Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for the purpose of speaking as in morning business.

Mr. President, I speak today on a day that appears to be positioned between two very consequential decisions.

Yesterday, the President announced his plan to draw down U.S. forces in Afghanistan, pledging to pull out 10,000 troops this year and the remaining 23,000 surge forces by September of 2012.

Tomorrow, the House of Representatives will likely vote on a measure to limit the use of U.S. funding for U.S. military operations in Libya to only ``nonkinetic activities''--in other words, noncombat activities--meaning no limited strike missions to suppress air defenses or predator strikes against Qadhafi forces, which we are doing very little of already. The only military actions for which the Commander in Chief could commit our Armed Forces would be supporting missions from search and rescue to aerial refueling to intelligence.

Those are the provisions in what is very likely to be voted on and passed by the House of Representatives tomorrow.

Some may not see a connection between these decisions, but the connection is profound. We are having a profound debate in this country right now that I suspect will continue for some time. Critical questions are being asked and discussed: How should we in the United States define our national interests? What is the proper role for America in the world? How do we balance our commitments abroad and the global demands for U.S. leadership with an American public that is justifiably war weary after a decade of conflict and that is rightly concerned with our unsustainable levels of government spending and national debt?

These are vital questions. They will determine the future of our Nation and, indeed, the future of the world. Reasonable Americans can disagree over what the right answers are. Although our disagreements may be heated and passionate, we should always remember that we are all Americans, that we are all patriotic, and that we all want to do what is best for the Nation we love.

The discussions we are now having over Libya and Afghanistan go right to the heart of this broader debate, and this is where we see the real practical impact of the decisions all of us in public life must make and be accountable for. We are all trying to define America's interests and role in the world, to separate that which we can and must do from that which is beyond our capacity and our benefit to try to accomplish. We are all striving for a balanced approach to America's interests abroad, and it is for that reason I am very concerned about both the President's decision on Afghanistan and the House's pending vote on Libya.

I agree with the President that, thanks especially to the sacrifice and courage of our fighting men and women, we are making amazing progress in Afghanistan. This progress is real and it is remarkable. But as our commanders on the ground all point out, it is also fragile and reversible. Our commanders also say what will be decisive is the fighting season next year--the warmer spring and summer months--when the insurgency historically picks up its operations after resting and regrouping a bit during the colder months. This will be our opportunity to consolidate our gains in southern Afghanistan and begin transitioning more and more of that fight to our Afghan friends, while increasing numbers of U.S. forces shift

their main effort to eastern Afghanistan where the Haqqani network, al- Qaida, and other regional militant groups are still present and operating actively.

The reason our commanders had to take this sequential approach is because they did not get all the forces they requested in 2009--40,000 troops as opposed to the 33,000 the President gave them. What this means in practice is that our commanders in Afghanistan still need next year's fighting season to deal the same crushing blow to al-Qaida and the Taliban in the east as our forces have dealt them in the south. However, under the President's plan, which calls for having all of our surge units out of Afghanistan by September, those troops will begin flowing out of Afghanistan right at the time the Taliban, al-Qaida, and their allies begin stepping up their operations, especially in eastern Afghanistan.

This is the irony of it all. The President's decision in December 2009 had the effect of making this war longer and costlier by forcing our commanders to tackle our enemies in southern and eastern Afghanistan sequentially over 2 years rather than simultaneously in one decisive action over 1 year. Now, just at the moment when our troops could finish our main objective and begin ending our combat operations in a responsible way, just when they are 1 year away from turning over a battered and broken enemy in both southern and eastern Afghanistan to our Afghan partners, the President has now decided to deny them the forces our commanders believe they need to accomplish their objective.

I hope I am wrong, I hope the President is right, that this decision will not endanger the hard-won gains our troops have made with the decisive progress they still need to make next year. I hope that proves correct. But I am very concerned the President's decision poses an unnecessary risk to the progress we have made thus far to our mission and to our men and women in uniform.

Our troops are not exhausted. They are excited that after 10 years we finally have a winning strategy that is turning this war around. Anyone who says that our troops are exhausted should go out and talk to them. They want to stay at this until the job is done. We have sacrificed too much. America has a vital national interest in succeeding in Afghanistan. After all that we have given to this mission, the money we have committed to it, the decade we have devoted to it, and the precious lives we have lost throughout it, why would we do anything now that puts our mission at greater risk of failure?

I would offer the same counsel to my Republican friends in the House with regard to our mission in Libya. I know my colleagues in Congress are angry with the administration and its Libya policy, and they have every right to be. From the disrespect and disregard the administration has shown Congress, to their bizarre assertion we are not really engaged in the hostilities in Libya, to the lack of resolve with which they have prosecuted this fight and made the public case for it, the administration has done an unfortunate amount to earn the ire of Congress. But we can't forget the main point: In the midst of the most ground-breaking geopolitical event in two decades, at least, as peaceful protests for democracy were sweeping the Middle East, with Qadhafi's forces to strike at the gates of Benghazi, and with Arabs and Muslims in Libya and across the region pleading for the U.S. military to stop the bloodshed, the United States and our allies took action and prevented the massacre that Qadhafi had promised to commit in a city of 700,000 people.

By doing so, they began creating conditions that are increasing the pressure on Qadhafi to give up power. Yes, the progress toward this goal has been slower than many had hoped, and the administration is doing less to achieve it than I and others would like. But here are the facts: We are succeeding in Libya. Qadhafi is going to fall. It is just a matter of time.

So I would ask my colleagues: Is this the time for Congress to turn against this policy? Is this the time to ride to the rescue of an anti- American tyrant, when the writing is on the wall that he is collapsing?

Is this the time for Congress to declare to the world and to Qadhafi and his inner circle, to Qadhafi's opponents who are fighting for their freedom, and to our NATO allies who are carrying a far heavier burden in this conflict than we are, is this the time for America to tell all of these people that our heart is not in this and that we won't see this mission through; that we will abandon our best friends and allies on a whim?

This all comes back to how we, as Americans, define our national interests and act on them. We can all agree that none of us are averse to doing what is necessary to defend America and our allies when we face a clear threat in the world.

In that way, we are like any other nation in history. But what sets us apart from those other nations, what makes us exceptional, what makes us the United States of America is that we define our interests more broadly than that. Our interests also encompass the fact that we are the leader of the free world; that the circle of nations that want us to play that role is growing, not diminishing; and that this position of leadership also confers responsibilities that are greater than our own immediate and material self-interests. It is the responsibility we have to the universal ideals of freedom and justice and human rights, of which our Nation is both the greatest embodiment and the greatest champion in human history.

That is not to say we can or should be involved everywhere. That is not to say we must act wherever and whenever our ideals are threatened. This is not to say military action is always the right answer, nor is this a recipe for endless conflict and commitment. America is powerful, but we are not omnipotent. We must make hard choices about where to spend our blood and treasure.

There will be more occasions than not when we will choose not to intervene, either because our interests do not warrant it or because we don't have the capacity to do so or because greater American involvement will not improve the situation. When we choose not to intervene forcefully in places where the cause of justice is calling out to us, be it Sudan or the Congo or Syria or countless other places where I and others have argued against intervention, we will be assailed as hypocritical and inconsistent. That is unfair, but it is nothing new for America.

What we can never forget is that our Nation's interests are forever colored by our values. America has always believed that the success of freedom and democracy in other lands does not just make our world more just; it makes it a safer, more secure, and better place for Americans and our children.

We can never afford to define our interests so narrowly that we would have sat back as an anti-American tyrant slaughtered his own people, thereby destroying one of the most historic attempts by millions of Arabs and Muslims to build better and more stable governments. That would have served neither our moral nor our strategic interests. Similarly, once we are engaged in a fight, as we are now in Libya and Afghanistan, and when we still have a clear path to succeed, as we do in both countries, it is in our moral and strategic interests to finish the job even if it is difficult and costly and unpopular. Failure is the only cost we truly cannot afford.

America cannot make the world perfect, but we can make it better, freer, more just, more prosperous. That is what has always made us an exceptional nation. That is what has always been the greatest source of our national security. That is what has always made us America. And that is how we must remain.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following articles be printed in the Record: the Wall Street Journal article from this morning entitled ``Libya and Republicans,'' the Washington Post editorial from this morning entitled ``End of a Surge,'' and the Wall Street Journal article entitled ``Unplugging the Afghan Surge.''

I note my friend from South Carolina here today. The Senator from South Carolina, as many of us know, is a reserve colonel-- a terrible mistake by the promotion boards--in the U.S. Air Force JAG Corps. He has spent more time in Afghanistan than any Member of Congress, including more than most Members of Congress combined. He has observed closely in Afghanistan the surge, its success, its impediments. I ask unanimous consent to engage in colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina.

I wonder if my friend saw General Keene, the architect of the surge in Iraq, on one of the networks this morning describing his views on the President's decision concerning drawing down our troops from Afghanistan.

According to the Washington Post this morning, the editorial ``End Of A Surge. The mismatch between President Obama's strategy and his troop withdrawal timetable'':

Mr. Obama's withdrawal decision, with no clear basis in

strategy, increases the risk of failure.

The only other issue--and I think the Senator from South Carolina is very well qualified to describe it--I hear over and over, especially from those who are opposed to our involvement in this conflict, the troops are exhausted, the troops are exhausted. Yet General Keene, this morning on one of the news channels, said: They are not exhausted. They are exhilarated because they are winning. They know they have sacrificed so many of their comrades, killed and wounded. They are not exhausted. But they certainly, certainly don't want to come home in defeat, something that I saw a long time ago.

Can I say in summary--and I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his forbearance--I agree with the Senator from South Carolina, obviously. I say to my friends on the other side of the Capitol, although it may fall on deaf ears at this moment, I hope they know that we understand their frustration about the President's failure to recognize the War Powers Act exists, and the failure of the administration to consult and brief Members of Congress on the situation in Libya, about many aspects of the way this conflict has been conducted where America is ``leading from behind.''

But I want to repeat what the Senator from South Carolina said: This could mean the end of NATO. If NATO cannot defeat a third-rate military power, then NATO is probably going to go out of business. If we do not succeed in Libya and oust Qadafi, as is the President's policy, you will see a center for terrorist activities, you will see a return of al-Qaida to Libya--certainly a dramatically increased influence. And, frankly, it will send a message to the world that even though we say about a dictator and a brutal killer and murderer such as Qadafi that it is our policy that he be removed from power, we are either unwilling or unable to do so.

I again caution my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I hope they would not do anything that would enhance the ability of this brutal dictator to remain in power and continue to perpetrate the murders and crimes for which he is so well known.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to join the Senator from Massachusetts, who will shortly submit the product of many hours of bipartisan cooperation and negotiation, an authorization for the limited use of military force in Libya. The resolution, as will be introduced by my colleague from Massachusetts, as I mentioned, would authorize the President to employ the U.S. Armed Forces to advance U.S. national security interests in Libya as part of the international coalition that is enforcing U.N. Security Council resolutions in Libya. It would limit this authority to 1 year, which is more than enough time to finish the job, and it makes clear that the Senate agrees with the President that there is no need and no desire to commit U.S. conventional ground forces in Libya.

I will be the first to admit that this authorization is not perfect and it will not make everyone happy. It does not fully make me happy. I would have preferred that this authorization make clear that our military mission includes the President's stated policy objective of forcing Qadhafi to leave power. I would have preferred that it urge the President to commit more U.S. strike aircraft to the mission in Libya so as to help bring this conflict to a close as soon as possible. And I would have preferred that it call on the President to recognize the Transitional National Council as the legitimate voice of the Libyan people so as to free Qadhafi's frozen assets for the Transitional National Council to use on behalf of the Libyan people. I have called on the administration to do all of these things for some time, and I do so now again.

That said, this authorization has been a bipartisan effort. My Republican colleagues and I have had to make compromises, just as have the Senator from Massachusetts and his Democratic colleagues. I believe the end result is an authorization that deserves the support of my colleagues in the Senate on both sides of the aisle, and I am confident they will support it.

I know the administration has made it clear that it believes it does not need a congressional authorization such as this because it is their view that U.S. military operations in Libya do not rise to the level of hostility. I believe this assertion will strike most of my colleagues and the Americans they represent as a confusing breach of common sense, and it seems to be undercut by the very report the administration sent to Congress which makes clear that U.S. Armed Forces have been and presumably will continue to fly limited strike missions to suppress enemy air defenses, to operate armed Predator drones that are attacking Qadhafi's forces in an effort to protect Libyan civilians, and to provide the overwhelming support for NATO operations, from intelligence to aerial refueling. Indeed, we read in today's New York Times that since the April 7 date that the administration claims to have ceased hostilities in Libya, U.S. warplanes have struck at Libyan air defenses on 60 occasions and fired about 30 missiles from unmanned drones.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks the article from today's New York Times entitled ``Scores of U.S. Strikes in Libya Follow Handoff to Libya.''

I certainly agree that actions such as these do not amount to a full-fledged state of war, and I will certainly grant that I am no legal scholar, but I find it hard to swallow that U.S. Armed Forces dropping bombs and killing enemy personnel in a foreign country does not amount to a state of hostilities.

What is worse, this is just the latest way in which this administration has mishandled its responsibility with regard to Congress. The President could have asked to authorize our intervention in Libya months ago, and I believe it could have received a strong, though certainly not unanimous, show of support.

The administration's disregard for the elected representatives of the American people on this matter has been troubling and counterproductive. The unfortunate result of this failure of leadership is plain to see in the full-scale revolt against the administration's Libya policy that is occurring in the House of Representatives. As I speak now, our colleagues in the House are preparing a measure that would cut off all funding for U.S. military operations in Libya, and they plan to vote on it in the coming days.

I know many were opposed to this mission from the beginning, and I respect their convictions. I myself have disagreed and disagreed strongly at

times with aspects of the administration's policy in Libya. But at the end of the day, I believe the President did the right thing by intervening to stop a looming humanitarian disaster in Libya.

Amid all our arguments over prudence, legality, and constitutionality of the administration's policy in Libya, we cannot forget the main point: In the midst of the most groundbreaking geopolitical event in two decades, as peaceful protests for democracy were sweeping the Middle East, with Qadhafi's forces ready to strike at the gates of Benghazi and with Arabs and Muslims in Libya and across the region pleading for the U.S. military to stop the bloodshed, the United States and our allies took action and prevented the massacre Qadhafi had promised to commit in a city of 700,000 people. By doing so, we began creating conditions that are increasing the pressure on Qadhafi to give up power.

Yes, the progress toward this goal has been slower than many had hoped and the administration is doing less to achieve it than I and others would like, but the bottom line is this: We are succeeding, Qadhafi is weakening. His military leaders and closest associates are abandoning him. NATO is increasing the tempo of its operations and degrading Qadhafi's military capabilities and command and control. The Transitional National Council is gaining international recognition and support and performing more effectively, and though their progress is uneven, opposition forces in Libya are making strategic gains on the ground.

We are all entitled to our opinions about Libya policy, but here are the facts. Qadhafi is going to fall. It is just a matter of time. So I ask my colleagues, is this the time for Congress to turn against this policy? Is this the time to ride to the rescue of a failing tyrant when the writing is on the wall that he will collapse? Is this the time for Congress to declare to the world, to Qadhafi and his inner circle, to all of the Libyans who are sacrificing to force Qadhafi from power, and to our NATO allies who are carrying a far heavier burden in this military operation than we are--is this the time for America to tell all of these different audiences that our heart is not in this, that we have neither the will nor the capability to see this mission through, that we will abandon our closest friends and allies on a whim? These are the questions every Member of Congress needs to think about long and hard but especially my Republican colleagues.

Many of us remember well the way some of our friends on the other side of the aisle savaged President Bush over the Iraq war and how they sought to do everything in their power to tie his hands and pull America out of that conflict. We were right to condemn that behavior then, and we would be wrong to practice it now ourselves simply because the leader of the opposite party occupies the White House. Someday--I hope soon--a Republican will again occupy the White House, and that President may need to commit U.S. armed forces to hostilities. So if my Republican colleagues are indifferent to how their actions would affect this President, I would urge them to think seriously about how a vote to cut off funding for this military operation can come back to haunt a future President when the shoe is on the other foot.

The House of Representatives will have its say on our involvement in Libya this week. The Senate has been silent for too long. It is time for the Senate to speak, and when that time comes I believe we will find a strong bipartisan majority in favor of authorizing our current military operations in Libya and seeing this mission through to success. That is the message Qadhafi needs to hear; it is a message Qadhafi's opponents, fighting to liberate their nation, need to hear; and it is a message America's friends and allies need to hear.

So let's debate this authorization, but then let's vote on it as soon as possible.

I wish to thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his hard work on this resolution. I understand he will be submitting it very soon. I hope the majority leader of the Senate will schedule a debate and vote on this resolution as soon as possible. It is long overdue.

Exhibit 1

[From the New York Times, June 20, 2011]

Scores of U.S. Strikes in Libya Followed Handoff to NATO

(By Charlie Savage and Thom Shanker)

Washington.--Since the United States handed control of the

air war in Libya to NATO in early April, American warplanes

have struck at Libyan air defenses about 60 times, and

remotely operated drones have fired missiles at Libyan forces

about 30 times, according to military officials.

The most recent strike from a piloted United States

aircraft was on Saturday, and the most recent strike from an

American drone was on Wednesday, the officials said.

While the Obama administration has regularly acknowledged

that American forces have continued to take part in some of

the strike sorties, few details about their scope and

frequency have been made public.

The unclassified portion of material about Libya that the

White House sent to Congress last week, for example, said

``American strikes are limited to the suppression of enemy

air defense and occasional strikes by unmanned Predator''

drones, but included no numbers for such strikes.

The disclosure of such details could add texture to an

unfolding debate about the merits of the Obama

administration's legal argument that it does not need

Congressional authorization to continue the mission because

United States forces are not engaged in ``hostilities''

within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.

Under that 1973 law, presidents must end unauthorized

deployments 60 days after notifying Congress that they have

introduced American forces into actual or imminent

hostilities. That deadline for the Libyan mission appeared to

pass on May 20, but the administration contended that the

deadline did not apply because the United States' role had

not risen to the level of ``hostilities,'' at least since it

handed control of the mission over to NATO.

In support of that argument, the administration has pointed

to a series of factors, noting, for example, that most of the

strikes have been carried out by allies, while the United

States has primarily been playing ``non-kinetic'' supporting

roles like refueling and surveillance. It has also said there

is little risk of American casualties because there are no

ground troops and Libyan forces have little ability to

exchange fire with American aircraft. And it noted that the

mission is constrained from escalating by a United Nations

Security Council resolution.

The special anti-radar missiles used to suppress enemy air

defenses are usually carried by piloted aircraft, not drones,

and the Pentagon has regularly said that American military

aircraft have continued to conduct these missions. Still,

officials have been reluctant to release the exact numbers of

strikes.

Under military doctrine, strikes aimed at suppressing air

defenses are typically considered to be defensive actions,

not offensive. On the other hand, military doctrine also

considers the turning on of air-defense radar in a no-fly

zone to be a ``hostile act.'' It is not clear whether any of

the Libyan defenses were made targets because they had turned

on such radar.

The administration's legal position prompted internal

controversy. Top lawyers at the Justice Department and the

Pentagon argued that the United States' military activities

did amount to ``hostilities'' under the War Powers

Resolution, but President Obama sided with top lawyers at the

State Department and the White House who contended that they

did not cross that threshold.

On Monday, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary,

acknowledged the internal debate, but defended the judgment

made by Mr. Obama, noting that the applicability of the War

Powers Resolution to deployments has repeatedly prompted

debate over the years.

The House of Representatives may vote later this week on a

proposal to cut off funding for the Libya mission. The

proposal is backed by an odd-bedfellows coalition of antiwar

liberals and Tea Party Republicans.

They are opposed by an equally unusual alignment of

Democrats who support the White House and the intervention in

Libya, and more hawkish Republicans.

On Monday, a group that includes prominent neoconservative

figures--including Liz Cheney, Robert Kagan, William Kristol

and Paul Wolfowitz--sent Republicans an open letter opposing

efforts to cut off funds for the mission.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I see another colleague who is waiting for time. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for such time as I might use, but it won't be much over 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Leon Panetta to succeed Robert Gates. But first I feel compelled to respond to the statements by the Senator from West Virginia which characterize the isolationist, withdrawal, lack of knowledge, of history attitude that seems to be on the rise in America.

In case the Senator from West Virginia forgot it or never knew it, we withdrew from Afghanistan one time. We withdrew from Afghanistan, and the Taliban came, eventually followed by al-Qaida, followed by attacks on the United States of America.

The Senator from West Virginia has expressed his admiration for the men and women who are serving. I hope he would pay attention to the finest military leader who will now be the head of the CIA, General Petraeus, whose knowledge and background may exceed that of the Senator from West Virginia.

If we leave Afghanistan in defeat, we will repeat the lessons of history. It is not our expenditures on Afghanistan that are the reasons we are now experiencing budget difficulties.

I am pleased the Senator from West Virginia went to Afghanistan once. I would suggest he consult with the people who know best that since 2009, when the surge began, we have had success on the ground in Afghanistan, and we are succeeding.

There are enormous challenges ahead of us. But as Secretary Gates has said: Withdrawal to ``Fortress America''--which is basically the message of the Senator from West Virginia--will inevitably lead to attacks from them on the United States of America. I view the remarks of the Senator from West Virginia as at least uninformed about history and strategy and the challenges we face from radical Islamic extremism, including al-Qaida.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote in favor of this nomination today.

Director Panetta has had an extraordinary career of public service. He served in the House of Representatives, representing his California district for eight terms. He served in the White House as President Clinton's Chief of Staff and Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Since February 2009 he has been the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, strengthening that agency and forging positive relationships in the interagency process and with the congressional intelligence oversight committees. It is my expectation that Director Panetta will work closely with GEN David Petraeus, the nominee to succeed him at the CIA, and continue the cooperation and commitment that enabled the finding and elimination of Osama bin Laden.

I am certainly hopeful that as Secretary of Defense Director Panetta will successfully lead the effort to find and eliminate Ayman al- Zawahiri, who we are told has assumed leadership of al-Qaida, and other al-Qaida leaders. Zawahiri is a sworn enemy of the United States and our way of life and, like bin Laden, must be dealt with in similar terms.

Before discussing the challenges Mr. Panetta will encounter, I want to express my thanks and admiration for the service of Secretary Gates as he nears the end of his 4\1/2\-year tenure as Secretary of Defense. I recall that through much of 2007 and 2008 we heard about Secretary Gates' countdown wristwatch that displayed the number of days until a new administration would take over in January 2009, and he and his wife Becky could finally return to their peaceful lakeside home and retirement in Washington State. It is fortunate for the country that President Obama asked, and Secretary Gates agreed to postpone retirement, and that he continued to serve and, presumably, discarded that wristwatch.

Secretary Gates testified at his nomination hearing on December 5, 2006, that he agreed to leave Texas A&M University and return to government out of love for his country, and he and his family have provided one of the greatest examples I have seen of that kind of patriotism, answering the call to duty when his talents were most needed. For this, and for innumerable other contributions he has made to the men and women of the Armed Forces, he has truly earned a place in history as one of America's greatest Secretaries of Defense.

In December 2006, at a time when so many Senators were clamoring for a cut-and-run strategy in Iraq--just as they are calling for a cut-and- run strategy in Afghanistan--Secretary Gates made the following statement at his nomination hearing:

While I am open to alternative ideas about our future

strategy and tactics in Iraq, I feel quite strongly about one

point. Developments in Iraq over the next year or two will, I

believe, shape the entire Middle East and greatly influence

global geopolitics for many years to come. Our course over

the next year or two will determine whether the American and

Iraqi people, and the next President of the United States,

will face a slowly, but steadily improving situation in Iraq

and in the region or will face the very real risk, and

possible reality, of a regional conflagration. We need to

work together to develop a strategy that does not leave Iraq

in chaos and that protects our long-term interests in, and

hopes for the region.

Mr. President, you could substitute the word ``Afghanistan'' for exactly what Secretary Gates then said in December 2006. Then we had the surge. There were 59 votes against the surge that would have called for withdrawal in the summer of 2007. Some of us knew what was right and fought for it, and we have succeeded in Iraq, just as we will fight to continue the surge in Afghanistan. We will succeed in Afghanistan, and we will come home with honor, and Afghanistan will not deteriorate to a cockpit of conflict between regional countries that will then cause again the threat of radical Islamic extremism to threaten our very existence--certainly pose threats of attacks on the United States.

Secretary Gates was, of course, correct then about Iraq. Today we must add Afghanistan and Libya to his warning about the future consequences of the decisions we make today. In the next few months, our country faces decisions related to our national security and defense that will echo for decades to come--decisions that will determine whether we remain the world's leading global military power, able to meet our many commitments worldwide, or whether we will begin abandoning that role.

One of these decisions that will have perhaps the most impact on this outcome is our response to the President's stated goal of cutting $400 billion in national security spending by 2023--on top of the $178 billion in efficiencies and top line reductions that Secretary Gates already has imposed.

Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen have sounded the alarm against misguided and excessive reductions in defense spending that cut into the muscle of our military capabilities. If we get this wrong, it will result in a dramatic drop in U.S. influence and, as Secretary Gates has said, ``a smaller military able to go fewer places and do fewer things.''

Defense spending is not what is sinking this country into fiscal crisis, and if the President and Congress act on that flawed assumption they will create a situation that is truly unaffordable: the decline of U.S. military power and influence.

It is inevitable there will be cuts to defense spending, and some reductions are no doubt necessary to improve the efficiency of the Department of Defense. But I also remember GEN Edward Meyer, then-Chief of Staff of the Army, who warned in 1980 that excessive defense cuts over many years had produced a ``hollow army.'' That is not an experience we can or should repeat in the years to come. We must learn the lessons of history.

I sincerely hope Director Panetta, upon assuming office, will not focus exclusively on how but on whether the President's proposal should be implemented and will apply his independent judgment in providing advice to the President on the cuts that can be made without damage to our national security.

Last week, the Committee on Armed Services completed its markup for the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012. In a very tough fiscal environment, this markup represents an effort to support our warfighters and bolster the readiness of the U.S. military. Unfortunately, the committee chose to authorize hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary and unrequested porkbarrel projects and rejected my efforts to stop the out-of-control cost overruns of the F-35 program.

The Defense authorization bill is an important piece of legislation while our country continues to be engaged in two wars; therefore, I voted to move the bill out of committee. Nevertheless, I will continue my efforts to fight the egregious and wasteful spending during debate on the floor of the Senate, and I will urge Director Panetta, once he is confirmed, to favorably endorse the proposals I will make to properly use precious national defense dollars.

In addition, especially in this budget environment, it will be important to continue to eliminate weapons programs that are over cost, behind schedule, and not providing improvements in combat power and capabilities. After 10 years of war, we must continue to eliminate every dollar of wasteful spending that siphons resources away from our most vital need: enabling our troops to succeed in combat.

One of the key criteria I am looking for in the next Secretary of Defense is continuity--the continuation of the wise judgment, policies, and decisionmaking that have characterized Secretary Gates' leadership of the Department of Defense. As Director of the CIA, Mr. Panetta has demonstrated that he possesses the experience and

ability to ensure that we achieve our objectives in the three conflicts in which U.S. forces are now engaged: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

In Iraq, the key question now is whether some presence of U.S. forces will remain beyond the end of this year, pending an Iraqi request and approval, to support Iraq's continuing needs and our enduring national interests. I believe such a presence is necessary, and I encourage the administration to work closely with the Maliki government to bring about this outcome.

In Afghanistan, the main question is the size and scope of the drawdown of forces beginning this July. Here, too, I agree with Secretary Gates that any drawdown should be modest so as to maximize our ability to lock in the hard-won gains of our troops through the next fighting season. I hope Director Panetta, as the Secretary of Defense, will support ``modest'' reductions and take no action that would undermine the hard-won gains in Afghanistan.

Finally, we know that there is growing opposition to continuing the U.S. involvement in Libya. There has already been one legislative attempt to bind the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief, and there will likely be others. In short, the accumulated consequences of the administration's delay, confusion, and lack of meaningful consultation have been a wholesale revolt in Congress against the administration's policy.

Although I have disagreed, and disagreed strongly at times, with aspects of the administration's policy in Libya, I believe the President did the right thing by intervening to stop a humanitarian disaster in Libya. Amid all of our present arguments about legal and constitutional interpretations, we cannot forget the main point: In the midst of the most groundbreaking geopolitical event in two decades, as peaceful protests for democracy were sweeping the Middle East, with Qadhafi's forces ready to strike Benghazi, and with Arabs and Muslims in Libya and across the region pleading for the U.S. military to stop the bloodshed, the United States and our allies took action and prevented the massacre that Qadhafi had promised to commit in a city of 700,000 people. By doing so, we began creating conditions that are increasing the pressure on Qadhafi to give up power.

Director Panetta has been nominated to lead our Armed Forces amid their tenth year of sustained overseas combat. Not surprisingly, this has placed a major strain on our forces and their families. And yet, our military is performing better today than at any time in our history. That is thanks to the thousands of brave young Americans in uniform who are writing a new chapter in the history of our great country. They have shown themselves to be the equals of the greatest generations before them. And the calling that all of us must answer, in our service, is to be equal and forever faithful to the sacrifice of these amazing Americans.

I have outlined some of the challenges that lay before Mr. Panetta. I have the highest confidence, however, that he is their equal.

Madam President, I rise in support of my amendment. I would ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business to speak on Libya.

Madam President, yesterday, the President made an announcement that I believe will strike most of my colleagues and the Americans they represent as a confusing breach of common sense. Two administration lawyers claimed that U.S. military involvement in Libya is not in breach of or calls for the War Powers Resolution. In other words, they believe our military activities in Libya do not require a War Powers Resolution because the United States is not engaged in a state of hostilities in Libya.

This puzzling assertion seems to be undercut by the very report that the administration sent to Congress yesterday, which makes it clear that the U.S. Armed Forces have been and presumably will continue to fly limited strike missions to suppress enemy air defenses, to operate armed Predator drones that are attacking Qadhafi's forces in an effort to protect Libyan civilians, and to provide the overwhelming support for NATO operations, from intelligence to aerial refueling.

I agree actions such as these don't amount to a full-scale state of war, and I would certainly grant that I am no legal scholar, but I find it hard to swallow that U.S. Armed Forces dropping bombs and killing enemy personnel in a foreign country doesn't amount to a state of hostilities.

Unfortunately, this only adds more confusion to our already confusing policy in Libya. Our policy objective, as stated by the President correctly, is to compel Qadhafi to relinquish power. Yet that is not our military objective. The administration claims to have turned the operation in Libya over to NATO, an alliance in which the United States makes up three-quarters of the collective defense spending, as Secretary Gates recently pointed out. The administration sought the blessing of the United Nations, the Arab League, and NATO before using force in Libya but still has not sought a similar authorization or statement approval from the elected representatives of the American people. That is wrong.

The result of all this, I hate to say, is plain to see in the actions of our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol in the House. There is massive and growing opposition to continuing the U.S. involvement in Libya. There has already been one piece of legislation passed that binds the President's authority as Commander in Chief. There could likely be a vote soon to cut off funding for the entire operation. In short, the accumulated consequences of all this delay, confusion, and obfuscation has been a wholesale revolt in Congress against the administration's policy.

I take no pleasure in pointing this out, because though I have disagreed, and disagreed strongly at times, with aspects of the administration's policy in Libya, I believe the President did the right thing by intervening to stop a looming humanitarian disaster in Libya. Amid all our present arguments about legal and constitutional interpretations, we can't forget the main point: In the midst of the most groundbreaking geopolitical event in two decades, as peaceful protests for democracy were sweeping the Middle East, with Qadhafi's forces ready to strike at the gates of Benghazi, and with Arabs and Muslims in Libya and across the region pleading for the U.S. military to stop the bloodshed, the United States and our allies took action and prevented the massacre that Qadhafi had promised to commit in a city of 700,000 people. By doing so, we began creating conditions that are increasing the pressure on Qadhafi to give up power.

Yes, the progress toward this goal has been slower than many had hoped, and the administration is doing less to achieve it than I and others would like. But the bottom line is this: We are succeeding. Qadhafi is weakening. His military leaders and closest associates are abandoning him. NATO is increasing the tempo of its operations and degrading Qadhafi's military capabilities and command and control. The Transitional National Council is gaining international recognition and support and performing more effectively, and though their progress is uneven, opposition forces in Libya are making strategic gains on the ground.

I know many were opposed to this mission from the very beginning, and I respect their convictions. But the fact is, whether people like it or not, we are engaged in Libya and we are succeeding. So I would ask my colleagues, is this the time for Congress to begin turning against this policy? Is this the time to ride to the rescue of the man whom President Reagan called the mad dog of the Middle East? Is this the time for Congress to declare to the world, to Qadhafi and his inner circle, to all the Libyans who are sacrificing to force Qadhafi from power, and to our NATO allies who are carrying a far heavier burden in this military operation than we are--is this the time for America to tell all these different audiences that our heart is not in this, that we have neither the will nor the capability to see this mission through, that we will abandon our closest friends and allies on a whim?

These are questions every Member of Congress needs to think about long and hard but especially my Republican colleagues. Many of us remember well the way that some of our friends on the other side of the aisle savaged President Bush over the Iraq war, how they sought to do everything in their power to tie his hands and pull America out of that conflict with far too little care for the consequences their actions would have on our friends, our allies, our interests, and our moral standing as the world's leading power. We were right to condemn this behavior then, and we would be wrong to practice it now ourselves simply because a leader of the opposite party occupies the White House.

Last week, Qadhafi wrote a personal letter of thanks to the Members of Congress who voted to censure the President and end our Nation's involvement in Libya. Republicans need to ask themselves whether they want to be part of a group that is earning the grateful thanks of a murderous tyrant for trying to limit an American President's ability to force that tyrant to leave power.

The goal for all of us in this body, Democrats and Republicans alike, should not be to cut and run from Libya but to ensure we succeed. In the very near future, Senator Kerry and I, along with a strong senior bipartisan group of our colleagues, will introduce an authorization for the limited use of military force in Libya. The administration may assert that we are not engaged in hostilities in Libya, but the Senate should go on record as authorizing these operations. We are in a state of hostilities, and the only result of further delay and confusion over Congress's role in this debate will be to continue ceding the initiative to the strongest critics of our actions in Libya.

We plan to introduce the authorization soon. I urge the majority leader to schedule a vote on it quickly. The Senate has been silent for too long on our military involvement in Libya. It is time for the Senate to speak. When that time comes, I believe we will find a strong bipartisan majority that is in favor of maintaining our current course in Libya, that supports our seeing this mission through to success, and that is willing to continue standing in the breach with our allies until the job is done.

Madam President, amendment No. 411 would prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture from funding the construction of ethanol blender pumps or ethanol storage facilities--the latest request from the ethanol lobby. By prohibiting funding for these pumps and storage facilities we will prevent American taxpayers from spending over $20 billion to convert the 20,000 gasoline pumps currently under construction.

During Tuesday's cloture vote on the ethanol tax credit amendment, some members that voted against cloture cited concerns with the procedural tactics used to bring up the vote; the ``unfairness'' of ending the subsidy in midyear, therefore ``pulling the rug'' out from underneath the ethanol industry; and that it was somehow premature to end over 30 years of subsidies unless it was coupled with further funding for ethanol infrastructure construction.

I hope my fellow critics of the ethanol tax credit have taken notice of this new tactic over the past few weeks. For ethanol supporters, this debate has been about where and how to prop up the industry in the future--not whether the ethanol industry deserves future taxpayer support.

It is time to say enough is enough; this industry has been collecting corporate welfare for far, far too long. For those of us who have been fighting against these handouts over the last two decades, it has been far too long since we have had a full debate on this issue.

As a reminder to some of my colleagues of how this debate and support of corn-ethanol handouts has shifted over the years, I would like to read a portion of a floor statement on ethanol subsidies I delivered on March 11, 1998.

Mr. President, let me just take a moment and try to explain

why we have such generous ethanol subsidies in law today. The

rationale for ethanol subsidies has changed over the years,

but unfortunately, ethanol has never lived up to the claims

of any of its diverse proponents.

In the late 1970s, during the energy crisis, ethanol was

supposed to help the U.S. lessen its reliance on oil. But

ethanol use never took off, even when gasoline prices were

highest and lines were longest.

Then, in the early 1980s, ethanol subsidies were used to

prop up America's struggling corn farmers. Unfortunately, the

usual ``trickle down'' effect of agricultural subsidies is

clearly evident. Beef and dairy farmers, for example, have to

pay a higher price for feed corn, which is then passed on in

the form of higher prices for meat and milk. The average

consumer ends up paying the cost of ethanol subsidies in the

grocery store.

By the late 1980s, ethanol became the environmentally

correct alternative fuel.

Unfortunately, the Department of Energy has provided

statistics showing that it takes more energy to produce a

gallon of ethanol than the amount of energy that gallon of

ethanol contains. In addition, the Congressional Research

Service, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Department

of Energy all acknowledge that the environmental benefits of

ethanol use, at least in terms of smog reduction, are yet

unproven.

These facts are as true today as they were 13 years ago. In fact, we now have a better understanding of the negative effects corn-ethanol has on both the environment and food prices than we did 13 years ago.

But it is important to note that while attention is being paid--and rightly so--to eliminating the unneeded and wasteful ethanol tax credit, the corn-ethanol lobby is seeking a new ethanol-stimulus package by attempting a congressional runaround to continue bilking American taxpayers out of their money.

Instead of seeking approval from Congress, lobbyists have convinced the USDA to change the rules of the Rural Energy for America Program to pay for new gas station pumps at retail stations at the expense of solar, wind, and energy efficiency projects. In fact, the President has announced his goal to fund the construction of 10,000 ethanol blender pumps and tanks within the next 5 years--a down payment on future ethanol-stimulus spending.

Supporters of ethanol corporate welfare are happy to tell you that if they get their way, these 10,000 blender pumps and tanks will be the tip of the iceberg for billions in new federally funded corn-ethanol infrastructure development.

To be perfectly clear: Not content with government support to subsidize ethanol, protect it from competition, or require its use, lobbyists now want American taxpayers to pay for the construction of pumps and holding tanks at retail gas stations.

Of course, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is happy to comply with the industry's request to fund infrastructure construction. On April 8, 2011, Secretary Vilsack issued a rule that would classify blender pumps as a renewable energy system qualifying it for funding under the Rural Energy Assistance Program.

When Congress created the Rural Energy Assistance Program it had no intention of paying gas station owners to upgrade their infrastructure, further subsidizing the ethanol industry.

Furthermore, as a bonus to any gas station owners that take advantage of the grant program, once the Federal Government has built the blending pumps and holding tanks, retailers will be eligible to receive the ethanol tax credit, double dipping in the Federal Treasury.

How expensive will this ethanol stimulus be if the special interest lobby gets its way? According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture an ethanol blender pump and tank cost an average of $100,000 to $120,000 to install. With over 200,000 fuel pumps currently operating in the U.S. it would cost over $20 billion to convert them all. This is one stimulus project that we cannot afford.

And for those concerned about the lack of support for wind and solar projects, a recent Congressional Research Service--CRS--report indicates that tax credits and subsidies for solar, wind and geothermal power will cost $8.62 billion from 2008 to 2012; the ethanol tax credit alone would cost over three times more--$26.5 billion. Allowing the Rural Energy for America Program to continue funding blender pumps and tanks will only continue this trend.

For my colleagues that really wanted to end the corporate welfare handouts to the corn-ethanol industry but were concerned over the process issues surrounding the ethanol tax credit vote or concerned about the fairness of ending the tax credit in midyear, you can rest assured that those concerns to not apply to this amendment.

It is time Congress takes a step towards ending unneeded and unnecessary payouts to a robust and strong industry. In a time of fiscal constraint, when all are being asked to make a sacrifice, we should expect more from leaders in the private sector than continuing to seek handouts--``stimulus projects''--from the Federal Government.

I was disappointed, obviously, in the vote that we took concerning the ethanol subsidies and I know probably how the vote on this amendment will turn out. The message is: Americans, we are not serious about heeding the mandate of last November to stop spending, to stop wasteful projects, to stop the unnecessary projects such as ethanol subsidies. We are going to spend 20 billion of your tax dollars in your local gas station to install a pump.

No wonder the American people, according to recent polls, are disillusioned, disappointed, and pessimistic about our future. This vote on this amendment will confirm an ample and adequate reason and an understandable reason for that pessimism.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendments Nos. 411 and 412.

Madam President, I still ask unanimous consent to call up both amendments. It is my understanding amendments are allowed, but if there are some amendments that are not allowed, I think we ought to understand that. I understand the strength of the ethanol lobby, but there was an agreement that amendments would be allowed to be called up. If that is not the case, then I would obviously have to resort to other parliamentary measures.

So I repeat my unanimous consent request to set aside the pending amendment and call up both amendments, Nos. 411 and 412.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Madam President, I will be brief in discussing both of the amendments.

The first amendment, amendment No. 411, is a simple amendment that would prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture from funding the construction of ethanol blender pumps or ethanol storage facilities, which is the latest effort on the part of the ethanol lobby to take more and more of U.S. taxpayers' dollars.

I would remind my colleagues that taxpayers have already provided billions of dollars to ethanol producers over the last 30 years. Last year alone, the ethanol tax credit cost the taxpayers $6 billion. In the final hours of the last Congress, the ethanol tax credit was extended for an additional year and will likely cost taxpayers an additional $5 billion to $6 billion this year. Seeking to double-dip in the Federal Treasury, advocates for the ethanol industry are seeking taxpayer support for infrastructure for ethanol such as blender pumps and storage facilities.

The Department of Agriculture was happy to comply with the industry's request to fund infrastructure construction. On April 8, 2001, the Secretary of Agriculture issued a rule that--get this--would classify blender pumps as a renewable energy system. In other words, pumps are now a renewable energy system, which would qualify it for funding under the Rural Energy Assistance Program.

There is no one--no one--who believed the Rural Energy Assistance Program would apply to putting ethanol pumps and storage facilities in gas stations. When Congress created the Rural Energy Assistance Program, it didn't have any intention of paying gas station owners to upgrade their infrastructure and further subsidize the ethanol industry.

According to the USDA, an ethanol blender pump and tank could cost an average of $100,000 to $120,000 to install. With over 200,000 fuel pumps currently operating in the United States, it would cost over $20 billion to convert them all--a corporate welfare project of significant proportions.

I might point out that an amendment similar to this was overwhelmingly supported in the other body during the consideration of H.R. 1 by a vote of 261 to 158.

It is time we stop this. I am a well-known opponent of ethanol subsidies to start with because it has never been of any value. It has distorted the market, and it has been an incredible waste of taxpayers' dollars. But now they want to go further by having us pay as much as $20 billion so they can install, under the Rural Energy Assistance Program, blender pumps and storage facilities.

So the ethanol advocates today have issued a release opposing this amendment because it would enforce the foreign oil mandate over our transportation fuels marketplace by blocking a job-creating effort to promote the installation of flex pumps. So now this is all about jobs. We want to create jobs by spending taxpayers' dollars to build pumps.

I hope my colleagues will take a look at this and support this amendment.

The other amendment, amendment No. 412, basically eliminates Davis- Bacon requirements from this legislation. The issue of Davis-Bacon is well known. All it would do is, in my view, reduce costs by some 60 percent from market rates if we are indeed not imposing Davis-Bacon Act requirements.

While I am on the floor, I wish to mention to my colleagues that as we face increasing costs at the gas pump of $4 or more--there are predictions that the cost of gasoline and a barrel of oil will continue to increase--this administration continues to reject nuclear power in every possible way.

Yesterday, a House committee released the latest evidence detailing the administration's mishandling of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, providing further examples of this administration's blatantly political decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain project and close the facility.

I quote from the committee report:

Despite the President's continued assertions that his

nuclear waste management policy decisions would be driven by

sound science, the administration has repeatedly refused to

provide a scientific or technical justification for its

shutdown decision, instead simply stating that Yucca is not a

workable option.

This coincides with an April 2011 GAO study that reported:

DOE decided to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository

program because, according to the Department of Energy

officials, it is not a workable option and there are better

solutions that can achieve a broader national consensus. DOE

did not cite technical or safety issues.

There is a simple reason that neither Department of Energy Secretary Chu nor any other member of the administration has put forth a single scientific justification on the decision not to move forward with Yucca Mountain--because there is none.

When the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board rejected the Department of Energy's request to withdraw the license application, it noted:

Conceding that the Application is not flawed nor the site

unsafe, the Secretary of Energy seeks to withdraw the

Application with prejudice as a ``matter of policy'' because

the Nevada site ``is not a workable option.''

In fact, according to the House report, the NRC staff review of DOE's Yucca Mountain license application agreed overwhelmingly with the Department of Energy on the scientific and technical issues associated with the site, ultimately concluding that the application complies with applicable Nuclear Regulatory Commission safety regulations necessary for the site to proceed to licensing for construction.

The political interference orchestrated by the administration comes with a very real cost. As of 2010, the taxpayers have spent $15 billion to research and develop the Yucca Mountain site.

In addition, even while the administration is attempting to terminate the place, the energy industry and therefore the ratepayers are still contributing to the Nuclear Waste Fund that was established to pay for a nuclear waste repository. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Nuclear Waste Fund is holding over $25 billion of ratepayers' money. To date, no one has stated whether the energy industry or the ratepayers will be refunded those fees, and it is likely the taxpayer will end up footing the bill for the lawsuits filed against the Federal Government by those who have been unfairly charged.

The need for a permanent waste repository remains clear. In fact, a draft subcommittee report from the President's blue ribbon commission on nuclear waste stated that ``permanent disposal of nuclear waste is needed under all reasonably foreseeable scenarios'' and that ``we do not believe that new technology developments in the next three to four decades will change the underlying need for a storage strategy combining interim sites with progress toward a permanent facility,'' thereby completely refuting statements by the administration that technology and temporary storage sites are a sufficient replacement for permanent disposal. In fact, the administration and the Secretary of Energy himself have publicly stated that our most promising technology to lessen the burden of storage--waste reprocessing--is not even being considered as a viable option for addressing waste-storage needs. Unfortunately, it has been reported that members of the commission have been told that under no circumstances are they allowed to recommend Yucca Mountain as a permanent waste repository--regardless of where the scientific evidence leads them.

According to the Government Accountability Office, the termination of Yucca Mountain would set back the opening of a new geologic repository by at least 20 years and cost billions of dollars. Of course, these billions would be in addition to the $15 billion taxpayers have already spent to research and develop the Yucca Mountain site. It is really a sad day when we allow politics or political influence to cause us to allow at least $15 billion of the taxpayers' money to be wasted and to really doom, to a large degree, the future of nuclear power in this country.

We need to have energy self-sufficiency. I believe in wind. I believe in tide. I believe in solar. But nuclear power must be a part of any equation if we are going to be truly energy independent. And by closing Yucca Mountain and by wasting already $15 billion of the taxpayers' money, we have made that goal much, much harder to reach.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I call for the regular order on amendment No. 436, as modified, and send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

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

Madam President, I thank my friend from Illinois for allowing me to do that. I appreciate it and yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, in a few minutes my colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin, will be introducing a bill which I am a cosponsor of, along with a large bipartisan group of our colleagues. I wish to emphasize at the outset that some may characterize this legislation as anti-Russian. In fact, I believe it is pro-Russian. It is pro the people of Russia. It is pro the people who stand up for human rights and democracy in that country which, unfortunately, seems to be sadly deprived of.

This legislation, as my colleague and friend Senator Cardin will describe, requires the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to publish a list of each person whom our government has reason

to believe was responsible for the detention, abuse, or death of Sergei Magnitsky; participated in efforts to conceal the legal liability for these crimes; committed those acts of fraud that Magnitsky uncovered; is responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of human rights committed against individuals seeking to expose illegal activities in Russia or exercise other universally recognized human rights.

Second, the individuals on that list would become the target of an array of penalties, among them, ineligibility to receive a visa to travel. They would have their current visas revoked, their assets would be frozen that are under U.S. jurisdiction, and U.S. financial institutions would be required to audit themselves to ensure that none of these individuals are able to bank excess funds and move money in the U.S. financial system.

I guess the first question many people will be asking is who was Sergei Magnitsky? Who was this individual who has aroused such outrage and anger throughout the world? He was a tax attorney. He was a tax attorney working for an international company called Hermitage Capital that had invested in Russia. He didn't spend his life as a human rights activist or an outspoken critic of the Russian Government. He was an ordinary man. But he became an extraordinary champion of justice, fairness, and the rule of law in Russia where those principles, frankly, have lost meaning.

What Sergei Magnitsky did was he uncovered a collection of Russian Government officials and criminals who were associated with the Russian Government officials who colluded to defraud the Russian state of $230 million. The Russian Government in turn blamed the crime on Heritage Capital and threw Magnitsky in prison in 2008.

Magnitsky was detained for 11 months without trial. Russian officials, especially from the Interior Ministry, pressured Magnitsky to deny what he had uncovered--to lie and to recant. He refused. He was sickened by what his government had done and he refused to surrender principle to brute power.

As a result, he was transferred to increasingly more severe and more horrific prison conditions. He was forced to eat unclean food and water. He was denied basic medical care as his health worsened. In fact, he was placed in even worse conditions until, on November 16, 2009, having served 358 days in prison, Sergei Magnitsky died. He was 37 years old.

Sergei Magnitsky's torture and murder--let's call it what it really was--is an extreme example of a problem that is unfortunately all too common and widespread in Russia today: the flagrant violations of the rule of law and basic human rights committed by the Russian Government itself, along with its allies.

I note the presence of my colleague and lead sponsor of this important legislation. I hope in his remarks perhaps my friend from Maryland would mention the latest in the last few days which was the affirmation of the incredible sentence on Mr. Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his associate which is, in many ways, tantamount to a death sentence; again, one of these blatant abuses of justice and an example of the corruption that exists at the highest level of government.

I wish to say again I appreciate the advocacy of my colleague from Maryland and his steadfast efforts on behalf of human rights in Russia, Belarus, and other countries. It has been a great honor to work with him and for him in bringing this important resolution to the floor of the Senate.

I ask unanimous consent that at the appropriate time, the Senator from Maryland and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

First, I thank my colleague from Maryland for a very eloquent and, I think, very strong statement, to which I can add very little. But isn't it true, I ask my friend, that this Magnitsky case and the Khodorkovsky case, which I would like for us to talk a little bit more about, are not isolated incidents?

In other words, this is the face of the problem in Russia today. As the Senator mentioned, in its annual index of perceptions of corruption, Transparency International ranked Russia 154th out of 178 countries--perceived as more corrupt than Pakistan, Yemen, and Zimbabwe. The World Bank considers 122 countries to be better places to do business than Russia. One of those countries is Georgia, which the World Bank ranks as the 12th best country to do business.

In other words, isn't it true in the Magnitsky case, it is what has been taking place all across Russia, including this incredible story of Khodorkovsky, who was one of the wealthiest men in Russia, one of the wealthiest oligarchs who rebelled against this corruption because he saw the long-term consequences of this kind of corruption and was brought to trial, convicted, and then, when his sentence was completed, they charged him again?

Talk about a corrupt system, isn't it true that Vladimir Putin said he should ``sit in jail,'' and we now know that the whole trial was rigged, as revealed by people who were part of the whole trial? In other words, isn't it true, I would ask my friend from Maryland, that what we are talking about is one human tragedy, but it is a tragedy that is unfolding throughout Russia that we do not really have any knowledge of? And if we allow this kind of abuse to go on unresponded to, then, obviously, we are abrogating our responsibilities to the world; isn't that true?

Could I ask my colleague, what implications, if any, does the Senator from Maryland believe this should have on the Russian entry into the World Trade Organization?

I thank my colleague from Maryland for an eloquent statement about the situation as regards

Russia. I thank him, and I can assure my colleague from Maryland that, as we speak, this will provide--and this legislation which he has introduced, will provide--some encouragement to people who in Russia now, in some cases, have lost almost all hope because of the corruption of the judicial system, as well as other aspects of the Russian nation.

We all know that no democracy can function without the rule of law; and if there are ever two examples of the corruption of the rule of law, it is the tragedy of Sergei Magnitsky and, of course, Mr. Khodorkovsky, who still languishes in prison; who, in his words, believes he--by the extension of his prison sentence--may have been given a death sentence.

So I thank my colleague from Maryland.

That was a statement by the Government of Russia?

I thank my colleague from Maryland, and I hope we would get, very rapidly, another 98 cosponsors.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am re-introducing a resolution calling on the President of the United States to posthumously pardon the world's first African-American heavyweight boxing champion, John Arthur ``Jack'' Johnson.

As you may remember, Representative Peter King and I introduced a similar bipartisan resolution during the last session of Congress, and it passed both chambers unanimously. I was very pleased that two of the resolution's strongest supporters were the Senate Majority Leader, my friend Senator Reid, and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy. However, I am disappointed to say that the President still has not pardoned Mr. Johnson. Today, I call upon my Senate colleagues to once again pass this resolution and send a clear message to our President that this unacceptable historical injustice must be rectified.

For those who may not be familiar with the plight of Jack Johnson, he is considered by many to be the most dominant athlete in boxing history. John Arthur Johnson was born March 31, 1878, in Galveston, TX, to parents who were former slaves. At an early age he realized his talent for the sweet science. In order to make a living, Johnson traveled across the country fighting anyone willing to face him. But he was denied repeatedly, on purely racial grounds, a chance to fight for the world heavyweight title. For too long, African-American fighters were not seen as legitimate contenders for the championship. Fortunately, after years of perseverance, Johnson was finally granted an opportunity in 1908 to fight the then-reigning title holder, Tommy Burns. Johnson handily defeated Burns to become the first African- American heavyweight champion.

Mr. Johnson's success in the ring, and sometimes indulgent lifestyle outside of it, fostered resentment among many and raised concerns that his continued sporting dominance would somehow disrupt what was then perceived by many as a ``racial order.'' So, a search for a Caucasian boxer who could defeat Johnson began, a campaign dubbed as the search for the ``Great White Hope.'' That hope arrived in the person of a former champion, Jim Jeffries, who returned from retirement to fight Johnson in 1910. But when Johnson defeated Jeffries, race riots broke out as many sought to avenge the loss.

Following the defeat of the ``Great White Hope,'' the Federal government launched an investigation into the legality of Johnson's relationships with Caucasian women. The Mann Act, which was enacted in 1910, outlawed the transport of Caucasian women across State lines for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for ``any other immoral purpose.'' Using the ``any other immoral purpose'' clause as a pretext, federal law enforcement officials set out to ``get'' Johnson.

On October 18, 1912, he was arrested for transporting his Caucasian girlfriend across State lines in violation of the Act. However, the charges were dropped when the Caucasian, whose mother had originally tipped off Federal officials, refused to cooperate with authorities. She later married Johnson.

Yet Federal authorities persisted in their persecution of Johnson, persuading a former Caucasian girlfriend of Johnson's to testify that he had transported her across State lines. Her testimony resulted in Johnson's conviction in 1913. He was sentenced to 1 year and 1 day in Federal prison. During Johnson's appeal, one prosecutor admitted that ``Mr. Johnson was perhaps persecuted as an individual, but that it was his misfortune to be the foremost example of the evil in permitting the intermarriage of whites and blacks.''

After the trial, Johnson fled the country to Canada, and then traveled to various European and South American countries, before losing his heavyweight championship title in Cuba in 1915. He returned to the United States in 1920, surrendered to Federal authorities, and served nearly a year in Federal prison. Despite this obvious and clear injustice, Johnson refused to turn his back on the country that betrayed him. Mr. Johnson died in an automobile accident in 1946.

The Jack Johnson case is an ignominious stain on our Nation's history. Rectifying this injustice is long overdue. Again, this resolution calls on the President to pardon Mr. Johnson posthumously. It recognizes the unjustness of what transpired, and sheds light on the achievements of an athlete who was forced into the shadows of bigotry and prejudice. Johnson was a flawed individual who was certainly controversial. But he was also a historic American figure, whose life and accomplishments played an instrumental role in our Nation's progress toward true equality under the law. And he deserved much better than a racially motivated conviction, which denied him of his liberty and served to diminish his athletic, cultural, and historic significance.

We are quickly coming up on the 65th anniversary of Jack Johnson's death, and we should take this opportunity to allow future generations to grasp what he accomplished against great odds and appreciate his contributions to society unencumbered by the taint of his criminal conviction. We know that we cannot possibly right the wrong that was done to Jack Johnson, but we can take this small step towards once again acknowledging his mistreatment and removing the cloud that casts a shadow on his legacy. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr, President, today I share the honor with Chairman Lieberman of introducing the First Responders Protection Act of 2011. This bill would provide 10 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz spectrum band to the public safety broadband licensee, make available funding for the construction, operation and maintenance of a nationwide interoperable communications network, and ensure proper governance.

In 2004, the 9/11 Commission's Final Report recommended the ``expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum to public safety entities.'' Shortly thereafter, Senator Lieberman and I introduced a bill to provide spectrum to public safety; however the Senate voted down that bill. We reintroduced the bill in 2005, month before Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. But our efforts were blocked. Fortunately, Congress finally wrestled some spectrum away from the television broadcasters in 2009 and provided it to public safety. However, public safety has additional spectrum needs.

Almost every other recommendation of the 9/11 Commission has been implemented, but this important recommendation remains unfulfilled. I can only imagine how many lives could have been saved on 9/11 if this spectrum had been available at that time. How many firefighters would be alive today if they could have communicated with their battalion chief at the base of the World Trade Center?

In 2007, I introduced legislation to auction the remaining public safety spectrum to a commercial carrier that would then build out a network for public safety. The FCC held such an auction, but no bidder met the reserve price. Ten megahertz of spectrum remains available for public safety's needs. The FCC had announced its intention to auction this spectrum to a commercial provider. Thankfully, the White House announced late last year that it now supports the spectrum being provided to first responders for the construction of a nationwide public safety network, as did the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Specifically, this legislation would license the remaining spectrum to the public safety broadband licensee that has been previously approved by the FCC as a qualified licensee and represents more than three dozen national public safety organizations. The legislation provides authority to local jurisdictions to make decisions on the spectrum use, network build-out and equipment. The men and women fighting crime and saving lives know what communications systems and technology are best for them. Not Washington.

Lastly, this bill provides funds for grants to localities for the construction, operation and maintenance of an interoperable communications network. These funds will come from the proceeds of a commercial spectrum auction, thereby not adding to our Nation's burgeoning debt or raising taxes on all Americans.

As we approach the 10 year commemoration of the horrific events on September 11th and the six year remembrance of the devastating tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, it is a disgrace that police officers, sheriffs and fire fighters still don't have a nation-wide interoperable communications system. Our legislation provides the spectrum and funding to first responders, while being fiscally responsible and ensuring local control and conscientious governance.

Providing ten megahertz of spectrum to public safety, as this bill does, is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Sheriffs Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs Association, the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, International, APCO, the National Emergency Managers Association, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the International City/County Management Association.

We have slightly more than one hundred days until the ten year anniversary of the horrific events of 9/11. I hope over the next 100 days the Senate Majority Leader will consider bringing this bill to the floor for full consideration and that at that time my colleagues will join me and Senator Lieberman in providing public safety with the interoperable communications network they deserve. It is the least we can do for those who put their lives in danger each and every day to protect all of us.

Mr, President, today I share the honor with Chairman Lieberman of introducing the First Responders Protection Act of 2011. This bill would provide 10 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz spectrum band to the public safety broadband licensee, make available funding for the construction, operation and maintenance of a nationwide interoperable communications network, and ensure proper governance.

In 2004, the 9/11 Commission's Final Report recommended the ``expedited and increased assignment of radio spectrum to public safety entities.'' Shortly thereafter, Senator Lieberman and I introduced a bill to provide spectrum to public safety; however the Senate voted down that bill. We reintroduced the bill in 2005, month before Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. But our efforts were blocked. Fortunately, Congress finally wrestled some spectrum away from the television broadcasters in 2009 and provided it to public safety. However, public safety has additional spectrum needs.

Almost every other recommendation of the 9/11 Commission has been implemented, but this important recommendation remains unfulfilled. I can only imagine how many lives could have been saved on 9/11 if this spectrum had been available at that time. How many firefighters would be alive today if they could have communicated with their battalion chief at the base of the World Trade Center?

In 2007, I introduced legislation to auction the remaining public safety spectrum to a commercial carrier that would then build out a network for public safety. The FCC held such an auction, but no bidder met the reserve price. Ten megahertz of spectrum remains available for public safety's needs. The FCC had announced its intention to auction this spectrum to a commercial provider. Thankfully, the White House announced late last year that it now supports the spectrum being provided to first responders for the construction of a nationwide public safety network, as did the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Specifically, this legislation would license the remaining spectrum to the public safety broadband licensee that has been previously approved by the FCC as a qualified licensee and represents more than three dozen national public safety organizations. The legislation provides authority to local jurisdictions to make decisions on the spectrum use, network build-out and equipment. The men and women fighting crime and saving lives know what communications systems and technology are best for them. Not Washington.

Lastly, this bill provides funds for grants to localities for the construction, operation and maintenance of an interoperable communications network. These funds will come from the proceeds of a commercial spectrum auction, thereby not adding to our Nation's burgeoning debt or raising taxes on all Americans.

As we approach the 10 year commemoration of the horrific events on September 11th and the six year remembrance of the devastating tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, it is a disgrace that police officers, sheriffs and fire fighters still don't have a nation-wide interoperable communications system. Our legislation provides the spectrum and funding to first responders, while being fiscally responsible and ensuring local control and conscientious governance.

Providing ten megahertz of spectrum to public safety, as this bill does, is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Sheriffs Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs Association, the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, International, APCO, the National Emergency Managers Association, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the International City/County Management Association.

We have slightly more than one hundred days until the ten year anniversary of the horrific events of 9/11. I hope over the next 100 days the Senate Majority Leader will consider bringing this bill to the floor for full consideration and that at that time my colleagues will join me and Senator Lieberman in providing public safety with the interoperable communications network they deserve. It is the least we can do for those who put their lives in danger each and every day to protect all of us.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for the duration of my remarks.

Mr. President, the successful end of the 10-year manhunt to bring Osama bin Laden to justice has appropriately heightened the Nation's appreciation for the diligence, patriotism, and courage of our Armed Forces and our intelligence community. They are a great credit and inspiration to the country that has asked so much of them and, like all Americans, I am in their debt.

But their success has also reignited debate over whether the so- called enhanced interrogation techniques of enemy prisoners, including waterboarding, were instrumental in locating bin Laden and whether they are necessary and justifiable means for securing valuable information that might help prevent future terrorist attacks against us and our allies and lead to the capture or killing of those who would perpetrate them. Or are they, and should they be, prohibited by our conscience and laws as torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

I believe some of these practices--especially waterboarding, which is a mock execution, and thus to me indisputably torture--are and should be prohibited in a nation that is exceptional in its defense and advocacy of human rights. I believe they are a violation of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions, all of which forbid cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of all captured combatants, whether they wear the uniform of a country or are essentially stateless.

I opposed waterboarding and similar so-called enhanced interrogation techniques before Osama bin Laden was brought to justice, and I oppose them now. I do not believe they are necessary to our success in our war against terrorists, as the advocates of these techniques claim they are.

Even more importantly, I believe that if America uses torture, it could someday result in the torture of American combatants. Yes, I know al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations do not share our scruples about the treatment of enemy combatants, and have and will continue to subject American soldiers and anyone they capture to the cruelest mistreatment imaginable. But we must bear in mind the likelihood that someday we will be involved in a more conventional war against a state and not a terrorist movement or insurgency and be careful that we do not set a standard that another country could use to justify their mistreatment of our prisoners.

Lastly, it is difficult to overstate the damage that any practice of torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment by Americans does to our national character and historical reputation--to our standing as an exceptional nation among the countries of the world. It is too grave to justify the use of these interrogation techniques. America has made its progress in the world not only by avidly pursuing our geopolitical interests, but by persuading and inspiring other nations to embrace the political values that distinguish us. As I have said many times before, and still maintain, this is not about the terrorists. It is about us.

I understand the reasons that govern the decision to approve these interrogation methods, and I know those who approved them and those who employed them in the interrogation of captured terrorists were admirably dedicated to protecting the American people from harm. I know they were determined to keep faith with the victims of terrorism and to prove to our enemies that the United States would pursue justice tirelessly, relentlessly, and successfully, no matter how long it took. I know their responsibilities were grave and urgent, and the strain of their duty was considerable. I admire their dedication and love of country. But I dispute that it was right to use these methods, which I do not believe were in the best interests of justice or our security or the ideals that define us and which we have sacrificed much to defend.

I do not believe anyone should be prosecuted for having used these techniques in the past, and I agree that the administration should state definitively that no one will be. As one of the authors of the Military Commissions Act, which I believe prohibits waterboarding and other ``enhanced interrogation techniques,'' we wrote into the language of the law that no one who used them before the enactment of the law should be prosecuted. I do not think it is helpful or wise to revisit that policy.

Many advocates of these techniques have asserted their use on terrorists in our custody, particularly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, revealed the trail to bin Laden--a trail which had gone cold in recent years but would now lead to his destruction. The former Attorney General of the United States, Michael Mukasey, recently claimed that ``the intelligence that led to bin Laden . . . began with a disclosure from

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information--including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.'' That is false.

With so much misinformation being fed into such an essential public debate as this one, I asked the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta, for the facts, and I received the following information:

The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. We did not first learn from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the real name of bin Laden's courier, or his alias, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti--the man who ultimately enabled us to find bin Laden. The first mention of the name Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaida, came from a detainee held in another country. The United States did not conduct this detainee's interrogation, nor did we render him to that country for the purpose of interrogation. We did not learn Abu Ahmed's real name or alias as a result of waterboarding or any ``enhanced interrogation technique'' used on a detainee in U.S. custody. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed's real name, his whereabouts, or an accurate description of his role in al- Qaida.

In fact, not only did the use of ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden's courier, Abu Ahmed, it actually produced false and misleading information. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married, and ceased his role as an al-Qaida facilitator--which was not true, as we now know. All we learned about Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti through the use of waterboarding and other ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the confirmation of the already known fact that the courier existed and used an alias.

I have sought further information from the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and they confirmed for me that, in fact, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee--information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti's real role in al-Qaida and his true relationship to Osama bin Laden--was obtained through standard, noncoercive means, not through any ``enhanced interrogation technique.''

In short, it was not torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees that got us the major leads that ultimately enabled our intelligence community to find Osama bin Laden. I hope former Attorney General Mukasey will correct his misstatement. It is important that he do so because we are again engaged in this important debate, with much at stake for America's security and reputation. Each side should make its own case but do so without making up its own facts.

For my part, I would oppose any legislation, if any should be proposed, that is intended to authorize the administration to return to the use of waterboarding or other methods of interrogation that I sincerely believe are torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading, and as such unworthy of and injurious to our country. This debate is ongoing, but I do not believe it will lead to a change in current policy prohibiting these methods.

Perhaps this is a debate for the history books. But it is still important because Americans in a future age, as well as their leaders, might face these same questions. We should do our best to provide them a record of our debates and decisions that is notable not just for its passion but for its deliberativeness and for opinions that were formed by facts, and formed with scrupulous care by both sides for the security of the American people and the success of the ideals we cherish. We have a duty to leave future American generations with a history that will offer them not confusion but instruction as they face their crises and challenges and try to lead America safely and honorably through them. Both sides cannot be right, of course, but both sides can be honest, diligent, and sincere.

Let me briefly elaborate my reasons for opposing the return to these interrogation policies.

Obviously, to defeat our enemies we need intelligence, but intelligence that is reliable. We should not torture or treat inhumanely terrorists we have captured. I believe the abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my personal experience, the abuse of prisoners sometimes produces good intelligence but often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear--whether it is true or false--if he believes it will relieve his suffering. Often, information provided to stop the torture is deliberately misleading, and what the advocates of cruel and harsh interrogation techniques can never prove is that we could not have gathered the same intelligence through other more humane means--as a review of the facts provides solid reason to be confident that we can. The costs of assuming otherwise can be hugely detrimental.

It has been reported, and the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee confirms for me, that a man named Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi had been captured by the United States and rendered to Egypt where we believe he was tortured and provided false and misleading information about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program. That false information was ultimately included in Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement to the U.N. Security Council and, I assume, helped influence the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq.

Furthermore, I think it is supremely unfair to the men and women in our intelligence community and military who labored for a decade to locate Osama bin Laden to claim falsely that they only succeeded because we used torture to extract actionable intelligence from a few detainees several years ago. I have not found evidence to suggest that torture--or since so much of our disagreement is definitional, interrogation methods that I believe are torture and which I believe are prohibited by U.S. law and international treaty obligations we are not just a party to but leading advocates of--played an important part in finding and killing bin Laden. Rather, I think his death at the hands of the United States argues quite the contrary, that we can succeed without resort to these methods.

It is also the case that the mistreatment of enemy prisoners endangers our own troops who might someday be held captive. While some enemies, and al-Qaida surely, will never be bound by the principle of reciprocity, we should have concern for those Americans captured by more conventional enemies if not in this war then in the next. Until about 1970, North Vietnam ignored its obligations not to mistreat the Americans they held prisoner, claiming that we were engaged in an unlawful war against them and thus not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. But when their abuses became widely known and incited unfavorable international attention, they subsequently decreased their mistreatment of our POWs.

Some have argued if it is right to kill bin Laden, then it should also be right to torture him had he been captured rather than killed. I disagree. First, the Americans who killed bin Laden were on a military mission against the leader of a terrorist organization with which we are at war. It was not a law enforcement operation or primarily an intelligence operation. They could not be certain that bin Laden, even though he was unarmed, did not possess some means of harming them--a suicide vest, for instance--and they were correctly instructed to take no unnecessary chances in the completion of their mission.

Second, bin Laden was a mass murderer. Had we captured him, he would have eventually received the ultimate sanction for his terrible crimes, as captured war criminals in previous wars have. But war criminals captured, tried, and executed in World War II, for instance, were not tortured in advance of their execution, either in retaliation for their crimes or to elicit information that might have helped us locate, apprehend, and convict other war criminals. This was not done because civilized nations have long made a distinction between killing and injuring in the heat of combat, on the one hand, and the deliberate infliction of physical torture on an incapacitated fighter on the other.

This distinction is recognized not only in longstanding American values

and practices but also in the Geneva Conventions that provide legal protections for our own fighting men and women.

All of these arguments have the force of right but, ultimately, even they are beside the most important point. There are many arguments to be made against torture on practical grounds. As I have said, I believe torture produces unreliable information, hinders our fight against global terrorism, and harms our national interest and reputation. But, ultimately, this debate is about far more than technical or practical issues. It is about far more than whether torture works or does not work. It is about far more than utilitarian matters.

Ultimately, this is about morality. What is at stake is the very idea of America--the America whose values have inspired the world and instilled in the hearts of its citizens the certainty that no matter how hard we fight, no matter how dangerous our adversary, in the course of vanquishing our enemies, we do not compromise our deepest values. We are America, and we hold our ourselves to a higher standard. That is what is at stake.

Although Osama bin Laden is dead, America remains at war, and to prevail in this war we need more than victories on the battlefield. This is a war of ideas as well, a struggle to advance freedom in the face of terror in places where oppressive rule has bred the malevolence that feeds the ideology of violent extremism. Prisoner abuses exact a terrible toll on us in this war of ideas. They inevitably become public, and when they do they threaten our moral standard and expose us to false but widely disseminated charges that democracies are no more inherently idealistic and moral than other regimes.

I understand that Islamic extremists who resort to terror would destroy us utterly if they could obtain the weapons to do so. But to defeat them utterly, we must also prevail in our defense of the universal values that ultimately have the greatest power to eradicate this evil ideology.

Although it took a decade to find him, there is one consolation for bin Laden's 10-year evasion of justice. He lived long enough to see what some are calling the Arab spring, the complete repudiation of bin Laden's world view and the cruel disregard for human life and human dignity he used to advance it. In Egypt and Tunisia, Arabs successfully reclaimed their rights from autocracies to determine their own destiny without resort to violence or the deliberate destruction of innocent life. Now Arabs are trying valiantly, by means as just as their cause, to do the same in Syria and elsewhere.

As the United States discusses and debates what role we should play to influence the course of the Arab spring, can we not all agree that the first and most obvious thing we can do is stand as an example of a just government and equal justice under the law, as a champion of the idea that an individual's human rights are superior to the will of the majority or the wishes of the government?

Individuals might forfeit their life and liberty as punishment for breaking laws, but even then, as recognized in our Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, they are still entitled to respect for their basic human dignity, even if they have denied that respect to others.

I do not mourn the loss of any terrorist's life, nor do I care if in the course of serving their malevolent cause they suffer great harm. They have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next. What I do mourn is what we lose when by official policy or official neglect we allow, confuse, or encourage those who fight this war for us to forget that best sense of ourselves, that which is our greatest strength; that when we fight to defend our security, we also fight for an idea, not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion, but for an idea that all men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.

It is indispensable to our success in this war that those we ask to fight it know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to our country, they are never expected to forget they are Americans and the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should be governed and conduct their relations with others--even our enemies.

Those of us who have given them this onerous duty are obliged by our history and the many terrible sacrifices that have been made in our defense to make clear to them that they need not risk our country's honor to prevail, that they are always--through the violence, chaos, and heartache of war, through deprivation, cruelty and loss they are always Americans, and different, stronger, and better than those who would destroy us.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, may I thank my very honorable friend and adversary for his kind remarks. I will always remember them. I thank him.

Mr. President, during my 24 years in the U.S. Senate I have not once voted against cloture for a nominee to the district court, and I will not do so today. As a member of the ``Gang of 14'' in 2005, I agreed that ``Nominees should be filibustered only under extraordinary circumstances.'' The nomination of Mr. McConnell does not rise to a level of ``extraordinary circumstances.''

However, I am deeply troubled by Mr. McConnell's less than candid responses

to the Senate Judiciary Committee, his liberal judicial philosophy, including his public antipathy toward private enterprise, and his strong political activism. For these reasons, I will not support his nomination.

Shaping the judiciary through the appointment power is one of the most important and solemn responsibilities a President has and certainly one that has a profound and lasting impact. The President is entitled to nominate those whom he sees fit to serve on the Federal bench, and unless the nominee rises to ``extraordinary circumstances,'' I have provided my constitutional duty of ``consent'' for most nominees.

While I would not have chosen Mr. McConnell as a nominee to the Federal bench if I were in a position to nominate, I respect the President's ability to do so and therefore will vote for the cloture motion on Mr. McConnell's nomination, but will strongly oppose his nomination to the Federal bench.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of S. Res. 159, honoring the members of the military and intelligence community who carried out the mission that killed Osama bin Laden. I am as happy to rise today as at any time in the past 10 years--and it has been for the last 10 years that I have eagerly awaited the moment when my colleagues and I could take to this floor and celebrate the news we got this Sunday: that we got Osama bin Laden. Justice has been done. The world has become a better place now that bin Laden is no longer in it.

This is a time for national unity and celebration. It is a time to finally close a painful chapter in the history of our Nation, even as our larger fight continues. And, most of all, it is a time to give thanks and recognition to a distinguished group of our fellow citizens

who will forever occupy an honored place in our history.

I want to echo my colleagues in offering my humble thanks to the brave men who carried out the daring operation, as well as to the men and women in uniform who enabled their success. I have been involved in national security my entire life, and I am hard pressed to come up with another military operation that demonstrated such sophistication, such professionalism, such precise and lethal effectiveness to accomplish such a momentous and consequential objective. I am truly in awe of what these young men have accomplished, and I thank God that our Nation continues to produce heroic warriors such as them who are willing to give everything, to sacrifice everything, to devote their lives not to the quest for wealth or fame but to the service of a just and noble cause that is greater than their self-interests. We do not yet know their names, but we honor their achievements and we celebrate their heroism. They have made history and earned their place in it.

I want to offer the same praise for our intelligence professionals. It is a truism that intelligence fails in public and succeeds in private. So it is a great day indeed when we can celebrate such a public success of our intelligence professionals. There are men and women across our intelligence community who have devoted the past 10 years, and many more before that, to finding bin Laden. Despite setbacks and sacrifice, despite the loss of leads and the death of friends, regardless of whether the trail was hot or cold, they woke up every day and carried on the fight. And now we honor the fruits of their perseverance and sacrifice, even as they themselves remain hard at work--exploiting the new information we have recovered, analyzing the new data, and setting up the next operation.

I also want to offer my deepest congratulations and appreciation to the President and his national security team. I credit them with making the elimination of Osama bin Laden their top priority--and for accomplishing it so impressively. Regardless of the myriad groups and parties and factions into which we Americans divide ourselves on a daily basis, the killing of Osama bin Laden is a national triumph and all Americans should feel proud and appreciative of the leadership shown by President Obama and his team on this matter.

I specifically want to credit the President with ordering an airborne assault by ground forces rather than aerial bombardment. It would have been a lot easier to simply turn bin Laden's compound into a smoldering crater, but it would have denied us the certainty we now have that bin Laden is dead. It took real courage to assume the many risks associated with putting boots on the ground, and I strongly commend the President for it.

I would be remiss if I did not also thank President Bush and the many officials who labored with him for 8 years to do what has now been done. I know it is one of President Bush's regrets that he could not eliminate bin Laden on his watch, but he and his team should take solace in the knowledge that they laid the foundation for Sunday's operation, and they deserve credit for that.

Finally, I want to say a word to the many American families for whom this celebration is bittersweet because it recalls memories of the mothers and fathers, spouses and siblings, sons and daughters, who were stolen from them, and from us all--not just in the September 11 attacks but in the many acts of mass murder for which Osama bin Laden was guilty. No act of man can fill the aching emptiness of a loved one lost. For that there is only the grace of God. But it is my sincerest hope that the elimination of Osama bin Laden--this act of justice done--will help to ease the pain and bring closure to what has surely been a decade of torment, as we were daily reminded that the world's most wanted terrorist was still free.

I also want to credit the families of the victims of September 11, 2001. Had it not been for their relentless efforts and advocacy, Congress would not have established the 9/11 Commission and adopted many of its important reforms of our national security establishment-- reforms that no doubt were instrumental in facilitating the joint and collaborative operation to find and kill Osama bin Laden. I could not imagine a greater contribution that the 9/11 families could have made.

Of course, the death of Osama bin Laden does not portend the elimination of al-Qaida or the end of terrorist plots and attacks against our country. We must remain vigilant in our pursuit of every enemy who would do harm to us and our friends and allies. And we shall do so. But there is no denying that the death of Osama bin Laden will have a significant impact in this long war. It will enable us to focus more of our time and attention and resources on others who would do us harm. Perhaps more importantly, it will enable our country to look more fully forward--to focus more completely on supporting the peaceful democratic awakenings that are sweeping the Middle East and North Africa, which are the greatest repudiation of al-Qaida that we ever could have imagined or hoped for.

If there is any consolation in the fact that Osama bin Laden lived as long as he did, it is that he got to witness Arabs and Muslims by the tens of millions rising up to demand justice and dignity, not through suicide bombings and mass murder, but through peaceful change, political freedom, and economic opportunity--the very ideas that bin Laden's perverse and murderous ideology seeks to destroy. That could be the truest death knell of al-Qaida, and I for one am very happy that Osama bin Laden got to hear it--just before a team of American heroes ended his wretched life.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, after much drama and anticipation late last Friday night, literally minutes before the government was scheduled to shut down, as we all know, a deal was struck to pass a weeklong continuing resolution and keep the government operating. That was the seventh continuing resolution we have passed since the start of the fiscal year last October.

Now we are appearing to consider the eighth and final continuing resolution to fund the government for the remaining 5 months of the fiscal year. Amazing. Eight continuing resolutions were necessary to fund the government for 1 year because my friends on the other side of the aisle neglected to bring a single one of the annual appropriations bills to the floor for consideration last year.

As my colleagues know, in addition to continued funding for all government operations, the measure we will consider tomorrow includes appropriations for the Department of Defense for the remainder of the fiscal year. Unfortunately, on top of the typical run-of-the-mill Washington budget gimmickry, this agreement also contains a gross misallocation of imperative defense resources.

The Defense Department funding portion of this bill proposes $513 billion for the routine operations of the Department of Defense and approximately $17 billion in military construction, for a total of $530 billion. This amount is $19 billion less than the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Defense Department and its related military construction projects and $10 billion less than the $540 billion the Secretary of Defense had testified was the minimum amount the Department needed to execute its national defense mission.

In addition, this bill also funds an additional $157.8 billion for overseas contingency operations, or war funding, to support our troops in combat, consistent with the President's budget request.

I might add that the amounts Secretary Gates described as essential in January did not foresee that the United States would expend more than $650 million enforcing the no-fly zone in Libya, an amount that will most likely increase over the remaining months of the fiscal year.

While this may seem like a defense funding level that we can live with in a tough fiscal climate bill, the bill is not what it appears to be on the surface.

As the Secretary of Defense pointed out last week, funding to support the warfighter is degraded in this bill because billions in the war- funding accounts--my staff has estimated close to $8 billion--have been allocated by the Appropriations Committee for new spending not requested by the administration or transferred to pay items

that were originally requested in the base budget for nonwar-related expenses. For instance, the bill shifts $3.2 billion in nonwar funding to the war-funding account to artificially lower defense spending for day-to-day operations but by doing so reduces funds for the warfighter. Here is an example. The appropriators have added $495 million for nine additional F-18s and funds them as part of the war-funding budget even though we have not lost any F-18s in the current conflicts.

Additionally, the appropriators added $4.8 billion in unrequested funding to the war-funding part of the Defense bill for programs and activities that the President and Secretary Gates did not seek. For example, $192 million was added for additional missile defense interceptors. There was no administration request for these funds. And missile defense expenses are in no way related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So this bill uses gimmicks and shell games to artificially lower the defense base budget rather than playing by the rules and actually demonstrating our commitment to fiscal responsibility. By doing so, it takes away billions of dollars that were originally requested for ongoing combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to support our troops where it is most needed.

Within the $19 billion lower top line of the base defense budget, this bill continues business as usual with cuts exceeding $5 billion to the amounts the President and Secretary Gates requested for critical defense programs in order to pay for over $3.7 billion in unjustified and unexplained increases to other accounts.

In addition to these shifts away from the Department of Defense priorities, this bill also adds over $1.4 billion for projects that were not requested by the Department and are not considered core activities of the Department of Defense.

Let me give you examples of those misallocated resources. It includes $473 million in non-Department of Defense medical research not requested in the President's budget; $227 million in other medical research related to Department of Defense fields but not requested by the Pentagon; $550 million for local roads and schools not requested by the administration. It adds an additional $3.7 billion in program increases not justified by an unfunded request by the service chiefs or by the administration; adds unrequested funds for the Red Cross, $24 million; Special Olympics, $1.2 million; youth mentoring programs, $20 million. These are good programs, but they have no place in the Department of Defense. They should be in other areas. It cuts about $1 billion in military construction requested in the President's budget, including $258 million for projects in Bahrain, the headquarters of the Navy's Fifth Fleet. It adds a reporting provision designed to be the first step in forcing the National Guard to buy firefighting aircraft rather than lease commercially available aircraft. It authorizes a multiyear procurement of Navy MH-60 helicopters.

I want to be clear here. I know that cancer research is a popular cause on a bipartisan basis and that it has value in the larger scheme of things. I am not against funding for medical research to fight the scourge of cancer and other diseases. I support funding for these programs that are requested by the administration for the Department of Health and Human Services. But this sort of general medical research funding has no place in a defense bill. Placing it there, which the appropriators have done year after year, undercuts the fiscal responsibility and prioritization process we expect our Federal agencies to undertake when allocating scarce resources.

So the Department of Defense is not only getting a significantly lower amount in its 2011 budget--$19 billion below what it asked for to support its routine operations and carry out its day-to-day national security mission and $10 billion below what Secretary Gates said in January was essential for the Department's ability to continue to function, but it is also being directed to spend about $8 billion in funding for items that do not directly support the men and women in the military.

Let me point out one more disturbing aspect of the DOD portion of this bill. I understand from an exchange between my staff and the staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee that the committee is appropriating only ``top-line dollar amounts'' in this bill and not providing the customary tables, which is the description for each account, which outline the specifics of what is being funded. Instead, I have learned that the committee plans to communicate directly with the Office of the Secretary of Defense on funding levels in specific items.

I do not have a problem with the Appropriations Committee providing a top-line dollar amount to the Pentagon and allowing the Secretary of Defense to fund our national security priorities as he sees fit. I am deeply concerned about the lack of transparency associated with this plan. I hope it is not a way to get around the earmark moratorium currently in place in both Houses. If a Member of Congress is dictating, through the Appropriations Committee, the use of scarce defense funds, it is an earmark, even if it was done over the phone. I urge the Department of Defense to not view such communications as law or a mandate.

As I noted earlier, in addition to the misallocation of defense resources, this so-called deal uses typical Washington smoke-and-mirror tactics to achieve savings. According to expert analysis and numerous press reports, the agreement reached by negotiators last week used some of the same budget tricks and gimmickry that have helped us to accumulate our current deficit of $1.4 trillion and a debt of over $14.3 trillion.

Yesterday, in an article by Andrew Taylor of the Associated Press, it was reported that details of last week's hard-won agreement to avoid a government shutdown and cut Federal spending by $38 billion were released Tuesday morning. They reveal that the budget cuts, while historic, were significantly eased by pruning money left over from previous years using accounting sleight of hand and going after programs President Obama had targeted anyway. The article also noted that details of the agreement ``reveal a lot of one-time savings and cuts that officially score as cuts to pay for spending elsewhere, but often have little or no impact on the deficit.''

Additionally, an editorial appeared in today's Wall Street Journal titled ``Spending Cut Hokum: GOP leaders hyped their budget savings.'' In part, the editorial states:

After separating out the accounting gimmicks and one-year

savings, the actual cuts look to be closer to $20 billion

than to the $38 billion that both sides advertized. But the

continuing resolution also saves money on paper through

phantom cuts. The whopper is declaring $6.2 billion in

savings by not spending money left from the 2010 Census.

Congress also cuts $4.9 billion from the Justice Department's

Crime Victims Fund, but much of that money was tucked away in

a reserve fund that would not have been spent this year in

any event.

The budgeteers claim $630 million in cuts from what are

called ``orphan earmarks,'' or construction that never

started, and $2 billion more for transportation projects,

some of which were likely to be canceled. The Associated

Press reports that $350 million in savings comes from a 2009

program to pay diary farmers to compensate for low milk

prices. Milk prices are higher this year, so some of that

money also would never have been spent.

An estimated $17 billion comes from one-time savings in

mandatory programs. The cuts are real, but the funding gets

restored by law the next year, which means Republicans will

have to refight the same battles. States lose some $3.5

billion in bonus money to enroll more kids in the Children's

Health Insurance Program, but many states failed to qualify

for that extra funding. These cuts don't reduce the spending

baseline, so there are no compound savings over time.

None of this is enough to defeat the budget at this point,

but it is infuriating given the GOP leadership's flogging of

that $38 billion top-line figure.

Is that the best we can offer the American people right now? In these tough economic times, with record debt and deficits and 8.8 percent unemployment, we give them smoke and mirrors, budget gimmickry, and accounting sleight of hand. Our government is bloated and precious taxpayer dollars are squandered in nearly every agency. You can't pick up a newspaper or go online without seeing reports of waste and duplication throughout Federal bureaucracies. I am pleased some real cuts have been made, but we need to do much more. This deal does little to address the very serious fiscal issues we face as a nation.

I hope as we address the next crisis, which will be, obviously, as we reach the debt limit, that we will have more

serious plans. I also believe it is vitally important, before we raise the debt limit, that we can put this Nation on a path to a balanced budget. We cannot afford to continue to borrow 40 cents out of every dollar we spend in Washington. We cannot afford, as the commercial that many of us have seen on television, to have the Chinese own America's money, and the United States be in such debt that China has an increasing and unhealthy influence on the United States.

I intend to vote for this agreement. I believe we could have done a lot better, but it is a step in the right direction. It is the first time we have made serious efforts to reduce spending in quite a number of years around here. I hope it will serve as something that the American people can support and spur us on to greater efforts in the coming weeks and months.

I notice the presence of the majority leader, and I yield the floor.

That is in the eye of the beholder. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add 4 additional minutes to my 10 minutes.