Floor Statements

Mr. President, first, I would like to ask unanimous consent that two op-eds be printed in the Record. Let me identify them both.

The first is a piece in the Washington Post of today by Robert Samuelson, titled ``Tax Dodge Myths.'' I think he is one of the best economists and writers in this country. He always has something very useful to say, and his column today made the point that it would be folly for the United States to add a tax burden on American corporations such as Coca-Cola, IBM, Microsoft, Caterpillar--companies like that--that are multinational in the sense that they do business here but also do business in other countries.

It simply makes no sense to add a tax burden onto them as if they are doing something unpatriotic by selling our products in other countries as well as in the United States.

The other is a piece called ``The Chrysler Power Grab.'' It was carried in the Arizona Republic on May 6 of this year and was written by the finest columnist in Arizona. His name is Bob Robb.

In this column, he notes the irony of the fact that the United States has been bailing out two American companies--Chrysler and General Motors--for the purpose of saving American jobs, when in point of fact it looks as though a lot of the results of this action are going to be to transfer jobs to other countries and ironically to compete with companies that may be owned abroad, such as Toyota, but have a lot of American workers. He talks about the fact that Fiat, an Italian company, is hard to distinguish from Toyota, a Japanese company, but we are apparently saving the jobs for Fiat but not those for Toyota.

In any event, I think these are two interesting columns, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, let me commend my colleague from Tennessee. I thought his remarks were right on the spot. When we start looking backward instead of forward, we want to be careful what we ask for because we just might get it, and it might be more than we bargained for.

There have been a lot of mistakes the United States has made, a lot we are not very proud of, and my colleague mentioned a couple of those. There were certainly things in the last Democratic administration for which, had some of the officials there had it to do over again, I am sure they would do over. There were things the Republican administration that succeeded the Clinton administration undoubtedly disagreed with, but it seems to me that President Bush has acquitted himself very well as a former President, not criticizing the administration he succeeded, and certainly not suggesting those disagreements should take the form of political trials or even criminal trials. It would be very unseemly for that to occur with respect to the Bush administration now that we have a new Obama administration.

But people who served previously in the Clinton administration, obviously those who served in the Congress and knew something about what went on, would certainly have to be prepared to defend themselves under these circumstances as well. It is just an unseemly way, it seems to me--and I agree with my colleague from Tennessee--for the U.S. Government to be conducting its business. So I commend my colleague, Senator Alexander, for his statement.

Mr. President, on a related matter, the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and what we do about that--as everyone knows, our President fulfilled a campaign promise when he issued an Executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

Both President Bush and Secretary Gates had wanted to close it, but they were confronted with a very difficult problem: what to do with the prisoners at the facility.

President Obama now faces that same dilemma. Campaign rhetoric, it turns out, is one thing; governing is quite another.

There are far more questions than answers about what the administration will do with the prisoners at Guantanamo. Will it hold them? Where will it hold them? Will they be sent to the United States? Will they be kept in military facilities or in Federal prisons here in the United States? How will it guarantee that those who are released do not return to the battlefield?

We don't have answers, of course, to these questions. Yet the administration has asked Congress for $80 million, some of which, as is quite clearly stated in the language of the request, could be used to transfer these detainees to the United States.

Last week, during the House Appropriations Committee's markup of the President's supplemental appropriations request, the chairman struck the $80 million, noting that he could not defend the request because the administration does not have a plan for closure. As the Senate Appropriations Committee prepares to mark up the supplemental request this week, I urge the committee to follow the example of the House of Representatives. Majority Leader Reid has just informed us that the Senate committee would ``fence'' the $80 million, meaning that it would release it only when there is a plan,

but the plan could be almost anything. Nor is there any assurance in the statement that no prisoners could come to the United States until October 1. That is not the kind of assurance that will get the Senate to support this request. As the majority leader said in his classically understated way: ``That looks like an issue that could cause a little bit of debate.'' I am sure he is absolutely correct about that. Surely, we can all agree that the Congress should not approve significant funding requests when we have no idea how the administration will use the funding. Moreover, the stakes are huge. The terrorist population at Guantanamo is dangerous. These are the worst of the worst, some of the most dangerous people in the world.

The 241 terrorists at Guantanamo include 27 members of al-Qaida's leadership, 95 lower level al-Qaida operatives, 9 members of the Taliban's leadership, 12 Taliban fighters, and 92 foreign fighters. Among their ranks are Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and who, in the aftermath of those attacks, was planning a followup to attack a west coast skyscraper.

Another is Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, who served as a key lieutenant for KSM--Khalid Shaikh Mohammed--during the planning for 9/11, and he, in fact, transferred money to the United States-based operative for that plan.

Ramzi bin al-Shibh helped to organize the 9/11 attacks and he was a lead operative in the post-9/11 plot to hijack aircraft and crash them into Heathrow airport.

There is also a terrorist named Hambali, who helped plan the 2002 Bali bombings that killed more than 200 people and who facilitated the al-Qaida financing for the Jakarta Marriott attack in 2004. Abd al Rahim Al Nashire masterminded the attack on the USS Cole which claimed the lives of 17 U.S. sailors in October of 2000.

The prior administration has stated that 110 of these detainees should never be released because of the danger to the United States.

What about those who are considered safe for release? We have been undergoing a review of the prisoners from the time they have been taken, and occasionally we release some because we think they no longer represent a threat. The Department of Defense stated in January that 61 former Guantanamo detainees whom we had released returned to the battlefield against the United States and allied forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. This represents in our criminal terms an 11- percent recidivism rate, and who knows how many of the rest of them may also be engaged in acts of terror. One of these recidivists, Said ali al-Shihri, who was returned to his home in Saudi Arabia after his release from Guantanamo, went to Yemen and he is now the No. 2 in Yemen's al-Qaida branch.

So what are we to do with these people? More than 100 days into the administration, we don't know what their plan is. According to press reports, part of the plan may be to allow one group of these detainees, 17 Uighurs from China, to have residence in the United States.

As the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, noted in two letters to the Attorney General, such an action appears to be prohibited under United States law. Senator Sessions stated in his letter to Mr. Holder:

Just 4 years ago, Congress enacted into law a prohibition

on the admission of foreign terrorists and trained militants

into this country. Accordingly, Congress is entitled to know

what legal authority, if any, you believe the administration

has to admit into the United States Uighurs and/or any other

detainee who participated in terrorist-related activities

covered by section 1182(a)(3)(B).

Congress obviously must have the answer to this question before it considers funding that could possibly be used to bring these and other terrorists and detainees to the United States.

What of the rest of the terrorists? Will the administration bring them to the United States to stand trial? If so, according to what rules? We have been told that the administration was shutting down the military commissions process set up by Congress, but now it appears that that process may be brought back. Will all of the remaining Guantanamo terrorists be tried in that system or will civilian courts be used? And if civilian courts, which ones?

If you can't imagine these terrorists actually being tried in U.S. civilian courts, you might try to imagine a little harder. The most likely locations of trials are in Manhattan or Alexandria, VA--both very high population areas. The 2006 death penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui turned Alexandria into a virtual encampment, with heavily armed agents, rooftop snipers, bomb-sniffing dogs, blocked streets, identification checks, and a fleet of television satellite trucks.

And where will these detainees be held while awaiting trial? Federal prisons, which are already overcrowded, would be overburdened with the obligation of housing terrorist suspects. Zacarias Moussaoui, who spent 23 hours a day inside his 80-square-foot cell, was constantly monitored and never saw other inmates. An entire unit of six cells and a common area was set aside just for him.

If not in Federal prisons, perhaps military prisons. Well, not so fast. Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs noted that extensive work would have to be done on existing military brigs before Guantanamo detainees could be held there:

You can't commingle them with military detainees, so you'd

have to set up a separate wing or clear out the facility.

The structures would have to be reinforced so that they wouldn't be vulnerable to terrorist attacks. He concludes by saying:

And you would have to address secondary and tertiary--

in other words, security--

concerns with the town, the county and the State.

The reality of the situation is that there is simply no better place for these terrorists than the state-of-the-art facility at Guantanamo.

This is why the Senate went on record voting against the proposition that these detainees be brought to the United States. In fact, the Senate agreed to the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Kentucky by a vote of 94 to 3. Among the people voting in support of this resolution were the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Vice President himself while they were Members of this body. So key members of the Obama administration have agreed with the language of the amendment which was that Guantanamo detainees--and I am quoting now--``should not be . . . transferred stateside into facilities in American communities and neighborhoods.''

If the administration has a plan, I will listen to it, but with approximately 8 months to go before the President's arbitrary deadline, I see no good answers to the complicated questions of what to do with the world's most dangerous terrorists.

Before the President asks for appropriations to shut down the Guantanamo facility, appropriations which could be spent to bring these terrorists to the United States, the least he could do is to provide Congress with a plan that explains how Americans will be safer having Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his partners as neighbors.

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

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

Mr. President, we are soon going to be debating a bill that would place limits on the interest rate increases that credit card companies can levy on their debtholders. I look forward to debating the effects this bill will have on American families.

But before we do that, I wish to consider the debt that the Federal Government is accruing--via the budget and stimulus spending--on the Nation's credit card. That is the debt that all American families will be responsible for repaying because, as it turns out, the comparisons between what you owe on your own credit card--the kind of bills you run up on your family credit card--are actually not very different from the debt we are running up on the Federal credit card, except, of course, that the Federal debt is much bigger.

But the reality is that you owe both: your family credit card debt and your portion of the national debt.

President Obama's budget puts us on a course to acquire debt that will reach 82.4 percent of the gross domestic product by the year 2019. What does that mean? The first point is that the debt is not interest free. There is debt interest charged on that just the same as on our personal credit cards. In fact, from Sunday's Washington Post, there is an article called ``The President's Budget'' and in it the Post says the following:

The budget relies on so much borrowing that it will cost

taxpayers more than $4 trillion just to cover interest

payments for the next 10 years--more than twice what the

federal government will spend on education, energy, homeland

security, and veterans combined.

Mr. President, $4 trillion in interest on this debt--just for the next 10 years.

The Government will begin--as a result of the need to pay this back, starting in 2013 we will be paying more than $1 billion per day on finance charges to the people who hold this Federal debt.

Imagine a billion dollars a day in interest payments. I meant U.S. debt. A billion dollars a day in interest payments equates to $3.3 million a day for every American. Think about that--$3.3 million a day to finance the debt for every American citizen.

Can a family play by these same rules and get away with debt that would creep up to 84.2 percent of their total income? Let's use a specific, typical example. A family in my State of Arizona earns an average income of $47,215 a year. Following the example of the President's budget, this family would accrue nearly $38,000 in credit card debt to pay for the things it wants. Again, that is a $47,000 income and $38,000 in credit card debt. That is the same percentage of the family's income that the Federal Government is acquiring as a percent of the Federal income, our national income.

What would that family's situation be like? First, let's focus on these hefty interest payments that I talked about. Say that the family's credit card has a typical annual rate of 10 percent, which would cost $3,800 a year or $316 a month. If the family misses a payment or two, the interest rate can shoot up to 20 or 30 percent a year. That means the family could be spending as much as $11,200 a year just on interest. That is nearly a third of its total debt and nearly a quarter of its total income--just on interest alone. That is owed in addition to the monthly minimum payments for the principal borrowed. Just as the Government has to, the family probably would need to borrow more to get by, and the downward spiral would get worse and worse.

Needless to say, this kind of debt is not sustainable--not for the family or the Federal Government. It would rapidly lower the family's standard of living. In most cases, it would bankrupt them. Beginning to chip away at that kind of debt would require real sacrifice--not just giving up nonessential spending, such as going to the movies or going out to dinner or going to the zoo but fundamental choices that would significantly lower the family's standard of living.

A family with such massive debt would also be considered a big risk for other lenders, so it would be very difficult to go out and get more credit or a loan. This is the situation we are getting into with China, which currently holds almost 10 percent of our Nation's debt. The Chinese are saying to us: We are not sure you are a good credit risk in the future or that we want to lend you any more money. We are relying on the Chinese to continue buying that debt. But in mid-March, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao voiced concerns about U.S. Government bond holdings. He said:

We have lent huge amounts of money to the United States. Of

course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be

honest, I am a little bit worried, and I would like to . . .

call on the United States to honor its word and remain a

credible nation and ensure the safety of Chinese assets.

Of course, this is exactly how credit works. Borrow massive amounts of money, and you are in over your head. A huge chunk of your income is reserved for debt repayments and interest, leaving you with little money to get by or for discretionary spending. You continue to borrow more, and your creditors probably get very nervous. Pretty soon, they may cease lending to you or hike up your interest rates to hedge their additional risk. The only way to get back on track is to stop spending--and that is if you can afford to get back on track by just stopping spending and not having to borrow more or taking bankruptcy.

That is a choice the U.S. Government doesn't have. Yet there are no plans in Washington to halt the out-of-control spending. The massive amount of debt we are accumulating in entitlement obligations alone is more than can be sustained. These are things such as Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. We say that is an obligation we cannot default on. Yet we also know we cannot continue to fund that obligation. As the President's head of the Office of Management and Budget has said, continued debts of the kind we are talking about are unsustainable. There have been some minor reductions in spending noted in the budget. Some are in the area of defense, which is perhaps not the best area to cut back. But the minor amount of spending reduction doesn't go nearly far enough when we are talking about multiple trillions of dollars in spending and debt--$4 trillion just in debt service in the next 10 years alone.

The overwhelming majority of American families, of course, don't engage in this kind of reckless borrowing and spending. They cannot. They have to make hard decisions to determine what they can afford to do.

Washington needs to do the same. These are hard choices. We need to make hard choices. The editorial in the Washington Post from last Sunday made the same point. Again, the title was: ``The President's budget, Leaving the hard choices for the next one.'' It notes that when the President was campaigning, he said:

``We can no longer afford to leave the hard choices for the

next budget, the next administration, or the next

generation,'' declared President Barack Obama last week as he

unveiled his budget.

As the Post notes:

We, yes, but that is exactly what he does.

They conclude that:

We just hope that it is only until the next budget rather

than the next administration.

The bottom line is, the budget sent to us by the President doesn't tackle the big issues, it doesn't reduce spending, it doesn't even cut existing programs substantially, with the net result that we are going to be taking on debt that will require financing of $4 trillion over the next 10 years. As was noted, that is not sustainable. We cannot pay for that, just as a family who makes $47,000 a year cannot afford to take on $38,000 in debt. That is the relative proportion.

One more time, the amount of debt we are taking on compared to our national income is the same ratio as a family making $47,000 taking on $38,000 of debt on their credit card. I am not talking about a 30-year mortgage on the house but something that has to be paid back at the end of the month. And if you don't pay it, your interest rate goes up to 25 or 30 percent. That is simply not sustainable.

I hope that by putting this into the context of a real family budget, it is clear to people this isn't some hypothetical, unrealistic comparison. When we take on this much debt at the Federal Government level, there are real consequences. When you talk about $3.3 million a day for each citizen of the United States to repay in interest alone, you see the magnitude of what we are taking on. We have never done this before in the history of the country. There is no experience of how we would possibly deal with this. This one budget, during this one 10-year window, accumulates more debt than all the debt in the United States in our entire history, from George Washington all the way through George W. Bush. In that 220-year history, we have less debt than is represented in this one budget. That is unsustainable.

The American people cannot make enough money to repay that amount of money. Our standard of living will be diminished substantially. The only way out of it is to reduce the amount of spending in the future. We can start with that right now. We don't have to start after next year. We can actually start with it this year.

I ask my colleagues, as we talk about the budget the President has announced, as we start working on the appropriations bills that will be coming from the Appropriations Committee, that we stop and think about

the amount of debt we are imposing on ourselves, our kids, and our grandkids. That debt will come due more quickly than we think. The consequences could be dire.

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

Madam President, I appreciate the courtesy of my colleague from Michigan.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 131, the Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission Act. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

I object.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond).

Madam President, the bill we passed contains provisions that I support and others that I oppose. I want to indicate why I voted aye. In the end, I think it is critical for Congress to increase the FDIC's borrowing authority to reduce a costly special assessment that the FDIC intends to impose on distressed banks, and therefore I supported the bill.

Over the last 2 years the FDIC has had to take over 41 different failed depository institutions and in the process has depleted its insurance fund. At its current level, the FDIC is required by law to increase its insurance premiums on banks to recapitalize the fund. However, increasing banks' costs now would only worsen the current recession.

Congress can reduce the size of this assessment by 50 percent if it increases the FDIC's borrowing authority from $30 billion to $100 billion. Doing so will help banks hold onto capital that they can use to absorb future losses and make it through these difficult economic conditions.

Unfortunately, this bill would increase the FDIC's borrowing authority at the same time that it would expand the HOPE for Homeowners Program--a $300 billion program designed to allow up to 400,000 borrowers to refinance into an FHA-backed loan. The FHA mortgage program has exploded with the decline of the subprime industry as borrowers have flocked to the Government program. FHA loans are attractive due to the high loan limits--up to $729,250 in high cost areas--and only a 3.5-percent downpayment requirement. According to Inside Mortgage Finance, the FHA's market e jumped to nearly a third of all mortgages in the fourth quarter of 2008 from about 2 percent in early 2006.

At the same time, FHA mortgage defaults have increased sharply and are diminishing the FHA's reserve fund. Roughly 7.5 percent of FHA loans were seriously delinquent at the end of February, up from 6.2 percent a year earlier. The FHA's reserve fund fell to about 3 percent of its mortgage portfolio in fiscal year 2008, down from 6.4 percent in the previous year. By law, the reserve fund must remain above 2 percent. Recently, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee that he did not know whether the FHA would be able to continue to pay its obligations. Many believe that Congress will have to inject additional funding into the FHA.

The HOPE for Homeowners Program will sunset in 2011. I expect the Obama administration to do everything in its power to guarantee the solvency of the FHA mortgage program and will be watching how the Secretary of HUD implements HOPE the for Homeowners Program.

In the end, I believe the broader economy would benefit from an increase in the FDIC's borrowing authority. We cannot recover from this economic downturn until banks have the capital to lend freely to all borrowers. Therefore, I voted for S. 896 despite some reservations that I have with other provisions in the bill.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. President, I join my colleagues in mourning the passing of Jack Kemp last Saturday.

Jack was ever the quarterback, leading, inspiring, and winning frequently, it seemed, by sheer optimism and will. In my mind, Jack had three core political beliefs which he consistently promoted throughout his career. First, he was a pure free market enthusiast. He believed in Adam Smith's invisible hand and worked tirelessly to convince everyone else about the benefits of supply-side economics.

His many legislative achievements promoting growth through lower taxes and less regulation are a testament to his indefatigable efforts. Jack understood that free market theory also encompassed support for what he called ``the least of these,'' a reference to the subjects of ``The Good Shepherd.'' He was the original compassionate conservative, making sure always to provide a helping hand to the less fortunate.

His work to expand housing opportunity as HUD Secretary and outreach to minorities and the poor resulted in a political appeal far beyond his conservative roots. Finally, Jack was a passionate advocate for human rights, freedom, democracy, and the military strength to support America's national security requirements. Peace through strength was Jack's mantra.

Three weeks ago, I visited with Natan Sharansky in Israel. Jack had introduced me to Sharansky more than 20 years ago, after he had gotten out of the Soviet gulag. I told him Jack was ill. He asked me to convey his best wishes. When I left a message on Jack's phone, I asked his office to confirm he had gotten it. A couple days later, Jack himself called back, clearly touched by the concern of an old friend half the world away. I will always treasure this last conversation with Jack. He was still fighting.

We will miss Jack: gregarious, indomitable, earnest, always positive. He loved being with his family. He was very proud of his children. He relied on and was supported by his extraordinarily gracious wife of 51 years, Joanne.

Similar to sports, politics can be a great leveler, even of those who seem larger than life. But whether he won or lost, Jack always kept the faith. And so it was in the last battle of his life.

Jack Kemp, No. 15, thank you for your service, your leadership, and friendship. May God bless you and your family.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that whatever remaining time there is on the Democratic side be preserved in the event that another Democratic speaker would want to speak in morning business.

I will begin the Republican side at this time.

Madam President, President Obama has set an arbitrary deadline of January of 2010 to close our prison at Guantanamo Bay. There is currently no plan on how to accomplish that. Nevertheless, the President has requested $80 million in a supplemental appropriations bill to accomplish it. The question is, before we approve $80 million for this purpose, should we not know what the money is going to be used for? We are not in the business of appropriating large sums of money without having any idea of what is going to happen to the money. There are a lot of questions, but there are virtually no answers.

This facility is virtually brand new. It is a $200 million state-of- the-art prison. I have not heard that any of the money is going to actually go to shutter the facility. That would be very strange, indeed, since I gather even if all of the terrorists were removed from it, there would still be a reason to have that prison so that it could house others. So what is the money going to be used for?

We have not heard that any other country has agreed to take these prisoners. I think France was willing to take one. But presumably very little of this $80 million is going to be used to pay other countries to take these prisoners. So what is the money going to be used for?

Obviously, we will not release them into society. I heard one wag talking about the possibility that they would be given some money and turned loose and directed to make the best of their new life. That, obviously, makes no sense. I haven't heard that any of the $80 million would be used for that purpose.

What could it be used for? Well, I guess the only other option would be these people would be transferred to other prisons, either State prisons or maybe a Federal or a military prison. I will go into why that is not a good idea in a moment. But I suppose some of the money could be used to pay a State prison, for example, or to provide funding for a Federal prison, even though they are already funded, and I am not sure why they should need the additional money. But maybe they need additional security, for example. Perhaps some of the money could be used for that.

Why the number $80 million? Where did that number come from? Is there a plan, and we have not been told about it yet? There are a lot of questions that have to be answered before I am willing to vote to spend $80 million--or not spend it but to authorize $80 million to be spent but on what I do not know.

Let's understand that the reason these terrorists are at Guantanamo Bay--there are two reasons. No. 1, these are the worst of the worst. These are extraordinarily dangerous people who have all said that if given half a chance they will kill Americans or anybody else with whom they disagree. The second reason is, this facility keeps them in a place where they are safe but also we are safe from having the facility attacked in order to release them or to have the guards or the prison officials put into jeopardy as a result of the proximity to terrorists who could have access to them.

Guantanamo Bay is not a place where terrorists can easily get access. As a result, it is the perfect place to keep these kinds of dangerous criminals. We have already let a lot of the people at Guantanamo Bay free because we judged they were not a danger any longer. Unfortunately, we were wrong about many of them. There are well over 30--and I think the number may be over 50 by now--who we actually have information have returned to the battlefield. Some of them, we know, have been killed, some have been captured again, and we know some have gone right back to committing terrorist atrocities. These are people who we thought were rehabilitated or were not terrorists in the first place.

Now we are talking about roughly 240 or 245 who we know are very dangerous if they were ever to be released. What can be done with them? We cannot release them back to the battlefield. We cannot take them to some country such as Switzerland and turn them loose and say: Well, go wherever you want to. Other countries do not want to take them. You cannot turn them over to countries that we believe will obviously mistreat them or will turn them loose.

The only other option I can see is they would be put in some American prison. Think for a moment about that. One reason the prison guards at Guantanamo do not wear any identification is because they do not want these terrorists to know who they are. If they did, it would be possible to locate their families back in the States and to threaten them or actually do harm to them. This is not hard.

If they are transferred to the State prison in Arizona, let's say, what would have to be done there? Well, everybody knows who the warden of the State prison is in Arizona. Is that person and the family going to be jeopardized as a result of the fact that person is in charge of the Arizona prisons? Obviously, all the guards would have to have the same kind of training that our very capable people at Guantanamo have received. This would cost extra money. They could not be identified in any way to these individuals. The facilities would probably have to be hardened in order to ensure there could be no escape.

But as we found in both Afghanistan and Iraq, when terrorists are aware--and I believe this may have happened in Pakistan, though I could be corrected--when terrorists are aware their colleagues are being held in a facility, they make plans to try to spring them and they attack the facility and they try to hold hostages so they can trade for their colleagues who are in the prison.

Is that what we are going to expose Americans to in our communities? These are the kinds of things that have not been thought through and, obviously, have to be thought through. When somebody says to me: Will you vote for $80 million to close the prison at Guantanamo? I am going to say: Tell me what the $80 million is going to be used for. Tell me what the plan is and then I will think about it.

Let me mention--I said before these are the worst of the worst. They include 27 al-Qaida leaders, including the

mastermind of the September 11 attacks, key al-Qaida operatives, and Osama bin Laden lieutenants, as well as the orchestrator of the attack on the USS Cole, which killed 17 American sailors. In total, I believe there are 241 terrorists who remain under military guard at Guantanamo--those who have been identified as too dangerous to be released.

The Attorney General, about a month ago, said about these detainees-- and I am quoting now--for ``people who can be released, there are a variety of options that we have and among them is the possibility that we would release them into this country.''

``Release them into this country''? I cannot imagine the American people being willing to do that.

Senator McConnell asked a question of the Attorney General. He said: What is the legal basis for bringing these terrorist-trained detainees to the United States, given that Federal law specifically forbids the entry of anyone who endorses or espouses terrorism, has received terrorist training or belongs to a terrorist group?

It would be against U.S. law, as well as extraordinarily foolish, to release these people into this country, as the Attorney General intimated. As I said before, transferring them to facilities within our borders would create new terrorist targets.

The Senate has already spoken to this issue. In July of 2007, the Senate voted 94 to 3 that Guantanamo detainees should not be transferred stateside into facilities in American communities and neighborhoods.

So I repeat the question: Where will they go? European nations have said they will not take any of the terrorists because they cannot be integrated into their societies. Well, that is an understatement, to say the least.

Obviously, repatriating them to their native country has proven to be extraordinarily difficult too. That was obviously plan A. But these countries either, A, do not want them; B, could not take care of them; or, C, we believe would mistreat them.

We learned a lesson on repatriation in the case of Said Ali al- Shihri, who was returned home to Saudi Arabia after his release from Guantanamo. He promptly fled to Yemen. He is now a top leader of al- Qaida's Yemeni organization. Yemenis, interestingly, make up the largest population of Guantanamo prisoners. But Yemen has been the hardest country to engage on this issue. Even if it agreed to U.S. demands, it might not be capable of honoring them.

In fact, there are many areas of Yemen today that are very poorly governed. Its borders are porous. I do not think there is any confidence that if prisoners were released to Yemen, they would not immediately go back to the battlefield and we would be facing them again.

We should also keep in mind the conditions at Guantanamo are very good. Everyone who has visited there, I think, has agreed that the detainees are well treated, that they are exercised regularly, fed culturally and religiously appropriate meals, get medical and dental benefits--most far superior to any they had received before that in their life. They have access to mail, a library, are free to practice their religion. The International Committee of the Red Cross has unfettered access to monitor detainees.

It is not as if, in this particular facility, they are being mistreated. In fact, in this particular facility, they probably could be treated better than being returned stateside to some existing prison that would have to be modified in order to provide this kind of treatment for them.

I know of no better alternative than their current incarceration at Guantanamo. They are dangerous people who were picked up on the battlefield or in situations where we have very good reason to believe they are terrorists, that they would engage in terrorism or support terrorism if they were released.

We, obviously, are committed to moving forward because of the President's commitment. I believe the Congress will be willing to work with the President on this very difficult situation. But if the President is going to ask the Congress for money, then the President has to be able to share with us what his plan is, and we will try to help. What I do not think we will do is agree, as the Attorney General suggested, to release them into the United States.

I think it will be extraordinarily difficult to house them in some prison in one of our communities. We clearly have not been able to talk our allies into taking them. It is very difficult to return them to other countries because of the potential they would either be mistreated or immediately go back to the battlefield.

The President has committed to doing something, in my opinion, without thinking through carefully the consequences of the decision and the difficulty of implementing the decision.

To the extent he needs help from Congress, he needs to bring us into the discussion and share with us what he intends to do. Because we are not--as the vote before the Senate clearly indicated--we are not going to endorse a blank check on this and say: Fine, Mr. President, whatever you want to do, even though it could have an adverse impact on our communities or on our country.

That is why, despite the fact there are very good reasons to support other aspects of the supplemental appropriations bill that has been proffered to the Congress, this particular piece has to be modified. Either the President has to make clear what he intends to do with the $80 million, explain to the American people how he intends to move forward on this, or he should defer.

The supplemental appropriations bill, after all, is merely an emergency amount of money that may be needed in a place such as Iraq, Pakistan or Afghanistan, prior to the regular appropriations process taking place. If the President can suggest to us there is some emergency need for this money, then, obviously, we can consider that. But absent that, there is no reason to put it in the supplemental appropriations bill--a bill we need to pass because of the emergencies that do exist in places such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

But short of explaining to us what he wants to do with the $80 million, I do not think this is something the Congress is going to be willing to include in the supplemental appropriations bill.

I would say this to the political operatives who sometimes get involved in these issues: Do not think that you can blackmail the Senate into supporting something such as this because of the urgency of getting the rest of the funds out into the field. Yes, those funds are important. But I think every one of our constituents would rightly be extraordinarily critical of any Senator who simply agreed carte blanche to appropriate $80 million if that meant these prisoners could be released into their communities or even be put behind bars in their communities. We have already spoken out against that, so that should not be part of the plan.

I think it is very important the President understands the Senate cannot approve a bill that has this kind of appropriation in it without bringing us into the process, getting our counsel as to how to deal with the problem, and then ask for our support for the funding to execute that particular plan.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, Senator Durbin's amendment would allow bankruptcy judges to modify home mortgages in bankruptcy court by lowering the principal and interest rate on the loan or extending the term of the loan. The concept in the trade is known as cram-down. It would apply, in his amendment, to all borrowers who are 60 days or more delinquent on payments for loans that originated before January 1, 2009, and would set the maximum value of loans that qualify at $729,000. It is broader than the bill that was tabled in the Senate several months ago.

Senator Durbin sincerely believes his amendment would help save homeowners who are at risk of losing their homes in foreclosure, and I respect that. But many experts believe the cram-down provision would have pernicious, unintended consequences on the mortgage market.

First, it would result in higher interest rates for all home mortgages, exactly what we do not want while we are trying to entice people back into the market. Interest rates on home loans are substantially lower now than other types of consumer loans because of the guarantees current law provides to lenders. If all else fails, the lender always has the right to take back the house for which it lent the money. If we eliminate this security for lenders and increase the risk inherent in making a home loan, then lenders will have to charge higher rates on interest for home loans to cover the risk. The net result of the amendment, in other words, will be higher interest rates for home loans and fewer Americans who will be able to afford to buy a house--not what we need to end the housing crisis.

While attempting to solve a specific problem for a particular group of people, we could end up exacerbating this situation for all the people who would want to refinance or to take out loans in the future.

As I said, experts agree and studies show cram-down will result in higher interest rates. That is why it is opposed by virtually all in the industry.

The Congressional Budget Office warned in January 2008 that cram-down could result in ``higher mortgage interest rates'' because lenders are forced to compensate for potential losses that will be levied upon them in bankruptcy court.

In hearings some years ago before the Senate Finance Committee, in 1999, Senator Grassley asked Lawrence Summers, who now serves as President Obama's head of the National Economic Council, if `` . . . debt discharged in bankruptcy results in higher prices for goods and services as businesses have to offset the losses?'' Mr. Summers responded as follows:

The answer is--it's a complicated question, but certainly

there's a strong tendency in

that direction and also towards higher interest rates for

other borrowers who are going to pay back their debts.

In November 1986, Congress implemented a mortgage cram-down provision for family farmers under chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Act--obviously, the same well-intended purpose here. According to a 1997 study, farmers faced a 25- to 100-basis point increase in the cost of farm real estate loans, as well as increased difficulty in obtaining financing as a result of the cram-down application. The current median value of a new home in the United States is $206,000. A 25- to 100-basis point increase for the $206,000 would increase the cost of the mortgage by over $47,000.

We are talking about substantial impacts as a result of this well- meaning provision that would, in fact, over the entire market be very bad.

Proponents of the bill argue it should be allowed because, after all, bankruptcy law already allows a version of this for vacation homes. Big difference. What proponents do not mention is that to qualify for cram- down on a vacation home mortgage, the debtor is required to pay off the entire amount of the secured claim within the 5-year length of the chapter 13 plan. The Durbin amendment, of course, does not include the requirement that the debtor must pay off the security claim within 5 years. He does not purport to treat cram-down on primary homes the same way the Bankruptcy Code treats them on secondary homes.

There is a third point with respect to this particular amendment. As I said, it is different from what we tabled before. It is a much broader amendment. It is not the sort of narrow, targeted approach to the problem some people like to characterize it as.

Unlike prior proposals, this bill is not limited to the high-risk or subprime loans or other nontraditional loans but allows cram-down for all loans. Let me repeat that. Unlike what we dealt with before in prior proposals, this cram-down amendment is not limited to high-risk or subprime loans or other nontraditional loans. It would allow cram- down for all loans. The only limitation, as I said, is that the loan had to originate before January 1, 2009, and the maximum amount--not much of a limitation--is $729,000, and the borrowers would have had to apply for relief under the Loan Modification Program. Other than that, there is no limitation, and as I said, it would apply to any kind of mortgage. This would, obviously, allow millions of borrowers to enter into bankruptcy and simply walk away from the debt owed on their homes.

I don't take this position lightly because my State is arguably the hardest, certainly one of the hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis. People in my State face this every day. I wish to help Arizonans stay in their homes. Every time I go home, which is virtually every weekend, I talk with people who are, in one way or another, related to the problem because so much of the business in Arizona has to do with home building and development and construction. So many people have had problems with their mortgages. As I said, many are being foreclosed. All the others, the foreclosures, of course, represent a relatively small percentage of the total of 100 percent of loans. Most of the people I talked with are upset because the value of their homes has declined so much, among other things, because of their homes being foreclosed upon. They wonder: When is the market going to hit bottom; when am I going to be able to sell my home for something similar to the equity I have in it.

Values from assessors have shown that values have decreased by some 50 percent in amount. It is in our best interest to see this mortgage market bounce back, to see people be able to buy homes again and, frankly, to sell homes at somewhere near a realistic price related to their real value. This is a good time to enter into the home market if you have the money to do it because prices are so low and interests are so low. But the problem with this bill is it will make the interest rates higher and, therefore, will make it more difficult for people to afford to get into a home, the net result being the recovery will be extended far beyond what it otherwise would be under normal circumstances.

In my home State of Arizona, people are wondering: Will it be 6 months, 1 year, 18 months? I guarantee whatever that amount is, it will be longer if this bill passes. It will be longer because interest rates will increase, people will not be able to sell their homes and, therefore, we will continue to have the problem we currently have.

There are other programs available. I mentioned one. There is the HOPE NOW Program, the HOPE for Homeowners Program, and the President's new $75 billion program that helps borrowers who are facing foreclosure to modify their loans and allow the so-called underwater borrowers to refinance into lower rate mortgages. These are the people whose home value is less than the amount owed on their mortgage.

There are programs available. All of us are talking to banks about working out loans with the people who face foreclosure. But a solution that may be well meaning but would have the unintended consequences this particular amendment has is not the answer. We should not simply grab onto something because it promises to provide some relief to some people, when the reality is that I think all the experts agree the interest rates would be increased, making it much more difficult for the 95 percent or so--I am not sure of the exact percentage--of the other people who would like to see this home mortgage crisis come to an end.

Bottom line: cram-down will not fix the recent downturn in the housing market but only prolong the recovery by increasing interest rates. Instead of encouraging homeowners at risk of foreclosure to file for bankruptcy, the Federal Government should continue to encourage lenders to work with owners to modify loans where it is economically viable for homeowners to remain in their homes. Obviously, not all homeowners are going to be eligible for loan modification. But the answer is not to incentivize bankruptcy by making it as the only means to save one's home.

I hope that when it comes time to vote against the Durbin amendment, we will recognize we have already tabled an amendment which was much more narrowly written and that this is an amendment which deserves to be defeated.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be a full hour of morning business as under the previous order.