from Illinois, any other characterization of it, I must suggest, would be inaccurate.

I urge the approval of the amendment.

Mr. President, I wish to retain some of my leader time for rebuttal.

Let me just use a moment of my leader time to reiterate the fundamental point. The Director of the FBI thinks this is a problem; he just said so today. I know the Senator from Illinois is a great lawyer and understands all of these matters fully. We think it is important for the relevant Members of Congress to be assured that these terrorists do not have the kind of profile that would warrant their release.

This is not an attack on the current administration. The previous administration mistakenly released a number of detainees who went back to the battlefield. Why should we not learn from the experience of the past and apply it to the future? I hope my amendment will be adopted.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I withdraw my objection.

Mr. President, I would like to call up amendment No. 1189, also for the purposes of having it pending, and then I would like to speak about what I am trying to do with the majority.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment I have put on the table, and which is now pending, I think is so important because we must try to help the Chrysler dealers that have only gotten 3 weeks' notice to shut down. I am working with the Senators from Michigan who have concerns about whether this amendment would in any way delay the bankruptcy proceedings so that Chrysler can come out of that, and I do not want to disrupt that whole effort that is being made to help Chrysler. So we are working with the White House and with the Senators from Michigan and the people who are representing Chrysler to try to come up with language that will assure that nothing that we do would affect the timeliness of Chrysler being able to come out of bankruptcy and the courts.

What we are trying to do, however, should not cost Chrysler anything. We want to try to move forward, if we can, to get this agreement and the correct language so as not to affect the bankruptcy in any way but to give these dealers more than 3 weeks' notice for shutting down a dealership that has been in their family or one that they own and in which they have made their investments. They are looking at bankruptcy too.

Many times these dealerships are the largest employer in a whole community, in a whole county, and we know hundreds of them--over 700 across this country, 789 on May 14--3 weeks' notice to shut down.

I know we can do better in this country, Mr. President, and I want to work with everyone who is affected. I have talked to the chairman of the Banking Committee who has agreed to clear this if it meets all the tests so it will not hurt the bankruptcy. But these dealers are forced into bankruptcy too, and I hope we can give them just 60 days instead of 3 weeks. It is only adding 3 weeks. They will then have much more capability to have an orderly process to shut down their businesses. We are not trying to affect the decision. We are not trying to reach into Chrysler's decisions that they have made that will shut down these dealerships. We are just asking for 3 more weeks to let them shut down in, hopefully, a little bit better situation. Let them get some help to know what they have to do and to sell all the parts, all the equipment, and try to get their financial arrangements in order.

This will also be good for the surviving dealerships because, hopefully, they are going to buy some of this equipment, and they will need financing to do that as well. Our taxpayers are funding a lot of auto manufacturers' operations. I think the least we can do for many of those people who are paying these taxes--and that is the dealers--is to give them a chance.

I have a list of the number of dealers in these States that are getting shut down, and I am just asking for some kind of equity for them. It is not equity when they are going to be shut down anyway, but 3 weeks is just not rational.

So I don't want to hurt the Chrysler situation. I don't want to delay their bankruptcy. I don't want to in any way obstruct what they are trying to do because I want Chrysler to succeed. I do. So I am going to work with the Senators from Michigan, and I am going to work with the White House to try to come up with language that would say this doesn't delay the bankruptcy, and try to go forward and give these dealers that 3 extra weeks--the 3 weeks that will help them have an orderly shutdown and, hopefully, keep their employees a little longer because this is a big hit to many people in this country--789 dealerships, 3 weeks' notice, Mr. President. I don't think that is the way our country should be operating in this crisis.

I will be happy to yield.

I am proposing an amendment that would give just 3 more weeks to the Chrysler dealers that are going to be shut down--3 more weeks for that process.

I thank the Senator, and I would be glad to list the Senator as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senators Cochran, Brown, McCaskill, and Bond be listed as cosponsors.

Mr. President, if I could interrupt the Senator from Oregon just to add two more cosponsors to amendment No. 1189. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Lautenberg and Senator Menendez.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to take a close look at Senator Mitch McConnell's amendment, which is next up to be considered. Particularly, I ask you to turn to page 3 of this amendment. You will find in the first paragraph on page 3 a troubling requirement which Senator McConnell will make of this administration.

What Senator McConnell is asking is that 60 days from the passage of this bill and every 90 days thereafter, the President of the United States provide to Members of the Senate and the House:

a current summary of the evidence, intelligence, and

information used to justify the detention of each detainee

listed under paragraph (1) at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay.

It is not enough for Senator McConnell to ask for the identity of these people, the countries they are from, the likelihood they will be transferred to some other place, the likelihood they might be engaged in terrorism, he is asking for the President to disclose the work product of the prosecutors who are holding these detainees and determining whether a criminal case can be brought against them. For what

earthly purpose? Why would we possibly want to jeopardize the prosecution of someone who may be guilty of terrorism or a crime threatening the United States? To satisfy our curiosity? I think it is a mistake.

I will tell my colleagues, if it is sent to us even in classified form, it might be leaked. In addition, if a trial should follow, one of the first discovery motions from any defendant is this information: Judge, if the President can share this information with 535 Members of Congress, the defendant should be able to see the information as well. Why would we possibly want to jeopardize a prosecution to satisfy the curiosity of the Senator from Kentucky, or any Senator for that matter?

This paragraph should have been stricken. The rest of it you may find good or bad, but this is a dangerous paragraph.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I won't dwell on the double standard. I won't dwell on the fact that when President Bush suggested Guantanamo be closed, I don't recall a single Republican Senator--certainly not Senator McConnell or those who have spoken recently--objecting. I won't dwell on the fact that when there were releases of hundreds of detainees from Guantanamo, there was no requirement of an accounting by the Republican side of

the aisle about these people and where they were headed. I certainly won't argue the double standard that this President has stepped forward and said he will come forward with a plan in detail of how to do this in a responsible way.

Does anyone in this Chamber seriously believe President Obama would release a terrorist into their community, into their neighborhood? Can you really say that with a straight face? I don't think you can. The American people know better. This President is responsible. Like every President, he wants to protect us, and to suggest otherwise is not responsible.

The Senator from Kentucky has discussed many things today. He has failed to note that we currently have in U.S. prisons 347 inmates being held for terrorism. Currently, in your Federal prison in your State in your backyard, in your neighborhood, according to the Senator from Kentucky, 347 convicted terrorists are in our prisons today--not at Guantanamo, in our prisons.

I will get back to the bottom line. Why in the world would we jeopardize the prosecution of any detainee at Guantanamo with the requirement of the McConnell amendment that the President disclose evidence, intelligence, and information to justify the detention of the detainee? It is far better for us not to request that information and successfully prosecute that person than to satisfy the curiosity of the Senator from Kentucky.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, as I address the Chamber this evening, our great country is in the grips of an unprecedented economic crisis. In our lifetime, it has never been harder for American men and women to find a job, to get a loan, or to make ends meet. This Congress has boldly taken action in the form of a landmark stimulus package, but millions of Americans are still waiting and wondering. It is a question I hear each and every time I travel home to Illinois: Where is our stimulus relief? They are waiting for help, waiting for results, waiting to fulfill the promise of the American dream, which suddenly seems just out of reach. It is our duty to provide relief in a timely manner, Mr. President. But in the rush to allocate stimulus funds, we must not be too hasty. As we work to get this economy back on track, we need to make sure that every dollar--every dollar--is spent wisely.

I have vast experience in this area. During my three terms as Comptroller of the State of Illinois, I worked hard to maintain accountability as money was distributed, so I know how difficult it is.

I will also understand the importance of transparency and robust oversight. That is why I, along with my colleagues, Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins, and Senator McCaskill, have introduced S. 104, the Enhanced Oversight of State and Local Economic Recovery Act to amend the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This measure would set aside up to one-half of 1 percent of all the stimulus funds and allow State and local governments to use this administrative expense reserve to distribute and track the stimulus money as it is received and spent.

These costs are currently unfunded, leaving taxpayers with no concrete assurance that their money is being efficiently delivered to where it is most needed. Our legislation would change that, mandating careful oversight and strict regulation as every dollar is spent. This measure represents common sense and simple good governance. I urge my colleagues to join me as we work to ensure transparency and accountability.

This bill would be an excellent start, but I think we should even go further. The American people demand not just basic reform but a sweeping expansion of oversight and accountability for their stimulus dollars. When this Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and President Obama signed it into law, we took a bold step toward starting to rebuild our economy. But we must ensure that our efforts are not penny wise and pound foolish. Without transparency, without accountability, without oversight, we will not be effective. We cannot allow billions of dollars to disappear blindly into State treasuries. Perhaps these dollars would be spent wisely, perhaps not. Perhaps is not good enough for the American people and it is also not good enough for me. As a former comptroller, I know better than to simply trust that these funds will be put to good use. That is why I have introduced this bill, to make available the funds to track and regulate every dollar of taxpayers' money, to keep government officials honest and accountable to the people they serve.

We owe it to the hard-working men and women of this country to send targeted relief on swift wings, and this legislation is an essential part of that.

I thank Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins, and my friend from the great State of Missouri, Senator McCaskill, for joining me in this effort. I ask all my colleagues to support this essential legislation. We must act without delay.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 1185, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Whitehouse be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. President, the amendment I offer this evening is very straightforward. Put simply, I offer

this amendment to support and affirm President Obama's plan to end the war in Iraq. This amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that the funding provided in this bill will be used in accordance with the United States-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement signed this past fall. This agreement--SOFA as it is often referred to--makes it clear that our combat mission in Iraq will end next summer.

President Obama has been unwavering in his commitment to get our troops out of Iraq. He has repeatedly stated--and in very straightforward terms--that by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end. President Obama has gone further and declared that any troops remaining in Iraq after that date will be either training Iraqi forces, conducting targeted counterterrorism missions, or protecting U.S. personnel still in Iraq.

After 6 years of intense military operations in Iraq, the time has come to empower the Iraqis to provide their own national security. We must continue to provide training to protect U.S. personnel in the country and to conduct narrowly focused counterinsurgency missions when necessary. The United States should also provide funding for projects that rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, strengthen its economy, and improve the living conditions of its citizens.

Colleagues, next month, the 41st Brigade Combat Team of the Oregon National Guard will send 3,000 soldiers to Iraq. This is the largest deployment of the Oregon National Guard since World War II. I honor these men and women for their valiant and critical service, but I hope in the near future we will know that this is the last such deployment of our men and women we will send to Iraq.

I urge adoption of this amendment.

Amendment No. 1138

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator DeMint, I would like to call up amendment No. 1138 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kaufman amendment, No. 1179, be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.