Floor Statements

Mr President, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with

the esteemed Senator from Hawaii, the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Inouye.

The bill before us includes a significant cut of $9 million from U.S. SOCOM's SCAR Program--special operations combat assault rifle. The SCAR was selected in a fair and open competition and has undergone some of the most rigorous testing of any small arms program in U.S. history. It is widely regarded as one of the best and most versatile weapons in the world. While this weapon has passed all tests, the only issue now is what mix of versatility--7.62mm models or 5.56mm models--they want to have at the ODA level operational detachment alpha--that is the Special Forces A team level which is as close to the ground level fight as you can get.

I understand there are recent concerns regarding contracting delays and the ability to obligate these funds. I have been assured by SOCOM that they will be able to spend all funds requested within the appropriate timeframe. The Special Forces is intensely engaged in combat operations all over the world including Afghanistan and they need the versatility and capability offered by this unique weapon system. The President's Budget included $9.746 million for this program. The House-passed version of this bill fully funds the President's request. I would encourage the chairman to ensure this program is fully funded in the Senate as requested in the President's budget.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

As I understood the situation, in the last couple of months casualties among American forces are at an all-time high since the invasion. Do you agree with that, I ask the Senator?

It is also my understanding that IED attacks by the enemy have gone up about 1,000 percent and in reaction to that, Secretary Gates has sent 3,000 people over to deal with the IED problem. From my understanding of the testimony yesterday, Admiral Mullen said the force structure we have in place, between the combination of coalition forces and Afghan forces, is not enough to reverse the trends and to regain lost momentum. I thought it was pretty clear that he was telling us something has to change beyond training the Afghan Army.

Would you agree that the longer we leave people in that environment, where the momentum is on the enemy's side, we are doing a great disservice to the 68,000 people who are there? And if you are going to send troops, send them while it matters, send them in enough number to save lives and get the job over sooner rather than later? That is what I think all three of us are saying.

Mr. President, we appreciate your commitment in Afghanistan. Sending troops to get the election conducted

was a wise move. Understanding that Afghanistan is the central battle in the overall war on terror now is a deep understanding on the President's part. The only thing we are saying, the three of us and I think others, is that our military commanders have told us we have lost momentum and the only way to get it back in the short term is more combat power, and every day that we wait makes it much harder for those who are in theatre, and they are dying at levels and being injured at levels we have not known before. That is what drives our thinking. Would you agree with that?

I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 5 minutes.

I would like to pick up where my colleague, Senator Lieberman, left off. The question to ask is, how did the Taliban regain momentum? How do a bunch of fighters, who do not have one airplane, no navy, no heavy weapons to speak of, how could they have regained momentum and begun to reoccupy parts of Afghanistan?

The only answer I can come up with is a vacuum has been created. That vacuum has two components to it: the lack of governance and not enough troops to prevent the Taliban from coming back in some areas of Afghanistan.

I would submit this: If we wait to train the Afghan Army as the only way to stabilize Afghanistan, we are going to waste 2 or 3 years. It is going to get so bad we cannot stand the casualties, and the American people will not tolerate a 2- or 3-year period of where we are just training the Afghan forces, sending them from the training cycle into combat. They are going to fold, just like they did in Iraq. We cannot train an army and have them fight at the same time. We need a little bit of breathing space.

So this idea that we are going to train the Afghan Army, that is the way we will regain momentum against the Taliban, quite frankly will not work. I think Admiral Mullen understood that. What will work is to send more combat power to clear the Taliban from the areas that the Taliban have reoccupied. The Marines are telling us in no uncertain terms, with the right mix of troops they are delivering punishing blows to the Taliban. But we can send 1 million troops to Afghan and still not deal with the fundamental problems they face and the world faces, the legitimacy of the Afghan Government in the eyes of the Afghan people. That is why the Taliban have come back because the Afghan Government has failed. They have failed in almost every respect to give the Afghan people the governance and the hope they need to stand up to the Taliban.

So this is one Senator who believes the way to regain lost momentum is to add more combat power and, yes, train the Afghan Army and police force with a new strategy which we now have in place.

It is labor intensive. It is going to take a lot of time. We have to understand, if we get the Afghan Army up to 400,000, the whole budget of Afghanistan is $800 million a year. It will take $5 billion a year to maintain that army. We are going to end up paying. I hope the American taxpayer understands that. But it is cheaper for us to do that than it is for us to be the 400,000-person army.

So when it comes to cost, it is better to train them and help them with their training and funding than it is for us to stay over there in large numbers forever. But we are going to have to plus up to regain lost momentum. Then we are going to have to focus on the real cause of the deterioration--governance.

The Karzai government has failed in many ways. Corruption is rampant. If, in the next 6 months, some major figures in Afghanistan are not prosecuted for ripping off the Afghan people, then nothing will ever change over there.

I have been a military lawyer serving as a reservist in Afghanistan. I can tell you that everyone who has looked at the Rule of Law Programs will tell you that corruption, narcotics corruption,

is rampant in that country. They need a legal system in Afghanistan that can stand up to the corruption. That means we have to protect the judges from being assassinated; we have to build capacity.

There are less than 500 lawyers in all of Afghanistan. There are 16,000 people in jail. Most of them went to jail without ever seeing a lawyer. We have our work cut out for us. We need benchmarks and measurements so I can go back to South Carolina and every Senator can go back to their constituents and say: We are not throwing good money after bad. We are going to push the Afghan Government to prosecute corruption, to provide security for judges, to find a way to empower the economy beyond the drug trade, and start making hard decisions about how tribal justice systems can be incorporated into the formal justice system.

There are so many decisions that politicians in Afghanistan have failed to make that have allowed the Taliban to come back. We need to put them on notice that with new resources and new troops, a new dynamic will be in place, and they will be making the decisions necessary to provide governance to their people. If they fail to do that, then they will not have our support because, at the end of the day, they have to want it more than we do.

Senator Lieberman is right about this. The good news amidst all of this bad news is the Taliban is very much reviled and hated in the country. But put yourselves in one of these villages out in the middle of Afghanistan. What would you do, knowing that by night the Taliban comes in and rains terror? We have to replace that dynamic and give the people assurance that we are not only going to provide them security but the Afghan Government is going to provide them schooling and education, health care, and some hope.

Finally, I cannot tell you that we will succeed with more troops. I can tell you, we will fail if we do not send more troops. It is so much harder in Afghanistan than in many ways it is in Iraq. We are not the Russians. We are not the British. This is not Vietnam. This is not Iraq.

This is Afghanistan where 9/11 was planned and executed. We can get this right.

Well, the one thing I can tell you is Admiral Mullen is going to be reappointed with probably every person in this body voting for him because he has gained our trust, and it speaks well of the President that he would renominate him. So he has obviously gained the President's trust.

I am not a military commander. But I do not have to be much of a military expert to understand his testimony. His testimony was pretty clear: We have lost momentum. The Taliban is reemerging, stronger than ever, and the capability of the coalition forces and the Afghan Army and security forces combined cannot reverse the momentum. Something new has to happen.

When we put on the table training the Afghan Army without additional combat power, how long would it take before they could have enough numbers to change things? Two or three years.

What would happen during that training period? It would deteriorate further.

What did he tell us? The pathway forward is that we have a new strategy, it needs to be properly resourced. I think what he was telling us more than anything else is that time is not on our side. Casualties in July and August were at an all-time high. We have 68,000 people wearing our uniform in Afghanistan who are getting killed in larger numbers than ever, and the dynamic on the ground will not change the momentum. To do nothing puts them in an environment where they are going to get killed in higher numbers, and what Admiral Mullen is telling us, and I hope the President will listen, is that time is not on our side, but, more importantly, it is not on their side.

This decision about troops, to me, is pretty easy. We need more, but troops alone will not fix Afghanistan. But without more troops in a hurry and with a sense of urgency, we are going to let the Taliban get stronger, the Afghan people are going to get weaker in their resolve, and more Americans are going to die than if we had more troops.

That is what I got out of the hearing. I hope the President is listening.

The last thought about that: I think our memory, the event that we need to remember is even later than 9/11. It is actually in Iraq. I remember very well this whole debate, and I would urge this administration not to do what the last administration did. That is exactly what is going on in Afghanistan right now. It is as if we have learned nothing.

It is clear, just as it was in Iraq, that we did not have enough combat power to secure the country, not enough mentoring programs to actually train the Iraqi Army, and only when we changed the strategy of adding more troops and gave the Iraqi people and the army some breathing space, the politicians, from the violence did things change. It is exactly the same thing here.

But right now we have a dynamic on the ground that is not much different from Iraq the first 3 years after the fall of Saddam Hussein. It is clear that Admiral Mullen recognizes that. The new strategy in March is a counterinsurgency strategy, and Senator McCain, the one thing I remember is numbers matter. We need enough troops per population center to effect change, and we do not have the ratios to enact an effective counterinsurgency strategy unless we add more troops, and that means more than just trainers.

So my frustration is, as you said yesterday: We have seen this movie before. We are putting 68,000 troops in harm's way, and unless we properly resource them, give them more assistance, more people to help them fight, they are not going to change the battle momentum, and they are going to get killed in the process.

There is not enough people to effect the counterinsurgency strategy, just like there was not enough in Iraq. Have we learned nothing? So let's act.

Mr. President, we will support you to the nth degree to get the combat power and the trainers and the civilians into Afghanistan to turn this place around. But the sooner you act, the quicker we

can do it, and the sooner we will come home and the less lives we will lose in the long run. That is our message.

We respect you. You are the Commander in Chief. You won the election. But you have an opportunity, and it is clear to me that we are losing momentum. This is not a time to deliberate. This is a time to act.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are going back and forth. If Senator Lautenberg will let me go, I will not talk long, if that is appropriate.

Today is a day to remember a colleague, a friend, someone whom it was a challenge to oppose and a joy to work with, and I wish we were not here today talking about the passing of Senator Kennedy.

We disagreed on most things but found common ground on big things. And everyone has a story about Senator Kennedy. There has been a lot of discussion about his life, the legacy, his human failings, which we all have, his self-inflicted wounds, and his contribution to the country. But I want to talk about what will be missing in the Senate.

We had a giant of a man who was very principled but understood the Senate as well as anyone I have ever met; he understood the need to give and take to move the country forward.

My experience with Senator Kennedy was, I used his image in my campaign to get elected, like every other Republican did. We do not want another person up to help Ted Kennedy. And he loved it. He got more air time than the candidates themselves. He loved it.

I remember him telling me a story about Senator Hollings. The tradition in the Senate is when you get reelected, you have your fellow Senator from that State follow you down to the well. He went over to Senator Hollings and said: I want you to come down and escort me.

He said: Why? I am from South Carolina.

He said: In my campaign you were. You were the other Senator from South Carolina.

Ted got a lot of fun out of that. I think he appreciated the role he played, and Republicans, almost to a person, would use Senator Kennedy in their campaigns.

But when they got here, they understood Senator Kennedy was someone you wanted to do business with. If you had a bill that you thought would need some bipartisan support, Senator Kennedy is the first person you would think of. And you had to understand the limitations on what he could help you with. He was not going to help you with certain things, because it ran counter to what he believe in. But where you could find common grounds on the big issues, you had no better ally than Senator Kennedy.

We met in the President's Room every morning during the immigration debate, and at night he would call me up and say: Lindsey, tomorrow in our meeting you need to yell at me because you need to get something. I understand that. I will fight back. But you will get it.

The next day he would say: I need to yell at you. It was sort of like all-star wrestling, to be honest with you, and that was fun. Because he understood how far I could go, and he challenged me to go as far as I could. But he never asked me to go farther than I was capable of going. And, in return, he would walk the plank for you.

We had votes on the floor of the Senate on emotion-driven amendments designed to break the bill apart from the right and the left. I walked the plank on the right because I knew he would walk the plank on the left. He voted against amendments he probably agreed with, but he understood that the deal would come unraveled.

The only thing I can tell you about Senator Kennedy, without any hesitation is if he told you he would do something, that is all you needed to hear. A handshake from him was better than a video deposition from most people. I do not how to say it any more directly than that.

Opposing him was a lot of fun because he understood that a give-and- take to move a ball forward was part of democracy, but standing your ground and planting your feet and telling the other side, in a respectful way, to go to hell, was also part of democracy. And he could do it with the best of them. But he could also take a punch as well as give one.

So what we are missing today in the Senate is the spirit of Ted Kennedy when it comes to standing up for what you believe and being able to work with somebody who you disagree with on an issue very important to the country.

If he were alive today, the health care debate would be different. That is not a slam on anybody involved, because this is hard. I do not know if he could deliver, but I think it would be different and I think it would be more hopeful.

The immigration bill failed. But he told me: I have been through this a lot. Hard things are hard for a reason, and it will take a long time. He indicated to me that the immigration debate had all the emotion of the civil rights debate. And that was not something he said lightly.

We sat in that room with Senator Kyl and Senator Salazar and a group of Senators who came and went, and the administration officials, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff, and Commerce Secretary Gutierrez, and we wrote it line by line with our staffs sitting on the wall.

It was what I thought the government was supposed to be like in ninth grade civics. It was one of the highlights of my political life to be able to sit in that room with Senator Kennedy and other Senators and literally try to write a bill that was difficult.

We failed for the moment. But we are going to reform our immigration system. And the guts of that bill, the balance we have achieved, will be the starting point for a new debate. Most of it will become law one day, because it is the ultimate give and take and it made a lot of sense.

I say his wife Vicki, I got to know Ted later in his life. Through him I got to know you. I know you are hurting now. But I hope that all of the things being said by his colleagues and the people at large are reassuring to you, and that as we move forward as a Senate, when you look at the history of this body, which is long and distinguished, around here there are all kinds of busts of people who have done great things during challenging times.

I will bet everything I own that Senator Kennedy, when the history of this body is written, will be at the top echelon of Senators who have ever served. The point is that you can be liberal as you want to be, you can be as conservative as you want to be, and you can be as effective as you want to be. If you want to be liberal and effective, you can be. If you want to be liberal and ineffective, you can choose that route too. The same for being conservative. You do not have to choose. That is what Senator Kennedy taught this body, and I think what he demonstrated to anybody who wants to come and be a Senator. So if you are a left-of-center politician looking for a

role model, pick Ted Kennedy. You could be liberal, proudly so, but you also could be effective.

What I am going to try to do with my time up here is be a conservative who can be effective. That is the best tribute I can give to Senator Kennedy--being somebody on the right who will meet in the middle for the good of the country.

Ted will be missed but he will not be forgotten.

I yield the floor.

This is the time in a person's career you are supposed to lay it on thick. But there is no need to do that in Mel's case. I think everybody here speaking on both sides of the aisle is trying to say thank you for your friendship, and there are a million ways to say it. To Kitty, again, thank you for being part of our lives here. We are going to continue this relationship.

I think all of us have got stories about Mel. I first heard about Mel by reputation. He was a Republican trial lawyer. That intrigued me. There are not many of us. We can meet in a phone booth. I got to know Mel during his campaign and did some events for him. I think that experience of representing people in court made him a good Senator because he understands that there are two sides of every story, and sometimes a person needs the best advocate they can get, even though their cause may not be so popular at the moment.

But I got to know Mel during the immigration debate. That is a hell of a way to meet someone. You will learn quickly when you are talking about politics at that level, that emotional, and Mel was going to be part of that debate whether he wanted to or not because of who he was. You could not talk about immigration and not think about Mel Martinez. He was the first one to show up and he was the last one to leave, and we will get that bill passed one day. It will be a tribute to Mel and Senator Kennedy that the guts of the bill will be the solution that will be embraced down the road.

That was tough politics. We would reminisce at night. And Saxby was involved. We would meet every morning in the room over there, the President's Room, with Senator Kennedy and Senator McCain, trying to figure out where we were based on what happened the night before. Usually we had lost ground, but we kept plugging. But a lot of stories were told about what was going on in Mel's life.

There is a lot of hatred out there, quite frankly. There are a lot of people who should be upset about the immigration system not working and broken borders and legitimately concerned about the solution we were offering. But there were some people who were, quite frankly, hateful. I think Mel took the brunt of that more than anyone else. It did not get a lot of publicity, and probably it should not. But I know what he and Kitty went through to try to fix a broken immigration system. I will be forever grateful for their effort, because it was personally very difficult.

When Mel left a repressive place, he came to a hopeful country, and during that debate he never lost sight of what America is all about. America will never be defined by the people who hate. America will always be defined by people who love and care. I have never met two people who love and care more than Kitty and Mel. You will be missed.

Mr. President, today I ask the Senate to join me in recognizing James Edward Rice on the occasion of his induction into the National Baseball Hall of Fame on July 26, 2009. Mr. Rice is a superior athlete who has made his home State of South Carolina very proud.

Mr. Rice was elected in this, his 15th and final year on the Baseball Writers Association of America, BBWAA, election ballot, with 76.4 percent of the vote. He becomes the third player in Hall of Fame history to be elected by the BBWAA in his final year of eligibility, and he is certainly deserving of this honor.

Jim Rice spent his entire 16-year big league career playing with the Boston Red Sox. Fenway Park was his second home, and he certainly gave the Red Sox organization and fans plenty to cheer about. Mr. Rice played his first game for the club in late 1974, and his career took off shortly thereafter. In 1975 he ended the season as runner-up for Rookie of the Year, second to his own teammate Fred Lynn. After overcoming injuries, Mr. Rice finally settled in and was selected as the American League Most Valuable Player, MVP, in 1978, and throughout the rest of his career he finished in the top five of the MVP selection five other times.

An Anderson, SC, native, Mr. Rice, or ``Ed'' as he was known growing up, found himself in a challenging time of social change. After the public schools were integrated shortly before his senior year of high school, he was sent into a new environment where, according to Alexander Edelman with the Baseball Biography Project, his ``engaging personality and gentle charm won over most . . . and helped ease the racial tension that accompanied integration.'' He quickly made quite an impact in the athletic arena as a member of the football, basketball, and baseball teams. He was an all-State kick returner, defensive back, and wide receiver. But it was his prowess on the baseball diamond that caught the most attention, and he was drafted in the first round of the amateur entry draft at only 18 years old.

Mr. Rice was an incredible asset to the Boston Red Sox, but perhaps his most memorable moment with the team had nothing to do with his abilities on the field. On August 7, 1982 Jonathan Keane, a 4-year-old boy attending his first game in Fenway Park, was sitting along the first base line when he was struck in the head with a line drive foul ball. Alarmed that no one was reacting quickly enough, Jim Rice leapt from the dugout and into the stands. Instinctively he picked up the unconscious boy and, cradling him, ran straight to the clubhouse where the trainer and ambulance were waiting. Tom Keane, Jonathan's father who was with him that day, recalled the event and noted, ``In times like that, you really see the quality of the character of the people involved. Jim Rice is a really humble guy. He doesn't want to take credit for doing anything out of the ordinary . . . I think that's an understatement of what he did that day. He may very well have saved my son's life.''

Jim Rice played his final game with the Boston Red Sox on August 3, 1989, but returned to the organization from 1995 through 2000 as a hitting coach. On November 1, 1995 he was inducted into the Red Sox Hall of Fame in its inaugural class. His plaque can be viewed at Fenway Park along with two of his Silver Slugger awards. In 1999, Sports Illustrated honored him as the ninth best athlete of the 20th Century to come out of South Carolina. And in 2001 he was inducted into the Ted Williams Hitters Hall of Fame.

Mr. Rice and his wife Corine now reside in Andover, MA, where they have raised their two daughters Carissa and Chancey. And though he is not permanently in South Carolina, his presence is still felt in Anderson through a community center named in his honor, the Jim Ed Rice Center.

I ask that the Senate join me in honoring him for his impressive athletic career and newest honor as an inductee into the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Command Sergeant Major Michael W. Glaze, the Regimental Command Sergeant Major of the Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army, for his many years of exceptionally meritorious service to our country. Command Sergeant Major Glaze will retire from the United States Army on September 1, 2009, having completed a distinguished 32- year military career. We owe him a debt of gratitude for his many contributions to our Nation and the legal profession, particularly during operations in support of the Global War on Terror.

He was born in Frankfurt, Germany in 1960, where his father was stationed at the time, his father retired from the U.S. Army with the rank of Sergeant Major. He enlisted in November 1977, completed Basic Training at Fort Knox, Kentucky, Advanced Individual Training at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana and Airborne School at Fort Benning, Georgia. His initial assignments as a Legal Specialist were at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. He then returned to Fort Bragg as a Legal Noncommissioned Officer. Recognized for his superior performance, he then served in the Office of the Chief of Staff of the Army, where he deployed to Kuwait. Following redeployment, he served at the Chief Paralegal at the Fort Belvoir legal office and at the United States Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg. In July 1998, Command Sergeant Major Glaze was selected as the Chief Paralegal for XVIII Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where he deployed on several occasions to Iraq and Afghanistan to check on the welfare of his Soldiers.

Command Sergeant Major Glaze was selected to be the 10th Regimental Sergeant Major for the Judge Advocate General's Corps in 2004. On the 2nd day of October 2006, he was appointed to Command Sergeant Major, the first Command Sergeant Major in the 234-year history of the United States Army Judge Advocate General's Corps. As the Command Sergeant Major of the Judge Advocate General's Corps from March 2004 to September 2009, he was the principal advisor to the Judge Advocate General of the Army and the Deputy Judge Advocate General regarding all enlisted matters for a multi-component force. Additionally, he expertly managed the final stages of the Noncommissioned Officers Academy at the Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School, and directed the final process for professional accreditation.

Command Sergeant Major Glaze's military awards and decorations include: Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal, Armed Forces Service Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, the Kuwait Liberation Medal and he is also authorized to wear the Parachutist Badge.

A Soldier who embodies the very best of Army Values and the Noncommissioned Officer's Creed, Command Sergeant Major Glaze trained and mentored a Noncommissioned Officer Corps that truly is the backbone of the Judge Advocate General's Corps. His integrity is impeccable, his counsel is widely sought, and he remains deeply committed to his Soldiers and their families. He is a leader whose honor and candor were the hallmark of a career spent in selfless service to the Judge Advocate General's Corps, and the United States Army. I know all my colleagues join me in saluting Command Sergeant Major Michael W. Glaze and his wife, Debbie, for their many years of truly outstanding service to the Judge Advocate General's Corps, the United States Army, and our great Nation.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his kind comments. I have been a military lawyer for a while, but I am smart enough to know what I don't know.

The bottom line is judge advocates, to a person, have indicated the procedures as outlined by Senator Levin would be the best way to go. Under the civilian Classified Information Procedures Act, there is a robust body of cases. Military rule of evidence 505(b) is not used very often in courts-martial. What we have tried to do is interject into the commissions some reforms that will make the trials go forward in a manner that the courts are likely to approve the work product.

I think everybody involved--military judges, defense counsel, prosecutors--welcome this change. Senator Levin and his staff and our staffs have worked with the White House. I think we found a way to reform the military commissions that would provide balance when it comes to admission of classified evidence to protect the Nation at large and also allowing the people accused of a crime as much access as possible.

Every military lawyer who is going to be involved in the commissions supports this change. I think it is one way to make the commissions better. This whole effort to make the commissions better is bearing fruit. I appreciate what Senator Levin has done.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1657, as modified.

Mr. President, we have been working with Senator Sessions--myself, Senator Levin and his staff, and Senator Sessions' staff. This amendment basically clarifies the fact that when a detainee is in military custody or an intelligence agent's custody, being detained as a result of wartime activity, to be interrogated for intelligence gathering, there is no requirement that person have article 31, or Miranda, rights read to them. We don't want to criminalize the war. Military intelligence gathering is not a law enforcement function.

There has been some confusion at Bagram Air Force Base about the Department of Justice FBI agents reading Miranda rights. Clearly, there could be a time when that would be appropriate, but this amendment states unequivocally that Miranda warnings, or article 31 rights, are not to be read or required to be read by DOD personnel or intelligence agencies as a result of battlefield activities or military intelligence gathering.

I think it is a good amendment that will clarify a potentially confusing situation. I appreciate Senator Levin's staff helping us with it.

That is correct.

Mr. President, I would like to echo the sentiments of Senator Webb. We have been working together on this. I very much appreciate Senator Isakson. I understand this is a bit complicated-- there are parochial interests involved--until we understand the dilemma we are in here.

In the fiscal year 2008 Defense authorization bill, we included language that grants a 5-year waiver to the Berry amendment for the procurement of flame-resistant rayon, the material used to make military uniforms. There are 3 years left on the waiver. The Isakson amendment permanently extends this waiver and will end all efforts to produce a domestic material to make military uniforms.

I respectfully oppose the amendment. We are currently procuring the material from Europe. There is no source of domestic rayon.

Neither Congress nor DOD has ever issued a determination or finding that the domestic market lacks sufficient products that could perform the functions desired by DOD. This amendment unfairly excludes, in my opinion, U.S. manufacturers from competing for DOD procurements and improperly limits competition since the domestic market contains products such as flame-resistant cotton, Nomex, and nylon which can fulfill DOD's needs.

DOD's decision to procure flame-resistant fabric from foreign suppliers without even examining whether domestic manufacturers could meet the agency's need with other products violates DOD's statutory mandate to use performance rather than material specifications and to seek free and fair open competition whenever practical.

Instead of affirmatively extending a waiver that has 3 years remaining, we should continue to let the technologies and fabrics develop and reassess where we are in 1 or 2 years. I think that is the wise thing to do, and I respectfully urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I will.

I thank the Senator for that question. It is my understanding that the efforts made in Virginia and South Carolina to produce this product domestically, and the concerns the Senator has addressed, the private sector is dealing with; and that the ability to produce this material domestically is a viable option. I don't want to take a precedent, in terms of the Berry amendment, that I think would change the spirit of the amendment at a time when we have a potential to make this domestically. I think, as much as we can do domestically to protect our military and to provide resources to our military, the better.

A year or two from now, we will know better. To lift the waiver, to make it a permanent waiver, I think would be an unwise erosion of the Berry amendment at this time. That would be my answer.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a further modification of the Session's amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I believe it is appropriate now to call up the Lieberman amendment, as modified.

Mr. President, I appreciate the assistance of Chairman Levin and all those involved. This is to me a very important statement by the Senate at a crucial time in our Nation's history. Simply put, our amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate statement that there is a preference for military commission trials regarding detained terrorists.

The reason we are making this statement and trying to urge our colleagues to agree with us is that the interim detainee report that has been issued in the last day or two by the White House has a statement within that report that there should be a presumption that detained terrorists would be tried in article III Federal civilian courts.

I could not disagree more. We will keep working with the administration on this issue. There may be an odd case where a Federal court may be an appropriate venue. But I think I speak for Senator Lieberman and I hope most Americans that the people we are talking about are not common criminals. They are not detained because of some violation of domestic criminal law. They are detained because they have been found to be part of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations that the Congress has previously determined to be enemy combatant belligerents, people who have taken up arms against the United States of America, who are intent on our destruction. They are not accused of robbing a liquor store. They fall within a narrow statutory definition that was created after 9/11. This is an opportunity for the Senate to express itself and say there is a preference for military courts.

I conclude with this thought. I believe we are at war. It is an unusual war but nonetheless a deadly war. The people we are talking about, again, need to be viewed as military threats, and under military law it is appropriate to try someone who has operated outside the law of armed conflict in a military commission.

Our Nation has been doing this for 200 years. The Nazi saboteurs who were caught landing on the coast of Florida were tried by military commission. I can give a long history of how military commissions were used by our Nation at times of war. That is the preferred vehicle when a nation is at war.

I conclude with this thought. Those who can be tried should be tried by military commissions. There will be some enemy combatants determined to be part of al-Qaida who will not be subject to criminal process either in Federal courts or military commission trials. It is my belief that this country cannot afford to release them if they are still a military threat.

Under military law, there is no requirement to release an enemy prisoner as long as they present a threat to your country. There is no such concept in domestic criminal law. We cannot

criminalize this war. It will come back to haunt us.

Due process is available under military law. The men and women running these trials are officers, judge advocates. I have been one for 25 years. They are wonderful people. They will adhere to the law. They understand the law. They will provide transparent justice. But this is the setting that we need to be in regarding these detainees. This statement by the Senate is appropriate.

Mr. President, to my good friend, Senator Lieberman, he has, above all others, tried to remind himself that the Nation's defense is more important than politics. I cannot tell Senator Lieberman how much I admire him. We have worked together to get a sense of the Senate, not binding, but a strong statement that it is a preference that these terrorists detained as part of an al-Qaida network be tried in military commissions, as we have done in our history.

I yield to Senator Lieberman and hope my colleagues will accept this amendment.

Mr. President, I always thought this debate kind of went down the side of liberal versus conservative until I got to understand during the confirmation hearings of Judge Sotomayor that Senator Feingold is probably one of the strongest gun guys in the Senate. So I have had to recalibrate where I stand on this issue in terms of trying to pigeonhole people.

The point of the amendment, No. 1, is it should not be on the Defense bill. I think we all agree with that. We are talking about a Defense authorization bill to protect our troops and provide them the equipment they need and give them a pay raise. Now we are talking about guns and hate crimes. I don't know how we got here as a body, but we are here.

If you had to pick a nongermane amendment to talk about that makes some sense, that most Americans, I think, would like us to be talking about, it would be something fundamental to our country. I think most Americans are a little bit right to center on an issue such as this, for lack of a better phraseology. Most Americans believe in lawful and responsible gun ownership. Quite frankly, that is what this is trying to bolster.

I make an observation that if you take the time to get a concealed carry permit in South Carolina or any other State that allows it, you let the law enforcement authorities know you are interested in owning a gun, you go to a training seminar that most States have to be able to get the permit or you have to go through whatever hoops the State set up to be able to carry a weapon in a concealed fashion, that you are probably not high on the list of people who want to use a gun to commit a crime. You would be incredibly stupid. You are pointing out to the whole State: Hey, I have a gun. I argue that the people who go through the exercise of getting a concealed carry permit are the ones you probably want to have a gun because they seem to understand the responsibility that goes with owning it.

The idea of does this make us less safe by allowing reciprocity nationwide makes no sense to me. I think of all the people we need to worry about committing gun crimes and violence unlawfully, the people with concealed carry permits are probably last on the list.

Americans do object to guns being used in the commission of crimes, and a lot of States have enhanced punishment whereby if you use a firearm in the commission of a crime your incarceration time can go up. In other words, we want to deter people from using a gun in the commission of a crime, and I think most Americans agree with those laws. I think the city of Richmond was one of the first cities in the Nation to have enhanced punishment for the use of a weapon. It is true that some people do misuse a weapon. Some people misuse a car. But it is a fundamental right under our Constitution, according to our Supreme Court, to possess a gun.

This amendment makes sense at every level. If I go through the process of getting a concealed carry permit in South Carolina and I go to another State that has a similar law, I automatically get the benefit of that law--no more than that law. So I don't know what the law is about carrying a gun in Central Park in New York. I know this: If you have a permit to carry a gun in South Dakota or South Carolina and you go to New York, you don't have any greater rights than the people in New York. And I also understand that whatever Federal restrictions on gun ownership that exist are not changed by this.

So this is pretty common sense to me. If someone goes through the process of getting a permit to carry a weapon in their own State and they choose to go to another State, they automatically get the benefit of that State's law when it comes to concealed carry. They do not get any more, they do not get any less, and it may be less than I would have in South Carolina. But because we are a group of people who travel around and visit among ourselves, this Federal legislation allows us to go from one State to the next and get the benefit of any law that may exist when it comes to concealed carry. But the precondition is that you would have to have that permit in your own State and you have to go through the rigors of getting that permit in your own State.

To anybody who says this makes America less safe or more dangerous, again, that just makes no sense to me. Whatever gun crimes are being committed out there, they are not being committed, as an overwhelming general rule, by the people who have gone through the process of getting a permit and who carry a weapon. So, to me, it makes sense.

I congratulate my friend from South Dakota and tell him he has done something I think most Americans would agree with. He has allowed the American public to be able to travel and get the benefit of whatever law exists in a State when it comes to carrying a weapon--no more, no less. And this argument that people are somehow going to start carrying a weapon across the border makes no sense because whatever Federal restrictions there are on arms trafficking still stand.

At the end of the day, this legislation will help people who follow the law and obey gun laws to travel throughout the country without tripping themselves up and getting in trouble when they do not mean to get in trouble. If we didn't have this law, it really would be a mess. What we are trying to do is provide some clarity to gun ownership in America. We are not enhancing the ability to commit a crime. Quite frankly, I think it is the other way around; if everybody had the same attitude about gun ownership as people who get a permit, the country would be okay.

We are not changing any law that regulates trafficking of firearms. We are not allowing criminals to get access to guns. We are simply allowing people who go through the process of getting a permit in their own State to travel to any State in the Union which has a similar law and to get the benefit of that law. That will make life better for them, it will make life better in terms of legal compliance, and I think it is a proper role for the Federal Government to play.

This amendment enhances our second amendment rights. It doesn't change them in a way that makes America less safe. It allows people who are going to do the right thing to be able to do the right thing with some knowledge as to what the right thing is.

So Senator Thune has done the country a great service, and I think we will have a big vote--I hope we will--across party lines. You don't have to agree with my right to carry a weapon lawfully. You may not choose that same right for yourself. But that is kind of what makes the country great--the ability for one citizen to understand that even though I wouldn't make that choice, as long as you make a choice responsibly, I am going to allow you to do that. That is what makes this a very special place.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 30 minutes, although I doubt I will take that long.

Madam President, I take to the floor to inform the Senate and my colleagues about how I intend to vote on the pending nomination of Supreme Court nominee Judge Sotomayor. I understand the path of least resistance for me personally would be to vote no. That is probably true anytime you are in the minority party and you lose an election. But I feel compelled to vote yes, and I feel this is the right vote for me and, quite frankly, for the country in this case.

Why do I say that? Well, elections have consequences. I told Judge Sotomayor in the hearing that if I had won the election, even though I wasn't running, or Senator McCain had, she would probably not have been chosen by a Republican. We would have chosen someone with a more conservative background--someone similar to a Judge Roberts or Miguel Estrada. She is definitely more liberal than a Republican would have chosen, but I do believe elections have consequences.

It is not as though we hid from the American people during the campaign that the Supreme Court selections were at stake. Both sides openly campaigned on the idea that the next President would be able to pick some judges for the Supreme Court. That was known to the American people and the American people spoke.

In that regard, having been one of the chief supporters of Senator McCain and one of the chief opponents of then-Senator Obama, I feel he deserves some deference on my part when it comes to his first selection to the Supreme Court. I say that understanding, under our Constitution, I or no other Senator would be bound by the pick of a President. But when you look at the history of this country, generally speaking, great deference has been given to that selection by the Senate.

While I am not bound to vote for Judge Sotomayor--voting no would be the path of least political resistance for me--I choose to vote for Judge Sotomayor because I believe she is well qualified. We are talking about one of the most qualified nominees to be selected for the Supreme Court in decades. She has 17 years of judicial experience. Twelve of those years she was on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. I have looked at her record closely. I believe she follows precedent; that she has not been an activist judge in the sense that would make her disqualified, in my view. She has demonstrated left-of-center reasoning but within the mainstream. She has an outstanding background as a lawyer. She was a prosecutor for 4 years in New York. Her record of academic achievement is extraordinary--coming up from very tough circumstances, being raised by a single mother, going to Princeton, being picked as the top student there, and doing an extraordinary job in law school. She has a strong work ethic. That all mattered to me. It is not just my view that her legal reasoning was within the mainstream. She received the highest rating by the ABA--the American Bar Association--as ``well qualified.''

The reason I mention that is not because I feel bound by their rating, but during the Alito and Roberts confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court under President Bush, I used that as a positive for both those nominees. I feel, as a Republican, I can't use it one time and ignore it the other. So the fact that she received the highest rating from the American Bar Association made a difference to me.

Her life story, as I indicated before, is something every American should be proud of. If her selection to the Supreme Court will inspire young women, particularly Latino women, to seek a career in the law, that is a good thing, and I hope it will.

On balance, I do believe the Court will not dramatically change in terms of ideology due to her selection. Justice Souter, whom I respect as an individual, has been far more liberal than I would prefer in a judge. I think Justice Sotomayor will not be any more liberal than he. On some issues, quite frankly, she may be more balanced in her approach, particularly when it comes to the war on terror, the use of international law, and potentially the second amendment. But time will tell. I am not voting for her believing I know how she will decide a case. I am voting for her because I find her to be well qualified, because elections matter, and because the people who have served along her side for many years find an extraordinary woman in Judge Sotomayor, and I confirm their findings.

What standard did I use? Every Senator in this body, at the end of the day, has to decide how to give their advice and consent. One of the things I chose not to do was to use Senator Obama's standard when it came to casting my vote for Judge Sotomayor. If those who

follow the Senate will recall, Senator Obama voted against both Judge Alito and Judge Roberts, and he used the rationale that they were well qualified; that they were extraordinarily intellectually gifted; but the last mile in the confirmation process, when it came to Judge Roberts, was the heart. Because 5 percent of controversial cases may change society, one has to look and see what is in a judge's heart.

I totally reject that. If the Senate tries to have a confirmation process where we explore another person's heart, I think we are going to chill out people wanting to become members of the judiciary. Who would want to come before the Senate and have us try to figure out what is in their heart? Can you imagine the questions we would be allowed to ask? I think it would have a tremendous chilling effect on the future recruitment of qualified candidates to be judges. Let me say this: Judge Sotomayor agreed with me and Senator Kyl that trying to find out what is in a judge's heart is probably not a good idea.

Senator Obama also indicated that judicial philosophy and ideology were outcome determinative when it came to Judge Alito. If I used his standard, knowing that her philosophy is different than mine, her ideology is different than mine, she would have no hope of getting my vote. I daresay not one Republican, using the Obama standard, would provide her with a confirmation vote. So I decided to reject that because I believe it is not in the long-term interest of the Senate or the judiciary.

I went back to a standard I think has stood the test of time--the qualifications standard. Is this person qualified to sit on the Court? Are they a person of good character? Do they present an extraordinary circumstance--having something about their life that would make them extraordinary to the point they would be unqualified? There was a time in this country where a Justice, such as Justice Ginsburg, who is clearly left of center, received 90-something votes in this body. There was a time in this country, not long ago, where a conservative judge, such as Justice Scalia, received over 95 votes from this body. Every Democrat who voted for Justice Scalia could not have been fooled as to what they were getting. They were getting an extremely qualified, talented, intellectual man who was qualified for the job but had a different philosophy from most Democrats. Someone on our side of the aisle who voted for Justice Ginsburg had to know what they were getting. They were getting someone who was very talented, extremely well qualified, incredibly smart, and who was general counsel for the ACLU. You had to know what you were getting, but you understood that President Clinton, in that case, had the right to make that decision.

What happened to those days? I would say to my Democratic colleagues--and I am sure Republicans have made our fair share of mistakes when it comes to judges--that this effort, not too far in the past, of filibustering judges, declaring war on the Judiciary, has hurt this body. In my opinion, the politicization of our Judiciary has to stop for the good of this country, for the good of the Senate, and for the good of the rule of law in America.

What am I trying to do today? I am trying to start over. The political ``golden rule'' is: Do unto others as they did unto you. The actual Golden Rule is: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I hope we can get back to the more traditional sense of what the Senate has been all about. That brings me back to the recent past.

This body was on the verge of blowing up. Our Democratic colleagues were filibustering President Bush's nominees for the appellate court, and even the Supreme Court, in a fashion never known by the body. There was an effort by frustrated Republicans to change the rules so all you needed was a majority vote to get on the bench--the Supreme Court. This body, for a couple hundred years, had not gone down that road. A Gang of 14 was created--7 Republicans and 7 Democrats--and they tried to find a better way; they tried to get the Senate back to a more reasoned position. That Gang of 14--the 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans--said filibustering judges should only be done in an extraordinary circumstance. We left that up to the Members of the body, but we were focusing on someone who was clearly out of the mainstream when it came to judging.

If you look at Judge Sotomayor's record for 17 years, it is left of center but not the record of someone who is wearing a robe but under the robe is an activist. An extraordinary circumstance would be somebody clearly not qualified--a pick that is political in nature alone.

I am glad to say my colleagues on the Democratic side and the Republican side who were part of that group--and they are still here-- did not see an extraordinary circumstance. I would like to compliment Senator Sessions, who did a very fine job in this hearing. He has acknowledged there is nothing extraordinary about this nominee for the Republican Party to try to block her through filibustering. I think that is a correct assessment.

But then it comes down to the individual vote. I have tried to indicate the best I can that I desire, as a Senator, to find a new way to start over and get back to a Senate that is more rational in its approach when it comes to confirmations.

Having said that, to my colleagues who vote no, I understand your concerns and there are things about this nominee that are troubling. The speeches she has given in the past are troubling because I think they embrace identity politics, something I don't embrace. The ``wise Latina'' comment that has become famous, that she believes more often than not that a wise Latina woman with her experience and background would reach a better conclusion than a White male--we had a long discussion about how that does not set well with most Americans and that is not what we want to be expressed by people trying to become Supreme Court nominees.

But having said that, do we want to exclude from consideration people with boldness, who are edgy? Do we want milk toast nominees who are afraid to speak their minds and to disagree with their fellow citizens? I think not.

Her speeches, while troubling, have to be looked at in terms of her record. When we look at this 17-year record we will find someone who has not carried out that speech. I will take her at her word. She rejected this idea of picking winners and losers and was very mainstream in her understanding of the role of a judge. She understood the difference between a policymaker and a judge. I will take her at her word. I cannot understand her heart any more than she can understand mine. The speeches are troubling, but I guarantee I have made some speeches that are probably troubling to people on the other side. I hope they would look at everything I have done, not just the speeches I may have given.

Her time as a lawyer--this is very important to me. During the Alito and Roberts hearings, they were pushed hard about some legal memos they wrote for Ronald Reagan espousing conservative thought and how that made them dangerous. How dare you write a memo about the Civil Rights Act that somebody on the other side may disagree with? Lawyers who advocate positions should not feel chilled in terms of picking their clients if they hope to be a judge. The worst thing we could do is take a lawyer's advocacy position, their clientele, and hold it against them for being a judge.

She was a board member of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund. Some people say we should not talk about her time as a lawyer or even mention that organization. I do not believe that at all because when I am looking at this nominee, I am looking at every aspect of her life.

During her time as a board member, the board and the organization advocated positions I think are out of the mainstream, that I do not agree with, but certainly are legitimate positions to take--such as taxpayer-funded abortion. I could not disagree with her more. I don't think most Americans want their taxpayer dollars to be used to fund abortion. The Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund argued to the court that if we do not allow taxpayer-funded abortion for poor women, it is a form of Dred Scott kind of oppression. I could not disagree more, but that is not the point. Disagreeing with me is OK.

What I hope will happen in the future is, if a conservative gets into the White

House, and we pick someone who was on the other side of that case, we will have the same understanding I do: being an aggressive advocate for causes I disagree with does not disqualify them from being a judge, if otherwise they have demonstrated the capability.

The advocacy role of a lawyer is unique. I have represented people with whom I disagreed. I have represented people accused of child molesting. I have been a criminal defense lawyer. There is nothing more noble in our system than making the government prove their case regardless of how one feels about the defendant.

The fact that she was an advocate, choosing causes I disagree with, does not, in my opinion, disqualify her because, when I looked at her record, I did not see a judge who was continuing to be a lawyer for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund. I saw a judge who felt bound by the law.

Temperament--for those Members who have practiced in court, I do not like a bully judge, and I know it when I see it. I don't mind being pressed, I don't mind being challenged, I don't mind being interrupted. I just do not want to be belittled in front of my clients for no good reason.

There were some things said about Judge Sotomayor, anonymous comments from lawyers who were asked by the Federal Almanac how they rate the temperament of people on the Second Circuit, and Judge Sotomayor had some things said that were, frankly, disturbing. But I looked at the other part of the record, the people who served with her as a prosecutor, the defense attorneys who wrote on her behalf, people who served with her on the court, and I found on balance that her temperament does not disqualify her. Frankly, I found somebody a lot of people from different backgrounds admire.

Ken Starr, one of the strongest conservatives in the country, found her to be a qualified person who would do a good job; Louis Freeh, the former Director of the FBI, is someone who came and vouched for her character and her qualities as a person.

When I look at the record, the anonymous comments by lawyers who were asked by Federal Legal Service did not win the day, nor should they have.

I do not know what is ahead for this country when it comes to picking Supreme Court Justices. I don't know what openings may occur and when they will occur. I know this. Elections have to matter. I don't want to invalidate elections by disagreeing with someone against whom I ran or I opposed politically because when the election is over, everything has to change to some extent. I am not bound to agree with every pick of President Obama, but when it comes to trying to show some deference, I will. I will try to do better for him than he was able to do for President Bush.

I don't want to turn over the confirmation of judges to special interest groups on the left or the right, and that is where we are headed if we don't watch it. Special interest groups are important, they have their say, they have every right to have their say, but we can't make every Supreme Court vacancy a battle over our culture.

I am trying to start over. I have only been here one term plus a few months. But since I have been here, I have been worried about where this country is going when it comes to judges. I happen to be here at a time when we are about to change the rules of the Senate in a way it had never been done in 200 years. I was new to the body, but I was understanding of the law and how our system works well enough to know that I did not want to be part of that. I had not been here long, but I understood what would happen to this country if we changed the rules of the Senate, even though people felt frustrated and justified to do so.

As a member of the minority, I promised President Obama that I would look hard at his nominees. I will try to help him where I can, but I will not abandon the right to say no and to stop, in an extraordinary circumstance, a nominee who I think would be bad for the country and would dramatically change the power of a branch of the government, the Supreme Court, that is very important to every American.

As to my colleagues who find a different decision on the Republican side, I can understand and appreciate why they did not feel comfortable giving their confirmation votes to Judge Sotomayor. But I am trying to look beyond this moment, look to the future and come up with a reason to support her that will create a different way of doing business, that will help the judiciary, the Senate, and the country as a whole.

Senator Sessions did an outstanding job. Senator Leahy did a very good job. People wanted to know more about her at the hearings, but she is limited, like every nominee, in terms of what she can say.

One last comment about Judge Sotomayor. She is 1 year older than I am. I grew up in the Deep South. I am the first person in my family to go to college. I lost my parents when I was in college and had a 13- year-old sister to raise.

She grew up in the Bronx, came to this country from Puerto Rico. Her mother joined the Army. She lost her dad when she was very young. Her mother raised Judge Sotomayor and her brother under difficult circumstances. Her brother is a doctor. She has been able, Judge Sotomayor, to excel academically and reach the highest rung of America's legal system. That, to me, is a hell of a story. Nobody in my family ever expected me to be a United States Senator--including myself. Only in America can these things happen.

I choose to vote for Judge Sotomayor looking at her from the most optimistic perspective, understanding I could be wrong but proud of the fact that my country is moving in the right direction when anybody and everybody can hit it out of the park. I would not have chosen her if I had to make this choice as President, but I understand why President Obama did choose her and I am happy to vote for her.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and pay tribute to LTG Scott C. Black for his many years of loyal and exceptionally meritorious service to our Nation culminating in his steadfast devotion, stewardship, and leadership of the Army Judge Advocate General's Corps as the 37th and first 3-Star Judge Advocate General. Lieutenant General Black will retire from the Army on 1 October 2009 having completed a distinguished military career of over 35 years. We owe him a debt of gratitude for his many contributions to our Nation and the legal profession, particularly during operations in support of the global war on terror.

Born on September 1, 1952, in Camp Cook, CA, this great patriot grew up traveling around the world in a military family but always considered California his home and is a resident to this day. He graduated in 1974 from California Polytechnic State University with a bachelor of arts in political science. While attending Cal Poly, Lieutenant General Black was enrolled in the Reserve Officers' Training Corps. Upon graduation, he began his military career as a commissioned armor officer. After completing the armor officer basic course and Airborne and Ranger schools, he returned to California for his first duty assignment and served at Fort Ord from 1974-1977. In 1977, the Army selected him to attend law school through the Funded Legal Education Program. He remained on the west coast and graduated in 1980 with his juris doctor degree from the California Western School of Law.

He then attended the Judge Advocate Officer Basic Course in Charlottesville, VA, before heading to Fort Bliss, TX, where he honed his legal skills serving as the chief of legal assistance; trial counsel; chief, criminal law; and as a contracts attorney. In 1984, he returned to Charlottesville to attend the judge advocate officer graduate course. In

the short time he was a judge advocate before attending the graduate course, Lieutenant General Black quickly distinguished himself from his peers as possessing the legal acumen and interpersonal skills to serve in the Judge Advocate General's Corps' most visible and challenging positions. From 1985-1989 he served in the general law branch, administrative law division, Office of The Judge Advocate General. During this time period, he received the high honor and rare distinction of being selected to serve as an assistant counsel to the President of the United States. After leaving the White House, his stellar performance led to his selection to attend the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, KS. In 1990, he returned to Fort Ord, CA, where he served as the deputy staff judge advocate for the 7th Infantry Division, Light, until 1993. After leaving Fort Ord, Lieutenant General Black continued to expertly fill and excel in challenging positions.

In 1993, Lieutenant General Black and his family moved to Europe where he was the chief, military and civil law division, Office of the Judge Advocate, U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army, Germany. In 1994 he became the staff judge Advocate, 3d Infantry Division, later redesignated 1st Infantry Division, U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army, Germany. In 1996, he returned to Washington, DC, where he served as the legislative counsel and chief, investigations and legislative division, Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison, Office of the Secretary of the Army, until 1998. From 1998-1999, Lieutenant General Black attended the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. In 1999 he returned to the Office of The Judge Advocate General to serve as the chief, personnel, plans, and training office. In 2000, Lieutenant General Black returned to Germany as the staff judge advocate, V Corps, U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army, Germany.

In 2001 Lieutenant General Black was selected for promotion to brigadier general, and so he returned to Washington, DC, to serve as the assistant judge advocate general for military law and operations. In 2003 he was assigned as the first commanding general of the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School. In 2005 he became the 37th The judge advocate general of the Army. He was promoted to lieutenant general on 8 December 2008 to become the Army's first 3- star the judge advocate general.

As the judge advocate general of the Army, Lieutenant General Black served as the principal staff officer responsible for the largest legal services corps within the Department of Defense, with over 9,000 uniformed and civilian attorneys, paralegal noncommissioned officers, and civilian support staff across 651 offices in 19 countries. Lieutenant General Black expertly advised the Secretary of the Army and the Army Staff on sensitive issues affecting the Army and the Department of Defense during a tumultuous and difficult time in our Nation's history. Along with the judge advocate generals of the other services he was the conscious of the nation as he provided counsel on novel legal issues in international law and the ethical values fundamental to the United States.

Under his leadership the Judge Advocate General's Corps transitioned along with the rest of the Army so that judge advocates were more accessible and effective to the commanders who rely on their advice. Lieutenant General Black's awards include the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, Army Meritorious Service Medal with four Oak Leaf Clusters, Army Commendation Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, and the Army Achievement Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster. He has earned the Ranger Tab and the Parachutist Badge.

Lieutenant General Black and his wonderful wife Kim have been married for 33 years. They have four children and one grandchild.

I know all my colleagues join me in saluting LTG Scott C. Black and his family for their many years of truly outstanding service to the Judge Advocate General's Corps, the U.S. Army, and our great Nation.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I want to speak on the record in support of the Kerry-Lugar legislation that was passed by this body basically without objection--by voice vote. It went through so quickly, to me it demonstrates the power of the bill, and so I want to congratulate Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar for this piece of legislation.

To the public, what I am talking about is an aid package to Pakistan of I think it is over $1.5 billion a year for the next 5 years. I know we need money here at home. Trust me, in South Carolina we have the third highest unemployment in the Nation. Times are tough. But all I can tell the taxpayers and the American people is that what happens overseas does matter.

September 11 was planned in Afghanistan. It was an area of the world, quite frankly, that we ignored. Pakistan has been an ally in the war on terror generally. It is a regime with nuclear weapons. It is a country that has been hit incredibly hard by the downturn of the world economy. There are millions of people in Pakistan who are looking to find a better way. The government is fighting forces that are aligned with the al-Qaida movement--the type of people who would impose a period of darkness in the Middle East that would affect the quality of our lives. So $1.5 billion is a lot of money, but it will do a lot of good in Pakistan and it will help this government and the Pakistan military combat the growing threat of terrorism in Pakistan. The aid package is going to help the government provide a better quality of life for its people. Where the government fails to provide a decent quality of life in Afghanistan and Pakistan, you will have a vacuum that will be filled by the Taliban. The Taliban is not in favor with the Afghan people, but when the government of Afghanistan cannot deliver justice, provide the basic necessities of life, that allows the drug dealers and the Taliban to come along and fill in the vacuum.

Pakistan is a large country with nuclear weapons. It is in our national security interest to make sure that the government is stable, that the military will be supportive of civilian control of the government and will be able to defeat the forces of extremism we have seen. We know what they can do when left unchecked. So this bill is an aid package which focuses on civil capacity.

The bill also makes sure that we know where the money is going to go. It is not a $1.5 billion check to Pakistan that could be stolen through corruption. It is a very accountable system that follows the money. It makes an effort to upgrade the Pakistan military to deal with counterinsurgency, because they do not have the capacity now that they need. Again, it provides assistance to the Pakistani people and the government to improve the quality of their lives.

I think we are getting something for our money. I think we are going to get a good return if we can stabilize Pakistan. It helps us in Afghanistan, where we have thousands of American troops stationed and fighting as I speak.

So to Senators Kerry and Lugar, congratulations on being able to get this bill through the Senate so swiftly. To Senators McConnell and Reid, I applaud them both, the minority and majority leaders, for working for the common good here. The administration has also been very supportive. I have had my differences with this administration, and I will continue to have them, but I want to acknowledge that Ambassador Holbrooke, who is now in charge of monitoring Pakistan and Afghanistan as a unit, has done a good job of focusing on what we need to do in both countries, because one does affect the other.

The Kerry-Lugar bill, according to the Ambassador and General Petraeus, would be the most important thing the Congress could do to aid the Pakistan Government and the Pakistan military at this crucial time. So I am glad to see that in a bipartisan fashion we responded to that call from our general and from our Ambassador, and hopefully this will become law soon.

To the American taxpayer, I know times are tough. I know money is in short supply. But quite frankly, this is an investment we have to make. We have soldiers serving in Afghanistan. If we can make Pakistan more secure and less of a safe haven for terrorists who are attacking our troops, that makes their lives better. If we can stabilize Pakistan and put it in the column of moderation and not extremism, not

only will our Nation prosper now, but future generations will be able to prosper. It is impossible for us as a nation to have a strong, vibrant economy and to enjoy the freedom we enjoy today and pass it on to our kids and grandkids without confronting these problems head on. Anytime you ignore problems such as Pakistan and Afghanistan, they always come back to bite you.

This is a wise investment at a time that it matters. The tide is turning in Pakistan, it is turning our way, and I hope this aid package will allow it to accelerate and get a result in Pakistan that helps us in Afghanistan.

Every American should be proud of the history and tradition of our country. We have been blessed in many ways. The challenges we face are enormous, but we have to remember we are the most blessed nation on Earth and this is a chance for us not only to help ourselves but help the world at large.

I am proud of the Senate. I look forward to working in the future with Ambassador Holbrooke and the administration on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, to find ways to make sure we are successful. This is not a Republican or Democratic problem, this is a problem for anyone who loves freedom. This is a problem that needs to be addressed and the Kerry-Lugar bill does address the problem of Pakistan in a reasoned way.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the importance of the tourism industry to our country and the State of South Carolina, and to express my support for the passage of initiatives like the Travel Promotion Act of 2009 and a spouse travel tax deduction that seek to bolster an industry that is a vital component to the economies of so many communities and States.

South Carolina is home to some of the most unique destinations for leisure or business travel in the world. From the trails of Table Rock Mountain in the Blue Ridge, to the quaint mill villages throughout the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor, to a kayak excursion in the Congaree Swamp National Park, to a horse carriage ride through the streets of historic Charleston, the Palmetto State is a wealth of natural, cultural, recreational and historic opportunities for any visitor. Golf Digest magazine selected 11 of South Carolina's more than 500 golf courses as some of the top 100 public courses in the Nation for 2009. Conde Nast Traveler magazine named Charleston as the No. 2 destination in the country, rounding out 16 consecutive years as one of the magazine's top 10 travel destinations in America. The list goes on. The one-of-a-kind history, landscape and culture of our State help all visitors to understand our pride in the motto ``Smiling Faces, Beautiful Places.''

The sum of these treasures is an economic engine that drives the prosperity of our State. The tourism industry is the second largest industry in the State of South Carolina. In 2007, the industry generated $17.2 billion and employed more than 12 percent of the State's workforce. Not only does tourism generate more than $100 billion in tax revenue and employ more than 7 million individuals nationwide, but the industry also encourages investment, attracts new business, and enhances the quality of life for local residents. Tourism is truly the lifeblood for many communities not only in South Carolina but throughout America.

Unfortunately, the economic downturn is taking its toll on the tourism industry. I remain concerned with the impact that the recession continues to have on the decisions of domestic and international leisure travelers, and on business meetings travel. Families and individuals are tightening their belts, afraid to spend hard-earned money in an unpredictable economy that could still worsen. International travel to the United States has declined since September 11, 2001, despite the weak dollar enabling most overseas travelers to do and see even more in our country.

Domestic business travel accounts for about one-fifth of all trips to South Carolina each year. More and more companies are hesitant to book perfectly legitimate corporate meetings and conferences in destinations like Greenville and the South Carolina coast for fear that they will be singled out for irresponsible spending during an economic recession. According to a Meetings and Conventions magazine study, more than half of those interviewed believed that recent harsh criticism against meetings and events has influenced their companies' decisions to hold such events. We must not allow the irresponsible behavior of some to damage public opinion regarding business travel for responsible organizations.

In the first 3 months of 2009, hotel occupancy in South Carolina was down more than 12 percent, with losses in all of our traditional tourist and business meeting destinations. Tourism-related tax revenue is down 5 percent from this time last year. These are only a couple of real numbers that directly impact employment and local economies in South Carolina, a State currently suffering from one of the highest unemployment rates in the Nation at 12.1 percent.

While I believe the economy will rebound eventually, consumer confidence is not showing sufficient signs of improvement. We must encourage international travelers, Americans, and American business to continue to travel for leisure and to hold appropriate destination corporate meetings and conferences, despite the downturn in the economy. I remain committed to exploring new ways to accomplish this goal in the U.S. Senate.

I recently signed on as a cosponsor to S. 1023, the Travel Promotion Act, as I believe it is a significant step in restoring and encouraging overseas travel to the United States. While I supported a measure for the Senate to proceed to this legislation last week, I was unable to support cloture on S. 1023 as I do not believe the majority provided the minority with sufficient opportunity to offer amendments. My vote was unrelated to the substance of the legislation, and I am disappointed that the Senate was unable to complete action on the bill this week.

The Travel Promotion Act facilitates collaboration between various stakeholders in the tourism industry so that they may share ideas on how best to promote travel to America. South Carolina welcomes about 1 million international travelers each year. While this number may be low compared to other tourism destinations, overall South Carolina benefits greatly from their visits as international travelers tend to stay longer and spend more in our hotels, restaurants, shops, cultural sites and more. Through this legislation, I am hopeful that efforts to encourage travel to our country will benefit South Carolina.

To encourage business travel nationally, I authored legislation, S. 261, which would allow for a spouse to deduct travel expenses such as transportation, food and lodging expenses, when traveling with his or her spouse on business travel. Business travel accounts for more than 20 percent of all travel in South Carolina. I strongly believe that restoring this tax deduction would encourage additional travel and subsequent exploration of work-travel destinations. It is my hope that Congress will act on this legislation in a timely manner.

Now is an opportune time to travel, as nearly all tourism destinations are offering packages and deals to entice families and corporate meetings to choose their respective areas. Hotel rates are some of the lowest we have seen in years, while gas prices remain affordable. I am hopeful that families and corporations will take advantage of this opportunity, and consider South Carolina for their next destination.

It is vital that Congress recognize the importance of the tourism industry to our country, and encourage all Americans to continue to travel. I look forward to working with my colleagues on new ways to support the tourism industry.

Mr. President, I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of a dedicated servant and leader, Warren H. Abernathy. After a lifetime of unprecedented service to his State and Nation as a World War II veteran and a 49-year staffer of Senator Strom Thurmond, Mr. Abernathy passed away in Spartanburg, SC, on June 22, 2009, at the age of 85.

While he will be remembered by most as a ``private man who

wanted to make a difference,'' I will remember him as a

larger than life figure who greeted everyone with a smile. He

was a World War II veteran who was prepared to make the

ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our freedom. After a lifetime

of duty, he retired as colonel with the U.S. Army Reserves.

Born and raised in Spartanburg, Mr. Abernathy attended Spartanburg High School, Wofford College, and graduated from Spartanburg Methodist College and the University of South Carolina. He later received a master's in business administration from Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, KS, and in September of 1992 he received an honorary doctorate of humane letters from Voorhees College in Denmark, SC.

In 1948 he began working for then-Governor J. Strom Thurmond as his administrative assistant. When Governor Thurmond was elected Senator Thurmond, Mr. Abernathy transitioned with him and served as the Senator's State assistant for 49 years. Mr. Abernathy also served as the former secretary-treasurer of the Strom Thurmond Foundation, a U.S. marshall, a member of the Civil Service, an honorary member of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, and in 2007 the Spartanburg County Bar Association awarded him the E. C. Burnett, III, Contribution to Law and Justice Award for his contributions as a nonlawyer to the overall improvement of the legal system in Spartanburg County.

In addition to his time in politics, Mr. Abernathy was an active member of the Southside Baptist Church where he participated in the Layman's Sunday school class and served as a former deacon. In 1997 a portion of highway 29 in Spartanburg, SC, was renamed Warren H. Abernathy Highway by the Department of Transportation in honor of his service. And after decades of serving South Carolina, Mr. Abernathy was awarded the Order of the Palmetto from Governor David Beasley on April 13, 1998.

Mr. Abernathy, the husband of the late Margaretta Scruggs Abernathy, is survived by family and friends who are rightfully proud of a well- lived life in service of his fellow man.

I ask that the U.S. Senate join me in commemorating Mr. Abernathy's lifelong dedication to service to our country and to the State of South Carolina.

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

Mr. President, I see Senator Bennett from Utah. How would the Senator like to do this I have about 5 minutes.

That is correct.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to acknowledge an agreement I have reached with the majority leader and the administration regarding the issue of detainee abuse photos. I think, as my colleagues are well aware, there are some photos of alleged detainee abuse that have existed for several years; more of the same, nothing new. The President has decided to oppose their release.

The ACLU filed a lawsuit asking for these photos to be released. General Petraeus and General Odierno are the two combat commanders, and I ask unanimous consent that their statements be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. President, the lawsuit said if these photos are released, our enemies will use them against our troops. These photos will incite additional violence against men and women serving overseas and Americans who are in theater. There is nothing new to be learned, according to the President. I agree with that. These are more of the same. The people involved at Abu Ghraib and other detainee abuse allegations have been dealt with. The effect of releasing these photos would be empowering our enemies. Every photo would become a bullet or an IED. I wish to applaud the President for saying he opposes their release.

The status of the lawsuit is that there is a stay on the second circuit order that would allow the photos to be released until the Supreme Court hears the petition of certiorari filed by the Supreme Court.

I have been promised two things that were important to me to remove my holds and to let the supplemental go without objection. No. 1, there would be a freestanding vote on the Lieberman-Graham amendment, the legislative solution to this lawsuit. The Senate has previously allowed this legislation to become a part of the supplemental war funding bill. It would prevent the disclosure of these photos for a 3-year period. If the Secretary of Defense said they were harmful to our national security interests, it could be renewed for 3 years. Senator Reid has indicated to me that before July 8 we will have a chance to vote on that provision as a freestanding bill, which I think will get the Senate back on record in a timely fashion before the next court hearing.

Secondly, I wanted to be assured by the administration that if the Congress fails to do its part to protect these photos from being released, the President would sign an Executive order which would change their classification to be classified national security documents that would be outcome determinative of the lawsuit. Rahm Emanuel has indicated to me that the President is committed to not ever letting these photos see the light of day, but they agree with me that the best way to do it is for Congress to act.

So in light of that, I am going to remove my hold on the bills I have a hold on, and I will support the supplemental. Because I think it is very important for our soldiers, airmen, sailors, marines--anybody deployed--civilian contractors and their families to know there is a game plan. We are going to support General Petraeus and General Odierno and all our combat commanders to make sure these photos never see the light of day. I think we have a game plan that will work. It starts with a vote in the Senate. I am urging the House to take this up as a freestanding bill. There were 267 House Members who voted to keep our language included in the supplemental. It was taken out. I am very disappointed that it was taken out, but we now have a chance to start over and get this right sooner rather than later.

With that understanding, that we are going to get a freestanding vote on the Lieberman-Graham amendment and that the administration will do whatever is required to make sure these photos never see the light of day if Congress fails to act, I am going to lift my hold on all the legislation and support the supplemental. I look forward to taking this matter up as soon as possible.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

America's Top Generals Warn against Photo Release

declaration of general david h. petraeus, commander of the united

states central command

Endangering the Lives of U.S. Servicemen and Servicewomen

``The release of images depicting U.S. servicemen

mistreating detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, or that could

be construed as depicting mistreatment, would likely deal a

particularly hard blow to USCENTCOM and U.S. interagency

counterinsurgency efforts in these three key nations, as well

as further endanger the lives of U.S. Soldiers, Marines,

Airmen, Sailors, civilians and contractors presently serving

there.'' (Declaration of General David H. Petraeus, para. 2,

Motion to Recall Mandate, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals,

Docket No. 06-3140-cv)

Threaten Troops in Afghanistan

``Newly released photos depicting, or that could be

construed as depicting, abuse of detainees in U.S. military

custody in Iraq and Afghanistan would place U.S. servicemen

in Afghanistan at heightened risk and corrosively affect U.S.

relations with President Karazai's government, as well as

further erode control of the Afghanistan government in

general.'' (Declaration of General David H. Petraeus, para.

12, Motion to Recall Mandate, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals,

Docket No. 06-3140-cv)

``An influx of foreign fighters from outside Afghanistan

and new recruits from within Afghan could materialize, as the

new photos serve as potent recruiting material to attract new

members to join the insurgency. . . . Attacks against newly-

arriving U.S. Marines and soon-to-arrive U.S. Army units in

the south, and transitioning U.S. Army units in the east,

could increase, thus further endangering the life and

physical safety of military personnel in these regions.''

(Declaration of General David H. Petraeus, para. 12, Motion

to Recall Mandate, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No.

06-3140-cv)

``In addition to fueling civil unrest, causing increased

targeting of U.S. and Coalition forces, and providing an

additional recruiting tool to insurgents and violent

extremist groups, the destabilizing effect on our partner

nations cannot be underestimated.'' (Declaration of General

David H. Petraeus, para. 12, Motion to Recall Mandate, 2nd

Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No. 06-3140-cv)

Turn Back Progress in Iraq and Incite Violence

``Newly released photos depicting abuse, or that could be

construed as depicting abuse, of Iraqis in U.S. military

custody would inflame emotions across Iraq and trigger the

same motivations that prompted many young men to respond to

calls for jihad following the Abu Ghraib photo release. After

the Abu Ghraib photos were publicized in 2004, there was a

significant response to the call for jihad, with new

extremists committing themselves to violence against U.S.

forces. Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and Sunni insurgents groups

in Iraq will likely use any release of detainee abuse

images for propaganda purposes, and possibly as an

opportunity to widen the call for jihad against U.S.

forces, which could result in a near-term increase in

recruiting and attacks.'' (Declaration of General David H.

Petraeus, para. 7, Motion to Recall Mandate, 2nd Circuit

Court of Appeals, Docket No. 06-3140-cv)

Help Destabilize Pakistan

``Newly released photos depicting abuse of detainees in

U.S. military custody in Afghanistan and Iraq would

negatively affect the on-going efforts by Pakistan to counter

its internal extremist threat.'' (Declaration of General

David H. Petraeus, para. 8, Motion to Recall Mandate, 2nd

Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No. 06-3140-cv)

declaration of general raymond t. odierno, commander of multi-national

force--iraq (MNF-I)

Release of Photos will Result in Harm to U.S. Soldiers

``The 2004 publication of detainee photos resulted in a

number of posting on internet websites. Perhaps the most

gruesome of internet reactions to the photo publication was a

video posted in May 2004 showing the decapitation murder of

U.S. contractor Nicholas Berg. A man believed to be Zarqawi

specifically made the linkage between the abuses at Abu

Ghraib and Berg's murder saying, And how does a free Muslim

sleep comfortably watching Islam being slaughtered and [its]

dignity being drained. The shameful photos are evil

humiliation for Muslim men and women in the Abu Ghraib

prison. . . . We tell you that the dignity of the Muslims at

the Abu Ghraib prison is worth the sacrifice of blood and

souls. We will send you coffin

after coffin and box after box slaughtered this way.''

(Declaration of General Raymond T. Odierno, para. 8, 9,

Motion to Recall Mandate, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals,

Docket No. 06-3140-cv)

``I strongly believe the release of these photos will

endanger the lives of U.S. Soldiers, Airmen, Marines, Sailors

and civilians as well as the lives of our Iraqi partners.

Certain operating units are at particular risk of harm from

release of the photos. One example is our training teams

throughout Iraq. These are small elements of between 15 and

30 individuals who live on Iraqi-controlled installations and

thus do not have the same protections afforded to many of our

service members. In addition, as they assist our Iraqi

partners, members of such teams are regularly engaged in

small-unit patrols, making them more vulnerable to insurgent

attacks or other violence directed at U.S. forces.

Accordingly, there is good reason to conclude that the

soldiers in those teams and in similarly situated units would

face a particularly serious risk to their lives and physical

safety.'' (Declaration of General Raymond T. Odierno, 4,

Motion to Recall Mandate, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals,

Docket No. 06-3140-cv)

``MNF-1 will likely experience an increase in security

incidents particularly aimed at U.S. personnel and facilities

following the release of the photos. Incidents of spontaneous

violence against U.S. forces, possibly including attacks from

outraged Iraqi police or army members are likely. Such

increased attacks will put U.S. forces, civilians, and Iraqi

partners at risk of being killed, injured, or kidnapped. The

photos will likely be used as a justification for adversaries

conducting retribution attacks against the U.S. for bringing

shame on Iraq.'' Declaration of General Raymond T. Odierno,

para. 11, Motion to Recall Mandate, 2nd Circuit Court of

Appeals, Docket No. 06-3140-cv)

Release of 2004 Photos Resulted in Successful Attacks Against

U.S. Forces

``The public dissemination of detainee abuse photos in 2004

likely contributed to a spike in violence in Iraq during the

third quarter of 2004 as foreign fighters and domestic

insurgents were drawn to Iraq to train and fight. Attacks on

C[oalition] F[orces] increased from around 700 in March 2004

to 1800 in May (after the photographs were broadcast and

published) and 2800 in August 2004. Attacks on C[oalition]

F[orces] did not subside to March 2004 levels until June

2008. These increased attacks resulted in the death of

Coalition Forces, Iraqi forces, and civilians.'' (Declaration

of General Raymond T. Odierno, Motion to Recall Mandate,

para. 7, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No. 06-3140-cv)

Increase Recruitment for Extremist Organizations and Incite

Attacks

``I believe these images will be used to inflame outrage against the U.S. and be used by terrorist organizations to recruit new members. The release of the photos will likely incite Muslim idealists to join the cause to seek retribution for the dishonor they may perceive to have been brought against all Muslims by the U.S. inside Iraq, the publicity over the images could incite additional attacks on U.S. personnel by members of the Iraq Security Forces.'' (Declaration of General Raymond T. Odierno, Motion to Recall Mandate, para. 16, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No. 06-3140-cv)

Mr. President, today marks a somber anniversary. Twenty years ago today, months of peaceful protests throughout China culminated with the violent deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Chinese citizens advocating for democratic reforms. It is with sadness that we mark this occasion, but it is also an opportunity to renew our call for political reform in the People's Republic of China.

One of the first things you see when you walk into my office is a large poster depicting the iconic image of a lone man staring down a line of Chinese tanks. This image has come to symbolize the worldwide struggle for democracy, the rule of law, and the promotion of basic human rights. Unfortunately, a generation of students in China can't identify the image or tell you about the events leading up to June 3 and 4, 1989. This is because China has failed to acknowledge or account for the actions that led up to this event.

While the intervening years since the tragedy have seen China grow into a rapidly developing country, economically intertwined with the rest of the world, China's failure to deal with the Tiananmen events prevents the nation from making the political reforms necessary to truly become a respected member of the international community.

In the years following Tiananmen, leaders of the Communist Party of China including Jiang Zemin, declared, ``If we had not taken absolute measures at the time, we would not have the stability we enjoy today. A bad thing has turned out to be good.'' General Chi Haotian, the General in charge of the People's Liberation Army's response to the protest later stated that, ``I can tell you in a responsible and serious manner that at that time not a single person lost his life in Tiananmen Square.'' Leaders of the military crackdown such as Deng Xiaoping and Li Peng, have never been held accountable for the actions of the People's Liberation Army and there has never been an official acknowledgement of the number of protesters killed or put in prison. Some accounts have claimed that more than 20,000 people were arbitrarily arrested and held without trial. A number of these people remain in prison today.

Today would have been a landmark occasion for the Chinese government to announce that they were starting an independent and open investigation relating to the events of June 4, 1989. However, other than checkpoints set up in Tiananmen Square and efforts by the Chinese government to prevent international media outlets from filming in the square, there are no signs that today is anything other than an ordinary day in China.

While the events of 20 years ago by the Chinese government launched a coordinated effort to prevent further unrest, it also helped crystallize a movement that continues today. Democracy advocates in China have built upon the legacy of Tiananmen and have led various efforts to force accountability and political reforms. All who watch China applaud the tireless work of Ding Zilin, the leader of Tiananmen Mothers, Liu Xiaobo and the rest of Charter 08, as well as countless others such as Jiang Qisheng who continue to face intimidation and imprisonment, yet persist with their cause.

They can rest assured that ultimately their efforts will be successful. Today's world is increasingly interconnected. Communication and travel have gotten easier, and with the development of the internet, despite censorship efforts, information is becoming more readily available to the Chinese people. Every day it becomes more difficult for the Chinese government to keep its people in the dark. They will find out about Tiananmen, they will find out about how the outside world operates, they will demand changes at home.