Detaining Terrorists to Secure America Act of 2011

We had a historic vote in the Senate last December on the DREAM Act. Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, promised that we would bring this measure for consideration on the floor of the Senate. Some people on both sides of the aisle said, it is a bad idea, do not do it. But he kept his word, and I am glad he did.

We called it. We had three Republican votes, and we fell short. Oh, we had a majority. It seems as if we always have a majority when we call this bill. But because of the threat of a Republican filibuster, we needed 60 votes, and we did not reach the 60 votes necessary. So 55 Senators, a bipartisan majority, voted for the DREAM Act. I have reintroduced it today. By way of background, this is a simple piece of legislation, but it is one that affects thousands of people across America. It came to my attention 10 years ago when a Korean-American woman called me in my Chicago office and told me she had a problem.

She had come to the United States about 18 years before and brought her little girl with her. She had raised a family. She was now a naturalized citizen. The children who were born in the United States were citizens. But her older daughter was in a different status. Her older daughter was a special person. Her older daughter was a concert pianist who had been accepted at the Julliard School of Music in New York, the best. As she filled out the application form, and they asked for her citizenship, she turned to her mom and said: USA, right?

And her mom said: You know, we never filed any papers for you.

So the little girl said: What should we do?

And her mom said: We ought to call Durbin.

So they called my office, thinking I could solve this. I found out the awful truth. Our laws currently say the only recourse for that little girl--who came here at the age of 2, who grew up in the United States, going to school here, saying the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag every morning, singing the only national anthem she knew, speaking the only language she knew--under our law could never be a U.S. citizen and had to leave our country.

What is wrong with this? Well, it is unfair. That is what is wrong. At 2 years of age, she had no voice in the decision of her family to come here. She had done everything right. All she was asking for, all she continues to ask for, is a chance to be part of the only country she has ever known, a country she dearly loves.

The DREAM Act gives young people that chance. It says: You can have a chance if you graduate high school, have no criminal record involving anything of a serious nature, if you are prepared go through and prove that you have been in the United States, came before the age of 16, been here at least 5 years, then you will have a chance to apply. If you apply, you have two ways that you can reach legal status in our country: Serve in our military, or complete at least 2 years of college. For thousands of young people across America, this is the only way to get them out of their current situation.

We just had a press conference with Senator Harry Reid and Senator Bob Menendez, as well as Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut to reintroduce this DREAM Act. At that press conference was a young woman who

told her story. Like thousands of others it is a compelling personal story. Her name is Tolu Olubunmi. She was born in Nigeria and brought to the United States as a child. She graduated her high school with honors. She was awarded a full scholarship to one of the Nation's top universities. In college, she was a leader: a peer counselor, a resident assistant, a volunteer in an abused women's shelter, and a research analyst in the department of engineering.

Tolu received a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering in 2002. But she has never been able to work 1 day as a chemical engineer in America because she is undocumented.

She cannot leave this country, because she could not return. She cannot get a job in this country because she is undocumented. Her whole life is focused on America. She is asking for a chance to be an engineer, to be a productive part of America, to move us forward as a nation. The DREAM Act would give her that chance.

When we introduced the bill today, we have 32 original cosponsors. We are hoping for more. We have the Democratic leadership, the Chairs of the Judiciary, Armed Services, and Homeland Security Committees, and all 10 Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee. I want to thank the lead sponsors over in the House: Howard Berman of California, Luis Gutierrez, from my State of Illinois, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida. Thanks to their leadership last year, the House passed the DREAM Act.

I want to especially thank the President. As a Senator and my colleague from Illinois, he was a cosponsor of this bill. He has been a strong supporter ever since. He never fails to mention the DREAM Act in his conversations with America about immigration. Yesterday, he said:

These are kids who grew up in this country, love this

country, and know no other place as home. The idea that we

should punish them is cruel and it makes no sense. We are a

better nation than that.

The President is right. This is a matter of simple justice. Thousands of immigrant students in America were brought here as children. It was not their decision to come here. But they grew up here and they called it home. The fundamental premise of the DREAM Act is an American premise. We do not hold children responsible for the wrongdoings of their parents.

These young people do not want a free pass. They do not want amnesty. All they want is a chance to earn their place in America. That is what the DREAM Act would give them. The DREAM Act would strengthen our national security, making thousands of young people eligible to serve. That is why the Department of Defense and Secretary Gates support it.

In fact, the Secretary said:

There is a rich precedence supporting the service of non-

citizens in the U.S. military. . . . The DREAM Act represents

an opportunity to expand this pool to the advantage of

military recruiting and readiness.

The first casualty in the war in Iraq was a Hispanic who was not a citizen of the United States, was not even a permanent resident of the United States. But he had volunteered to serve his country and gave his life. I think that shows the level of commitment these young people have to this great Nation.

A recent study at UCLA found that allowing the DREAM Act to pass would put so many productive young people into our economy, they will generate jobs, they will build businesses, they will help our economy grow.

I want to salute in your home State of New York, Madam President, Mayor Michael Bloomberg who has spoken out in support of the DREAM Act, and said:

They are just the kind of immigrants we need to help solve

our unemployment problem. Some of them will go on to create

new small businesses and hire people. It is senseless for us

to chase out the home-grown talent that has the potential to

contribute so significantly to our society.

When you take a look at the supporters of the DREAM Act, they have such diverse backgrounds. They include business leaders such as Rupert Murdoch, and the CEOs of companies such as Microsoft and Pfizer.

There are some who oppose the DREAM Act and argue that we need to enhance border security first. I can certainly make the argument, as the President did yesterday, that we have done extraordinary things, more than doubling the number of people at the border, adding technical devices there to detect people who are trying to cross, using drones, building fences.

We have gone, I think, as far as I can imagine, but I am open--I told a Republican Senator this morning: I am open to any reasonable suggestion to make the border safer. But I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, if we show good faith in border enforcement, can you join us by showing good faith in helping to pass the DREAM Act? I do not think that is an unreasonable exchange. I am open to their ideas. I hope they are open to the idea of the DREAM Act.

I also have to say that many of the young people who are affected by this have been dramatically positive in their contribution to America. There are restrictions in the DREAM Act that prevent abuse. The DREAM Act students would not be eligible for Pell grants or other Federal grants, which means they are going to pay more to go to school.

DREAM Act students will be subject to tough criminal penalties for fraud, including a prison sentence of up to 5 years. No one is eligible for the DREAM Act unless they arrived in the United States at least 5 years before the bill becomes law, and there is no exception and no waiver.

Also the DREAM Act specifically includes a 1-year application deadline. An individual would be required to apply for conditional nonimmigrant status within 1 year of obtaining a high school degree or GED, or within 1 year of when the bill becomes law.

This is not an amnesty. On many occasions I have come to the floor to tell the personal stories of people who are involved. Their lives speak more eloquently than anything I can say on the floor. Let me tell you about Nelson and Jhon Magdaleno. They are brothers who came to the United States from Venezuela when Nelson was 11 and Jhon was 9. They were both honor students at Lakeside High School in Atlanta, GA. This is a picture of Nelson Magdaleno at graduation. Jhon, his brother, served with distinction in the Air Force Junior Officer Reserve Corps. He was the fourth highest ranking officer in a 175-officer cadet unit and commander of the Air Honor Society. Here is a picture of Jhon in his ROTC uniform in high school.

Both Jhon and Nelson are honor students at Georgia Tech University, a great school. It is one of the most selective engineering schools in America. Nelson, who is now 21, is a junior. He is a computer engineering major with a 3.6 GPA. Jhon, 18, is a freshman. He is a biomedical engineering major with a 4.0 GPA.

Let me ask my colleagues, can we afford to lose these two young people? Well, I guess we could but at great expense because their talent, their energy, their determination to make a contribution to America can make us a better nation. I don't think returning them to Venezuela, a country they have never called home, is going to be good for the United States.

John David Bunting, Nelson and Jhon's uncle, wrote me a letter about his nephews. Here is what he said:

They will be able to give back so much to our country if

they are allowed to stay. I am overwhelmed by my pride in

them and how they have managed to persevere and even flourish

under these circumstances. . . . I also have two young sons

and I teach them about the incredible history of the United

States and the way that our country can address wrongs

committed in its name and come out of the process even

stronger. Please help us.

Nelson and Jhon asked the Department of Homeland Security to stop their deportation proceedings. After I received their uncle's letter, I contacted the Department and asked them to consider this case. The Department has decided to grant a stay to Nelson and Jhon to give them a chance to continue their education. That was clearly the right thing to do.

Some have criticized the Obama administration for granting this kind of deferral action to a small number of DREAM Act students, but this is exactly what the Bush administration did. I wish to commend President George Bush, who was steadfast and consistent in his support of immigration reform.

It is a waste of limited resources to deport two fine engineering students from the United States, and it is entirely consistent with the law to grant them deferred action.

Let me tell my colleagues about another student, Pedro Pedroza. Here is his photograph. Pedro was brought to Chicago from Mexico when he was 5 years old. He graduated from St. Agnes Catholic School in Little Village, a great part of our city of Chicago. He was an honor student at St. Ignatius College Prep, one of the best schools in Chicago. He is now a student in New York at Cornell University in Ithaca. His goal is to become a teacher.

Do we need teachers with his qualities? You bet we do, not just in New York but in Illinois and across America. But, unfortunately, Pedro is in deportation proceedings. He was riding a bus from Chicago back to school in New York when immigration agents arrested him. He has asked the Department of Homeland Security to grant him a stay, and I hope they will. It makes no sense to send someone like Pedro, who has so much to contribute, to a country he barely remembers.

Here is what he wrote to me in a letter:

Mexico is not only unfamiliar to me, but leaving the U.S.

means leaving everything and everyone I know. I only hope I

can have a future in the U.S. for as long as I am here. Even

if I am left no choice but to leave for Mexico, I would still

strive to adjust my status and return to a place I consider

home--The United States of America.

The last photograph I wish to show is Steve Li. This is his photograph. His parents brought him to the United States when he was 11 years old. He is a student at the City College of San Francisco where he has majored in nursing and is a leader in student government. He wrote a letter:

My dream is to become a registered nurse at San Francisco

General Hospital and be a public health advocate. I want to

give back to my community by raising awareness about

preventive care and other health care issues. I am well on my

way to achieving that dream. By passing the DREAM Act, I will

be able to achieve these goals and contribute to the growing

health care industry.

So can we use more health care professionals? You bet we could. Nurses, we need a lot of them. In fact, the United States imports thousands of foreign nurses each year in this country because we just don't have enough.

Unfortunately, Steve Li is also in deportation proceedings. His case is especially complicated because while his parents are Chinese, he was born in Peru. So he could be deported back to Peru where he knows no one and has no family members.

Senator Feinstein asked the Department of Homeland Security to consider his case. They have given him a temporary stay, for now.

I first introduced the DREAM Act 10 years ago. Since then, I have met so many immigrant students who would qualify for it. When I first brought up this bill I used to have meetings in Chicago. After the meetings, without fail there would be someone waiting for me outside. Sometimes in the dark of night they would be standing by my car. They were always young and most of them had tears in their eyes, and they would say to me: Senator Durbin, please pass the DREAM Act. It is my life.

Times have changed. Ten years of effort, even passing it with a majority, hasn't resulted in this becoming a law because of the Republican filibuster. Times have changed to the point where the DREAM Act students are now stepping up and saying: Here we are. This is who we are. We are not going to hide in the shadows anymore.

When we debated that bill on the floor of the Senate last December, the galleries were filled with students wearing graduation gowns and caps, waiting, praying for the vote, and it failed. They left, many of them crying. They went downstairs, and I met with them. They couldn't have felt worse. They just don't know where to turn. They are being rejected by the only country they have ever known, the only place they have ever called home.

I said to them: I am not giving up on you. Don't give up on me. We are going to keep working on this.

We reintroduced the bill today. I thank my colleagues who have already cosponsored it. I urge and plead with others who have not for simple justice and fairness. Give these young people a chance. That is all they are asking for.

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

Mr. President, nearly 10 years after the September 11 terrorist attacks, our country remains at war with violent extremists who want to kill Americans. Yet the administration has not designated a secure location for detaining, interrogating, and trying current and future terrorist detainees. Rather than seeking to address this problem, the administration continues to insist on closing Guantanamo Bay.

Earlier this week, Attorney General Holder in Paris reiterated the administration's determination to ultimately close the Guantanamo Bay facility. This determination to close Gitmo represents a misguided view that treats terrorism like everyday crime, hesitates to call this war on terrorism what it is, and places the perceptions of others over the safety of Americans.

I believe this desire to close Guantanamo represents an unacceptable abrogation of the Federal Government's most important responsibility: providing for the common defense. Therefore, today I rise to introduce and to urge my colleagues to support Senate bill 944, the Detaining Terrorists to Secure America Act of 2011.

Our diligent intelligence professionals and our brave special operations forces who brought bin Laden to justice don't need to be reminded that the United States and our international partners remain engaged in a war with violent Islamist extremist groups, including al- Qaida and associated terrorist groups that are committed to killing Americans and our allies. Indeed, in the treasure trove of information our forces gathered at bin Laden's compound, we have learned the terrorist groups are actively plotting new attacks against our country. This is the latest in a long string of attacks, or planned attacks, against our country in the last 2 years alone.

Just some of the examples of what we have seen: In September 2009, the plot to conduct a suicide bomb attack on the New York subway system; to the November 2009 attack on Fort Hood that killed 13 people and wounded 32; to the Christmas Day 2009 attempted bombing on an international flight to Detroit; to the May 2010 attempt to bomb Times Square; to the October 2010 attempt to send explosives to Jewish centers in Chicago; to a February 2011 plot to manufacture explosives and to conduct attacks in Texas and in New York. Al-Qaida and their fellow terrorists continue to threaten our country. Bin Laden's death is a significant blow to al-Qaida and associated terrorist organizations and a great accomplishment for our country, but the threat continues and our detention policies must reflect that reality.

Since 2001, we have captured and detained thousands of terrorists who have planned and conducted attacks and who have served as terrorist trainers, financiers, bomb makers, bodyguards, recruiters, and facilitators. Interrogations of these terrorists, including those at Guantanamo, have provided valuable intelligence that has prevented attacks, saved lives, and helped locate other terrorists. Detention and interrogation of terrorists at Guantanamo not only protects American lives which is the core function of our federal government, but detention and interrogation of terrorists at Guantanamo also protects our allies. Of course, the most recent and noteworthy example that demonstrates the value of intelligence gleaned from detainee interrogations is the case of Osama bin Laden. Our intelligence community would never have found bin Laden if it weren't for the intelligence gleaned from the interrogation of terrorist detainees.

Not only have interrogations of detainees helped us track down other terrorists, but detaining terrorists helps prevent future attacks. Unfortunately, as Secretary Gates confirmed in response to my question during an Armed Services Committee hearing in February, approximately 1 out of 4, or 25 percent of the Guantanamo detainees who have been released, have reengaged or we suspect have reengaged in hostilities against the United States and our allies. I can tell my colleagues, as a former prosecutor that is an unacceptable reengagement rate.

Former Guantanamo detainees are conducting suicide bombings, recruiting radicals, and training them to kill Americans and our allies. Said al Shihri and Abdul Zakir represent two examples of former Guantanamo detainees who have returned to the fight and assumed leadership positions in terrorist organizations that are dedicated to killing Americans and our allies. Said al Shihri is now working as the No. 2 in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. After a recent promotion, Abdul Zakir now serves as a top Taliban military commander and a senior leader in the Taliban Quetta Shura. In the world of terrorists, it has become a badge of honor to have served at Guantanamo, and then to have been released, and then to get back into the fight against us.

It is unacceptable for even one released detainee to reengage in the fight against our country. As a military spouse and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I find it sickening that our country has released dangerous prisoners who are

now actively plotting to kill Americans and our allies.

Some have expressed concerns regarding the legality of long-term detention for these terrorists, or expressed concerns about the conditions at Guantanamo. I wish to address both of those concerns.

First, as the former Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire, I am as eager as anyone to ensure that our detention policies conform to the rule of law and reflect our core values. Some have questioned the legality of detaining terrorists. Yet we should be very clear that, according to the law of war, detention is a matter of national security and military necessity and has long been recognized as legitimate under international law.

Second, some have expressed concerns about the conditions at Guantanamo. In March, I visited the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Gitmo now represents the most professionally run detention facility in the world. International human rights activists, reporters, Members of the Congress and the Senate, constantly stream through Guantanamo checking on the conditions and holding the Department of Defense accountable. Guantanamo is no Abu Ghraib. Detainees are treated in a manner that conforms to international law and honors our values. Guantanamo detainees receive three meals a day tailored to the preferences of each detainee. They also have access to topnotch health care facilities. Their religion is respected. They have television, newspapers, books, English classes, and art classes. In fact, the officials at Guantanamo bend over backwards to respect the cultural and religious preferences of the detainees who are held there. Don't get me wrong; Guantanamo is no Club Med, but the terrorists who are detained there, most of whom would undoubtedly kill Americans if they were given the chance, are getting much better treatment than they deserve.

As a former prosecutor, I have been in a few prisons in my time, and I can tell my colleagues the detention facility at Gitmo is much nicer than some that our common criminals are in, in the United States of America. I was also impressed with the state-of-the-art courtroom at Guantanamo which would rival any Federal courtroom in the United States. However, unlike your average courtroom, it is set up to address the special security concerns associated with trying terrorists and it is also especially designed to enable the judge to ensure that classified information will not be compromised or leaked. This courtroom is the appropriate courtroom and venue for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 conspirators to be held accountable for their roles in the horrific attacks on our country on September 11. And after almost 10 years, the victims of September 11 have waited much too long for justice.

I believe our country stands on a solid legal framework in detaining terrorists according to the law of war, and I also believe Guantanamo represents the ideal facility for detaining, interrogating, and trying current and future terrorist detainees.

Some may ask, Why introduce this legislation now? Why is it needed? In February, during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, I asked Secretary Gates where we would detain high value terrorists that we capture in the future if the President goes forward with his plan to close Guantanamo. Secretary Gates candidly said to me: ``I think the honest answer to that question is we don't know.''

I was encouraged by President Obama's decision to resume military commissions at Guantanamo. Yet the administration was careful to reiterate its determination to ultimately close Guantanamo. Unfortunately, as I previously mentioned, on Monday Attorney General Holder, in Paris, reiterated the administration's desire to close Guantanamo. But we know intelligence gathered at Guantanamo played a valuable role in helping to ultimately find Osama bin Laden. We know there are other terrorists out there who want to do us harm, and we need to keep this facility open. For this reason, I believe Congress must pass this legislation without delay.

Before concluding, let me briefly summarize what S. 944 will do.

This legislation reaffirms the authority to maintain Gitmo as an operating facility for the detention of current and future unprivileged enemy belligerents.

It directs the Secretary of Defense to take actions to maintain Gitmo as an operating facility for the detention of current and future unprivileged enemy belligerents.

It extends permanently the limitation of transfer of detainees to foreign entities and the prohibition of construction or modification of facilities in the United States of America for detaining terrorists. We have heard loud and clear from the American people that they do not want terrorists detained on American soil.

Finally, it supersedes sections of President Obama's Executive order that he issued shortly after he got into office on January 22, 2009. He issued an Executive order saying that Guantanamo would be closed. This legislation will supersede the portions of that Executive order related to the closure of Gitmo, the determination of transfer, the prosecution of terrorists in article III courts and the military tribunals.

In short, this legislation would establish Gitmo as the permanent location for detaining, interrogating, and trying unprivileged enemy belligerents or terrorists. To accomplish this, we will permanently limit the transfer of detainees to foreign entities because what has happened is that terrorist detainees have been transferred to foreign countries and then the foreign countries release the former detainee. That is how so many former detainees have made there way back to the battlefield. So we have to stop that. And this legislation will prohibit the construction or modification of facilities in the United States of America for detaining terrorists, to make sure we keep detained terrorists at Gitmo and off U.S. soil.

I am proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation called Detaining Terrorists to Secure America Act of 2011, S. 944. I am especially proud that many friends and colleagues have decided to support this bipartisan legislation, including Senators Graham, Lieberman, Chambliss, Brown, Rubio and Webb, all of whom have been leaders when it comes to fighting terrorism and protecting Americans.

Everything we do in this Chamber must be guided by our Constitution, and the Federal Government must fulfill its most important constitutional duty of protecting the American people. Pretending we are not at war with terrorists will not change the fact that terrorists continue to plot against us and to attack Americans. Consistent with our values and the rule of law, we must establish the Guantanamo detention facility as the permanent location for detaining, interrogating, and trying terrorists.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I thank the Presiding Officer.

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

Mr. President, nearly 10 years after the September 11 terrorist attacks, our country remains at war with violent extremists who want to kill Americans. Yet the administration has not designated a secure location for detaining, interrogating, and trying current and future terrorist detainees. Rather than seeking to address this problem, the administration continues to insist on closing Guantanamo Bay.

Earlier this week, Attorney General Holder in Paris reiterated the administration's determination to ultimately close the Guantanamo Bay facility. This determination to close Gitmo represents a misguided view that treats terrorism like everyday crime, hesitates to call this war on terrorism what it is, and places the perceptions of others over the safety of Americans.

I believe this desire to close Guantanamo represents an unacceptable abrogation of the Federal Government's most important responsibility: providing for the common defense. Therefore, today I rise to introduce and to urge my colleagues to support Senate bill 944, the Detaining Terrorists to Secure America Act of 2011.

Our diligent intelligence professionals and our brave special operations forces who brought bin Laden to justice don't need to be reminded that the United States and our international partners remain engaged in a war with violent Islamist extremist groups, including al- Qaida and associated terrorist groups that are committed to killing Americans and our allies. Indeed, in the treasure trove of information our forces gathered at bin Laden's compound, we have learned the terrorist groups are actively plotting new attacks against our country. This is the latest in a long string of attacks, or planned attacks, against our country in the last 2 years alone.

Just some of the examples of what we have seen: In September 2009, the plot to conduct a suicide bomb attack on the New York subway system; to the November 2009 attack on Fort Hood that killed 13 people and wounded 32; to the Christmas Day 2009 attempted bombing on an international flight to Detroit; to the May 2010 attempt to bomb Times Square; to the October 2010 attempt to send explosives to Jewish centers in Chicago; to a February 2011 plot to manufacture explosives and to conduct attacks in Texas and in New York. Al-Qaida and their fellow terrorists continue to threaten our country. Bin Laden's death is a significant blow to al-Qaida and associated terrorist organizations and a great accomplishment for our country, but the threat continues and our detention policies must reflect that reality.

Since 2001, we have captured and detained thousands of terrorists who have planned and conducted attacks and who have served as terrorist trainers, financiers, bomb makers, bodyguards, recruiters, and facilitators. Interrogations of these terrorists, including those at Guantanamo, have provided valuable intelligence that has prevented attacks, saved lives, and helped locate other terrorists. Detention and interrogation of terrorists at Guantanamo not only protects American lives which is the core function of our federal government, but detention and interrogation of terrorists at Guantanamo also protects our allies. Of course, the most recent and noteworthy example that demonstrates the value of intelligence gleaned from detainee interrogations is the case of Osama bin Laden. Our intelligence community would never have found bin Laden if it weren't for the intelligence gleaned from the interrogation of terrorist detainees.

Not only have interrogations of detainees helped us track down other terrorists, but detaining terrorists helps prevent future attacks. Unfortunately, as Secretary Gates confirmed in response to my question during an Armed Services Committee hearing in February, approximately 1 out of 4, or 25 percent of the Guantanamo detainees who have been released, have reengaged or we suspect have reengaged in hostilities against the United States and our allies. I can tell my colleagues, as a former prosecutor that is an unacceptable reengagement rate.

Former Guantanamo detainees are conducting suicide bombings, recruiting radicals, and training them to kill Americans and our allies. Said al Shihri and Abdul Zakir represent two examples of former Guantanamo detainees who have returned to the fight and assumed leadership positions in terrorist organizations that are dedicated to killing Americans and our allies. Said al Shihri is now working as the No. 2 in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. After a recent promotion, Abdul Zakir now serves as a top Taliban military commander and a senior leader in the Taliban Quetta Shura. In the world of terrorists, it has become a badge of honor to have served at Guantanamo, and then to have been released, and then to get back into the fight against us.

It is unacceptable for even one released detainee to reengage in the fight against our country. As a military spouse and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I find it sickening that our country has released dangerous prisoners who are

now actively plotting to kill Americans and our allies.

Some have expressed concerns regarding the legality of long-term detention for these terrorists, or expressed concerns about the conditions at Guantanamo. I wish to address both of those concerns.

First, as the former Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire, I am as eager as anyone to ensure that our detention policies conform to the rule of law and reflect our core values. Some have questioned the legality of detaining terrorists. Yet we should be very clear that, according to the law of war, detention is a matter of national security and military necessity and has long been recognized as legitimate under international law.

Second, some have expressed concerns about the conditions at Guantanamo. In March, I visited the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Gitmo now represents the most professionally run detention facility in the world. International human rights activists, reporters, Members of the Congress and the Senate, constantly stream through Guantanamo checking on the conditions and holding the Department of Defense accountable. Guantanamo is no Abu Ghraib. Detainees are treated in a manner that conforms to international law and honors our values. Guantanamo detainees receive three meals a day tailored to the preferences of each detainee. They also have access to topnotch health care facilities. Their religion is respected. They have television, newspapers, books, English classes, and art classes. In fact, the officials at Guantanamo bend over backwards to respect the cultural and religious preferences of the detainees who are held there. Don't get me wrong; Guantanamo is no Club Med, but the terrorists who are detained there, most of whom would undoubtedly kill Americans if they were given the chance, are getting much better treatment than they deserve.

As a former prosecutor, I have been in a few prisons in my time, and I can tell my colleagues the detention facility at Gitmo is much nicer than some that our common criminals are in, in the United States of America. I was also impressed with the state-of-the-art courtroom at Guantanamo which would rival any Federal courtroom in the United States. However, unlike your average courtroom, it is set up to address the special security concerns associated with trying terrorists and it is also especially designed to enable the judge to ensure that classified information will not be compromised or leaked. This courtroom is the appropriate courtroom and venue for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 conspirators to be held accountable for their roles in the horrific attacks on our country on September 11. And after almost 10 years, the victims of September 11 have waited much too long for justice.

I believe our country stands on a solid legal framework in detaining terrorists according to the law of war, and I also believe Guantanamo represents the ideal facility for detaining, interrogating, and trying current and future terrorist detainees.

Some may ask, Why introduce this legislation now? Why is it needed? In February, during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, I asked Secretary Gates where we would detain high value terrorists that we capture in the future if the President goes forward with his plan to close Guantanamo. Secretary Gates candidly said to me: ``I think the honest answer to that question is we don't know.''

I was encouraged by President Obama's decision to resume military commissions at Guantanamo. Yet the administration was careful to reiterate its determination to ultimately close Guantanamo. Unfortunately, as I previously mentioned, on Monday Attorney General Holder, in Paris, reiterated the administration's desire to close Guantanamo. But we know intelligence gathered at Guantanamo played a valuable role in helping to ultimately find Osama bin Laden. We know there are other terrorists out there who want to do us harm, and we need to keep this facility open. For this reason, I believe Congress must pass this legislation without delay.

Before concluding, let me briefly summarize what S. 944 will do.

This legislation reaffirms the authority to maintain Gitmo as an operating facility for the detention of current and future unprivileged enemy belligerents.

It directs the Secretary of Defense to take actions to maintain Gitmo as an operating facility for the detention of current and future unprivileged enemy belligerents.

It extends permanently the limitation of transfer of detainees to foreign entities and the prohibition of construction or modification of facilities in the United States of America for detaining terrorists. We have heard loud and clear from the American people that they do not want terrorists detained on American soil.

Finally, it supersedes sections of President Obama's Executive order that he issued shortly after he got into office on January 22, 2009. He issued an Executive order saying that Guantanamo would be closed. This legislation will supersede the portions of that Executive order related to the closure of Gitmo, the determination of transfer, the prosecution of terrorists in article III courts and the military tribunals.

In short, this legislation would establish Gitmo as the permanent location for detaining, interrogating, and trying unprivileged enemy belligerents or terrorists. To accomplish this, we will permanently limit the transfer of detainees to foreign entities because what has happened is that terrorist detainees have been transferred to foreign countries and then the foreign countries release the former detainee. That is how so many former detainees have made there way back to the battlefield. So we have to stop that. And this legislation will prohibit the construction or modification of facilities in the United States of America for detaining terrorists, to make sure we keep detained terrorists at Gitmo and off U.S. soil.

I am proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation called Detaining Terrorists to Secure America Act of 2011, S. 944. I am especially proud that many friends and colleagues have decided to support this bipartisan legislation, including Senators Graham, Lieberman, Chambliss, Brown, Rubio and Webb, all of whom have been leaders when it comes to fighting terrorism and protecting Americans.

Everything we do in this Chamber must be guided by our Constitution, and the Federal Government must fulfill its most important constitutional duty of protecting the American people. Pretending we are not at war with terrorists will not change the fact that terrorists continue to plot against us and to attack Americans. Consistent with our values and the rule of law, we must establish the Guantanamo detention facility as the permanent location for detaining, interrogating, and trying terrorists.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I thank the Presiding Officer.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators McCain, Sessions, Cornyn, Vitter, Wicker, and Inhofe--and probably others before the end of the day--I am going to introduce legislation called the New START Implementation Act, which I would like to describe briefly. This legislation is nearly identical to a companion bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr. Turner, the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee. He has been a leader in the House on nuclear and missile defense issues. I understand many of the provisions have been included in the chairman's mark of the National Defense Authorization Act in the House and that the remainder will be introduced as amendments later today at a full committee level. I specifically wish to thank Chairman Turner for his leadership.

Nuclear deterrence issues are among the most complicated and technical issues that we in the Congress are confronted with, and he deserves full credit for tackling them with vigor and for mastering them so quickly.

Similar to the House legislation, it is my hope that the Senate bill will be incorporated into the Senate version of the National Defense Act for fiscal year 2012. Let me now explain a little bit why I think this legislation is necessary at this time.

I voted against the New START treaty for reasons I have made clear previously on the floor. But I recognize the President's stated commitment to the modernization of our nuclear deterrent is necessary and is important and that Congress needs to codify the commitments made during the debate on the New START ratification process as well as the agreements the President has indicated through his comments and letters to us. This is important for the future, for future Congresses and future Presidents, because this process is going to take place over a period of at least 10 to 12 years. Modernization of our nuclear weapons facilities and the strategic delivery systems all will require commitments over the space of another decade or more. Memories fade, people's interpretations may change over time, circumstances change, and what we want to make sure of is that over the time period involved during which this modernization process must occur, the understandings that were agreed to at the time of the START treaty ratification will be memorialized in statute and complied with by the Congress and by the administration as time goes on.

The five key features of the legislation are these. First, it would link the funding of the administration's 10-year nuclear modernization program with any U.S. nuclear force reductions during the implementation phase of the treaty. What that means is, as in the later years of the treaty, funding is necessary for the demobilization, the dismantling of some of the weapons that are called for to be dismantled under the treaty but that funding is coordinated with the funding for the modernization program which is going on at the same time. It urges the President to stand by the timelines he pledged on warhead modernization in the revised plan he submitted in November of 2010. This is key to ensuring that Congress will support these modernization efforts that were deemed necessary in conjunction with the New START treaty.

The second thing the bill does is to ensure that nuclear doctrine and targeting guidelines and the New START force levels that the former STRATCOM commander, GEN Kevin Chilton, said were ``exactly what is needed'' are not arbitrarily cut by the administration that seems eager now to go to even lower levels, perhaps even unilaterally, than were negotiated in the START treaty. The President has indicated his desire for a world without nuclear weapons and said he would like to do new things in the future to reduce the numbers of these weapons. We simply want to make certain the guidelines that are militarily necessary reference points for the number of weapons we have, the types we have, how they are deployed and so on, are not modified in order to be a reason for or an excuse for reducing strategic weapons thereafter.

I think this is necessary because the President's National Security Adviser said on March 29 that, even as ``we implement New START, we're making preparations for the next round of nuclear reductions.'' In developing options for further reductions, he said: ``We need to consider several factors, such as potential changes in targeting requirements and alert postures that are required for effective deterrence.''

We were told the New START force levels were exactly what is needed for deterrence. Yet now the administration may seek to alter deterrence requirements in order to justify further reductions. My view is, the administration cannot use one set of facts to ratify the treaty and then immediately change those facts in order to suit its Global Zero agenda. Forty-one Senators made clear in a letter to the President on March 22 that we expect the administration to consult with Congress before directing any changes to U.S. nuclear weapons doctrine or proposing further strategic nuclear reductions with Russia. No consultations have occurred to date, and we expect that those consultations would occur before any discussions with Russians take place.

Third, the legislation would ensure that the triad of strategic nuclear delivery systems--that is to say, the bombers, cruise missiles, ICBMs and ballistic missile submarines--are modernized and that their reliability is assessed each year. Even today, we are still uncertain about the administration's plans to modernize the ICBM leg, nor do we know if the new bomber will be nuclear certified upon its deployment. For example, according to an April 22, 2011, press account in the Global Security Newswire, ``The US Airforce cannot say exactly how much it will spend to explore options for modernizing its ICBM fleet, nor where the money will come from.''

Obviously, if we are currently planning the modernization of these fleets, but we do not even know where the money is going to come from for the planning, we have a problem that needs to be resolved now rather than later.

That is what the third requirement of the legislation would require.

Fourth, the bill would affirm that the New START treaty contains no limitation on U.S. missile defense beyond the language in article V, section 3 and that any future agreement with Russia that would attempt to limit U.S. missile defenses could only be done by a treaty that would require the Senate's advice and consent. This is no different than what we all talked about on a bipartisan basis when the New START treaty was ratified, but we think these commitments should actually be codified to ensure they are kept.

Finally, the bill would counsel against unilateral reductions or withdrawal of U.S. nonstrategic nuclear weapons in Europe without the unanimous approval of NATO's members. Obviously, in NATO, one State should not be permitted to end NATO's successful article V policy, the policy that an attack on one is an attack on the others and will be met with resistance from the other NATO allies.

In conclusion, I think this bill should enjoy broad congressional support, given the fact that it merely builds on what the Senate and the administration agreed to in the New START resolution of ratification with respect to nuclear modernization and our freedom of action to develop and deploy missile defenses. It ensures that a future Congress and a future President understand and support the current commitment to nuclear modernization and ensures that there will be no further limitations on our missile defense efforts.

Finally, it builds in vital checks to permit congressional oversight of impending activities by the administration that portend significant changes to U.S. nuclear doctrine, further strategic nuclear reductions and potential activities with, and possibly concessions to, Russia with regard to missile defense and tactical nuclear weapons in Europe--all of which might be counter to U.S. security.

I will be pleased to add other colleagues as cosponsors to the legislation. As I said, I intend to actually introduce this toward the end of the day, and I am sure we will have additional cosponsors by that time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, Mike Mansfield once said, ``Knowledge is essential for acceptance and understanding.''

This statement is all too true for the students and educators residing in rural areas. While rural education is becoming an increasingly large and important part of the U.S. public school system, the unique challenges and circumstances within these rural communities are often misunderstood or overlooked. According to the Digest of Education Statistics reported annually by the National Center for Education Statistics, the number of students attending rural schools increased by over 11 percent, from 10.5 million in 2004 to nearly 11.7 million by 2008. Rural students now comprise almost \1/4\ of the Nation's public school enrollment. And nearly one-third of all schools in the nation are located in rural areas.

Rural is also becoming increasingly diverse. According to NCES, the increase in rural enrollment between 2004 and 2009 was disproportionally among students of color. And in the 2007-2008 school year the national average rate of student poverty in rural school districts, as measured by the rate of participation in federally subsidized meals programs, was almost 40 percent.

Yet despite the significant percentage enrolled in rural schools, the importance of rural education is often obscured by the fact that rural students are, naturally, widely-dispersed, located in small, geographically isolated school districts. The size, diversity, and complexity of rural education support a greater policy focus on the unique challenges and solutions for rural education.

Montana is the fourth largest state by land mass, totaling over 147,000 square miles. More than half of Montana's 830 schools enroll less than 100 students. From Eureka to Ekalaka, from Scobey to Darby, these small schools dot the landscape, providing not only a learning environment but often a community center.

Montana's rural communities are doing an excellent job educating Montana's next generation. Overall, Montana graduation rates are higher than the national average. Montana students taking the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, in 2009 scored higher than the national average in both reading and math.

But despite the success of Montana's rural schools, these schools face a unique set of challenges that their urban-centric peers may not even comprehend. In 2004, the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a report highlighting the needs and distinctive challenges of rural schools and districts across this nation.

For example, rural schools report greater difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified teachers, due to inability to offer competitive salaries, geographic isolation, and for some, severe weather. Rural districts often have fewer personnel. The district superintendent is often also the high school principal. He or she may also be the Title I coordinator, math curriculum specialist, and sometimes also the head of transportation services! In isolated areas, schools face challenges in providing professional development and training for teachers and principals. Small rural districts are often located long distances from other districts, towns, and universities, drastically reducing opportunities to partner or collaborate. Additionally, the long distances students must travel between school and home make it more difficult to participate in traditional remedial services, mentoring, and after school programs.

I commend the Secretary for efforts he has taken to try to address concerns of rural areas. However, these efforts have fallen short, and in some cases, even good intentions have created adverse consequences. Most recently, the Investing in Innovation, i3, competitive grant program provided ``competitive preference points'' for applicants serving at least one rural district, in an effort to encourage and support rural applicants. However, the department's lack of guidance and independent scorers' lack of understanding of rural areas still left authentically rural programs at a clear disadvantage. The Rural School & Community Trust highlighted in its report Taking Advantage that this ``rural preference'' instead had the effect of inducing

urban applicants to include minimal rural participation merely in order to gain the additional scoring points for primarily urban projects.

I am joined today by my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, in introducing the Office of Rural Education Policy Act. This bill will establish the Office of Rural Education Policy, housed at the Department of Education's Office of Elementary & Secondary Education. This office and its director will be tasked with coordinating the activities related to rural education and advising the Secretary on issues important to rural schools and districts. The legislation requires the department to consider the impact of proposed rules and regulations on rural education and to produce an annual report on the condition of rural education. The Office of Rural Education Policy will be tasked with establishing a clearinghouse for collecting and disseminating information related to the unique challenges of rural areas, as well as the innovative efforts under way in rural schools to tackle these challenges.

The strong list of supporters of this bill further solidifies the need for an Office of Rural Education Policy. We have received strong support from: American Association of Community Colleges, American Association of School Administrators, Alliance for Excellent Education, Association of Educational Service Agencies, Center for Rural Affairs, Coalition for Community Schools, Council for Opportunity in Education, Montana School Board Association, Montana State Superintendents Association, Montana Rural Education Association, National Association of State Boards of Education, National Association of Development Organizations, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, National Education Association, National Congress of American Indians, National Farmers Union, National Indian Education Association, National Rural Education Association, National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition, National School Board Association, Organizations Concerned about Rural Education, Public Education Network, Rural School and Community Trust, and Save the Children. I want to thank all the supporters of the bill, and want to particularly thank the efforts of the Rural School and Community Trust for its steadfast commitment to this proposal.

Mike Mansfield was right. ``Knowledge is essential for acceptance and understanding.'' I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate to move this legislation, to bring about greater knowledge of rural schools and ensure they are both accepted and understood.

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