Floor Statements

Mr. President, there now appears to be a wide bipartisan agreement in the Senate that closing Guantanamo before the administration has a plan to deal with the detainees there was a bad idea. Senators will make it official today with their votes.

For months, we have been saying what Senate Democrats now acknowledge: that because the administration has no plan for what to do with the 240 detainees at Guantanamo, it would be irresponsible and dangerous for the Senate to appropriate the money to close it.

I commend Senate Democrats for fulfilling their oversight responsibilities by refusing to vote to provide any funding to close Guantanamo until the administration can prove to the American people that closing Guantanamo will not make us less safe than Guantanamo has. Those of us in Congress have a responsibility to American service men and women, risking their lives abroad, and to citizens here at home. Congress will demonstrate its seriousness about that responsibility when it votes against an open-ended plan to release or transfer detainees at Guantanamo.

The administration has shown a good deal of flexibility on matters of national security over the past few months: on Iraq, for example, in not insisting on an arbitrary deadline for withdrawal; on military commissions, by deciding to resume their use; on prisoner photos, by concluding that releasing them would jeopardize the safety of our service men and women; and on Afghanistan, by replicating the surge strategy that has worked so well in Iraq.

I hope the administration will show more of this flexibility by changing its position on an arbitrary deadline for closing Guantanamo. Americans do not want some of the most dangerous men alive coming here or released overseas, where they can return to the fight, as many other detainees who have been released from Guantanamo already have.

Some will argue that terrorists can be housed safely in the United States based on past experience. But we have already seen the disruption that just one terrorist caused in Alexandria, VA. The number of detainees the administration now wants to transfer stateside is an order of magnitude greater than anything we have considered before. It is one thing to transfer one or two terrorists--disruptive as that may be--it is quite another to transfer 50 to 100, or more, as Secretary Gates has said would be involved in any transfer from Guantanamo.

In my view, these men are exactly where they belong: locked up in a safe and secure prison and isolated many miles away from the American people. Guantanamo is a secure, state-of-the-art facility, it has courtrooms for military commissions. Everyone who visits is impressed with it. Even the administration acknowledges that Guantanamo is humane and well run. Americans want these men kept out of their backyards and off the battlefield. Guantanamo guarantees it.

The administration has said the safety of the American people is its top priority. I have no doubt this is true, and that is precisely why the administration should rethink--should rethink--its plan to close Guantanamo by a date certain. It should have focused on a plan for these terrorists first. Once the administration has a plan, we will consider closing Guantanamo but not a second sooner.

Mr. President, last night, the Senate passed a bill to create a commission to commemorate the 100th birthday of our 40th President, Ronald Wilson Reagan. This bill passed in the House with wide bipartisan support and here by unanimous consent.

On June 3, we will host a celebration in the Capitol, with the State of California sending their statue of Ronald Wilson Reagan to join the collection of State statues from around the country. In February 2011, we will commemorate his 100th birthday.

To his beloved Nancy, his family, and all of us who believe that the best days are ahead in this shining city on a hill, I stand in humble gratitude for his service and great pride that Congress has finally agreed to enact legislation to commemorate one of the most important Americans of the 20th century.

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

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

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

Mr. President, would the regular order bring back amendment No. 1136?

Mr. President, that is an amendment of mine, and I send a modification to the desk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I urge the approval of the amendment.

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, today, the Senate takes up the supplemental war spending bill for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The need to consider such wartime supplementals is familiar to the Senate, but their importance has not diminished over time. Our Armed Forces have fought valiantly against global terrorism for more than 7 years, and our intelligence community has made invaluable contributions to that effort. This week, the Senate will show, once again, that we are grateful for the service and dependent on the heroism of every American fighting to help protect us at home and abroad.

Similar to any supplemental war spending bill, this week's bill must be viewed in the context of the broader fight against terrorism. This is a fight that began in earnest after the events of 9/11 but which found its justification in a long series of attacks that culminated on that terrible day. Eight years before 9/11, several Americans were killed in the first World Trade Center bombing. Two years later, five Americans were killed in an attack on a U.S. military site in Riyadh. In 1996, 19 U.S. servicemen lost their lives in the Khobar Towers bombing. In 1998, 12 Americans were killed in Embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. In 2000, 17 American soldiers were killed in the attack on the USS

Cole. Of course, on September 11, 2001, 19 hijackers killed 3,000 Americans in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

What is clear from all this is that terrorists were at war with us long before we were at war with them. But then, after 9/11, the Northern Alliance and U.S. forces, along with our allies, took the fight to al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Coalition forces later toppled Saddam Hussein and subsequently mounted a successful counterinsurgency against al-Qaida in Iraq that continues to this day. The supplemental we will consider this week funds all those efforts, and it provides vital assistance to Pakistan in its ongoing battle against insurgents.

One of the more contentious issues that has arisen in the course of this protracted fight is the fate of captured terrorists. Since 9/11, the United States has captured hundreds of terrorists who wish to harm Americans. Many of them have been brought to the secure detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Current inmates include some of the key coconspirators in the Embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, as well as Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, is also there, as are a number of his 9/11 coconspirators.

Guantanamo was established to house terrorists such as these-- dangerous men who pose a serious threat to Americans. The fact that we have not been attacked at home since 9/11 confirms, in my view, the fact that this facility, when taken together with all our other efforts in the global fight against terrorism, has been a success.

There is no doubt that some of the men who are held at Guantanamo are eager to launch new attacks against us. Of those who have been released from Guantanamo, about 12 percent have returned to the battlefield. One of these men is currently a top al-Qaida deputy in Yemen. Another is the Taliban's operations commander in southern Afghanistan. These are men who were thought to be safe for transfer.

More recently, the Defense Department has confirmed that 18 former detainees have returned to the battlefield and that at least 40 more are suspected of having done so. Earlier this year, the Saudi Government said that nearly a dozen Saudis who were released from Gitmo are believed to have returned to terrorism. This is a good reason to keep these men at Guantanamo until the administration can present us with a plan for keeping terrorists off the battlefield.

Some have argued that the existence of the Guantanamo prison serves as a recruiting tool for terrorists. But it is hard to imagine that moving this facility somewhere else and giving it a different name will somehow satisfy our critics in European capitals. Even less likely is the notion that by moving detainees from the coast of Cuba to Colorado, terrorists overseas will turn their swords into ploughshares.

The global terror network we are fighting targeted and killed Americans long before 9/11 and long before we opened the gates of Guantanamo. Shutting this facility now could only serve one end; that is, to make Americans less safe than Guantanamo.

The supplemental spending bill that the Senate votes on this week will fund an effort to combat terrorism that has been hard fought. We have seen victories and we have seen setbacks and keeping detainees off the battlefield is part of the battle. Al-Qaida's terrorist networks remain vital and lethal, and releasing detainees to return to terror in places such as Yemen would be at cross-purposes with the underlying bill itself. If we are committed to funding the global fight against terrorism, then we will come up with a good alternative to Guantanamo before we move to close it.

The administration has shown a willingness to change course on other matters of national security. It is my hope that it will show a similar willingness on Guantanamo. As the Senate considers this supplemental, we will have an opportunity to encourage such a shift in their thinking by expressing our opposition to closing Guantanamo until a good alternative emerges. This is the only way to ensure the same level of safety that Guantanamo has delivered and the supplemental itself is intended to promote.

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

Madam President, I join my friend, the majority leader, in recognizing our friend for his distinguished achievement. I would say to my friend from Michigan, only 20 Senators in history have cast more votes now than Carl Levin. But probably even fewer have been as unassuming as the senior Senator from Michigan.

Over the years, he has impressed all his colleagues by his dogged commitment to the people of Michigan, and in particular, to the manufacturers and laborers in his home State. For many of us, he has become the face of Michigan.

A product of the Detroit public school system, Senator Levin graduated from Central High School in Detroit, Swarthmore College, and Harvard Law School, before returning to Detroit to practice law.

He held a number of public offices in Detroit before becoming president of the Detroit City Council. In 1978, he was elected to the U.S. Senate in an upset victory over the incumbent Republican.

Four years later, Senator Levin was joined in Congress by his brother and his best friend, Sander. Apparently, people still sometimes confuse the two of them . . . so it is probably a good thing they get along so well.

The people of Michigan have been happy with Senator Levin's work here in the Senate: they have sent him back five times, including this past November. His hometown paper calls him a principled leader and personally above reproach.

We have seen Senator Levin's commitment to his State in a vivid way over the past several months, as automakers have struggled to stay afloat. We have seen him work with Members on both sides to help automakers, and we've seen him outside the Capitol showing solidarity with workers. He is committed to his State, and he shows it.

Senator Levin has fought hard for environmental causes. In 1990, he authored the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act to create new standards of environmental protection for the Great Lakes. He also helped win passage of the Great Lakes Legacy Program to clean up contaminated sediments.

Outside Michigan, most people probably associate Senator Levin with his distinguished tenure on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he has earned a reputation as a strong supporter of our Nation's service men and women. It was because of Senator Levin's work on this committee that he received the Navy's highest award for a civilian a few years ago for distinguished service to the Navy and Marine Corps.

(Applause.)

Mr. President, I say to my good friend the majority leader, I understand he has laid down an amendment to be offered by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, our good friend from Hawaii, and Senator Inhofe related to Guantanamo. I am pleased the majority has recognized that the President's policy of putting an arbitrary deadline on the closing of Guantanamo is a mistake. A first step toward moving us in the direction of getting a new policy is to prevent funding in this bill or any other bill from being used for the purpose of closing Guantanamo. What we need to remember is that Guantanamo is a $200 million state-of-the-art facility. It has appropriate courtrooms for the military commissions we established a couple years ago at the direction of the Supreme Court. No one has ever escaped from Guantanamo.

We need to think, once again, about the rightness of the policy of closing this facility. It presents an immediate dilemma. Among the 250 or so people who are left there now are some of the most hardened terrorists in the world, people who planned the 9/11 attacks on this country. We know how the Senate feels about bringing them to the United States. We had that vote 2 years ago. It was 94 to 3 against bringing these terrorists to the United States. What we need is to rethink the policy of closing this facility. If our rationale for closing it is to be more popular with the Europeans, I must say we don't represent the Europeans. We represent the people of the United States. We have a pretty clear sense of how the people in this country feel about bringing these terrorists to the United States.

I congratulate our good friends in the majority. They are heading in the right direction. We know the President on national security issues has shown some flexibility in the past. For example, he changed his position on releasing photographs of things that occurred at Abu Ghraib. He changed his position on the using of military commissions and has now rethought that and opened the possibility that maybe military commissions established by the previous administration and this Congress are a good way to try these terrorists. He rethought his position on Iraq and moved away from an arbitrary timeline for withdrawal. We know he has now ordered a surge in Afghanistan led by the same people who orchestrated and led the surge in Iraq which was so successful. So the President has demonstrated his ability to rethink these national security issues.

I am confident and hopeful he will now, getting this clear message from both the House and the Senate on the appropriations bill, begin to rethink the appropriateness of an arbitrary timeline for the closing of Guantanamo.

I fully intend to support this amendment. I hope all Members of the Senate will. I thank Senator Inouye and Senator Cochran, who is here, for their leadership on this bill. I particularly thank Senator Inhofe, who has been one of our leaders on this subject for a long time and reminded everyone today that he was down at Guantanamo not too long after 9/11 and has been there a number of times. I have been there myself. We all know it is a state-of-the-art facility in which the detainees are appropriately and humanely treated.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will add that both President Bush and Senator McCain indicated they would like to close Guantanamo but never suggested a specific time for doing it. The reason for that is they were confronted with the realities of this decision. If there were a specific timeline, it was difficult to figure out what to do with the detainees.

In addition to that, this administration--at least the Attorney General--has indicated there is a possibility they are going to allow some of the Chinese terrorists, the Uighars, to be released in the United States not in a prison. In other words, presumably they would be walking around in our country. So this issue is not totally behind us.

Again, I congratulate our friends on the other side for their movement on this issue. All these problems have not yet been solved. We all want to protect the homeland from future attacks. We know incarceration at Guantanamo has worked. No one has ever escaped from Guantanamo.

We know what happened when you had a terrorist trial in Alexandria, VA. Ask the mayor of Alexandria. The Moussaoui trial--it made their community a target for attacks. When they moved Moussaoui to and from the courtroom, they had to shut down large sections of the community.

It raises all kinds of problems if you bring a terrorist to U.S. soil, about whether they are going to be granted, in effect, more rights by having the

Bill of Rights apply to them in a Federal court system than a U.S. soldier tried in a military court. There are lots of very complicated issues, which led both Senator McCain, who is fully able to speak for himself on this issue, and President Bush to never put a specific timetable for closure. That is the difference between their position and the position of the President.

Having said that, the President has demonstrated, as I said earlier, a lot of flexibility on these national security issues. I am hopeful he will continue to work his way in the direction of a policy that will keep America safe.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about an amendment I am about to offer that relates to the President's Executive order of January 22 on the disposition of detainees at Guantanamo.

As part of that Executive order, a so-called detainee task force was created for the purpose of reviewing the records of detainees to determine whether they should be released. It is my view that any information obtained by this task force should be made readily available to the appropriate chairman and ranking members of the committees of jurisdiction. So the amendment I am about to send to the desk establishes a reporting requirement that would require the administration to provide a threat assessment of every detainee held at Guantanamo. This threat assessment, which could be shared with Congress in a classified report--remember, this would be in a classified report only--would indicate the likelihood of detainees returning to acts of terrorism. It would also report on and evaluate any threat that al- Qaida might be making to recruit detainees once they are released from U.S. custody.

Many of the remaining 240 detainees at Guantanamo are from Yemen, which has no rehabilitation program to speak of, and Saudi Arabia, which has a rehab program, but which, frankly, hasn't been very successful at keeping released detainees from rejoining the fight even after they go through this rehabilitation program. The recidivism among released detainees is of great concern to those of us who have oversight responsibilities here in Congress. So according to my amendment, the President would have to report to Congress before--I repeat, before--releasing any of the detainees at Guantanamo. More specifically, the administration would have to certify that any detainee it wishes to release prior to submitting this report poses no risk--no risk--to American military personnel stationed around the world.

This is a simple amendment that reflects the concerns of Americans about the dangers of releasing terrorists either here or in their home countries where they could then return to the fight. Until now, the administration has offered vague assurances it will not do anything to make Americans less safe. This amendment says that Americans expect more than that. Americans want the assurance that the President's arbitrary deadline to close Guantanamo by next January will pose no risk to our military servicemembers overseas.

I know there is an amendment pending at the desk, so I ask unanimous consent that it be set aside and that my amendment be sent to the desk.

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

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

Mr. President, 2 years ago, our Nation was in the midst of a global battle against terrorism, and much of our time and energy in the Senate was devoted to that fight, from updating laws for monitoring terrorists overseas, to fighting an insurgency in Iraq, to combating the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Two years later, we are still engaged in the same battle and in many of the same debates. On most of these issues, the Senate has had an opportunity to express itself very clearly. Yet rarely has it done so with as much unity as on the question of whether to send terrorists at Guantanamo to U.S. soil. On that important question, the vote was 94 to 3 against.

But something has changed. Now a number of Democrats who voted against sending detainees from Guantanamo to the United States are expressing a willingness to do so, in contradiction of their earlier vote. What has changed? America is still at war against terror networks around the world. The detainees held at Guantanamo are still some of the most dangerous terrorists alive. Indeed, over the past 2 years, the inmates there have been winnowed down to an even higher percentage of committed killers than were there before. Americans still do not want these men in their neighborhoods. They saw what the residents of Alexandria, VA, endured a few years ago when just one terrorist was held there, and they do not want armed agents patrolling their streets, ID checks, bomb-sniffing dogs, or millions of their tax dollars diverted to secure terrorists.

When we voted on this question 2 years ago, the prospect of shipping terrorists to U.S. soil was not imminent, even though the previous administration had expressed a desire to close the facility at some point. The new administration, on the other hand, set an arbitrary date for closure before it even had a chance to review the intelligence and the evidence of the 240 men who are down at Guantanamo now.

So I think it is perfectly appropriate, as we look to ensure the safety of the American people, to have another vote on this issue. Later this week, we will have an opportunity to do just that as the Senate takes up the supplemental war spending bill. The administration has requested funds within this bill to close Guantanamo, and Senators should take this opportunity to clarify their positions. So we will have a number of amendments this week on the supplemental that will allow the Senate to express itself once again on this most important issue.

Mr. President, I would like to briefly discuss a troubling situation a world away in Burma. The situation involves Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who, this very morning, stood trial--stood trial this very morning--for permitting a misguided soul to enter her house.

With some regularity, we in the West are reminded of the tyranny that exists in this troubled land.

In 2007, Buddhist monks and other peaceful Burmese protesters were brutally put down by Government authorities. Scores were slain, hundreds more were imprisoned or had to flee the country simply to survive.

In 2008, Burma was lashed by a terrible cyclone. This natural disaster was exacerbated by a manmade disaster: the dismal relief and response effort of the governing State Peace and Development Council, which refused outside aid in the immediate aftermath, resulting in untold numbers of Burmese citizens dying. At the same time, the regime devoted its energies to its referendum of its new Constitution, a document clearly intended to permanently entrench military rule.

In 2009, this familiar pattern of governmental malfeasance has continued. First, the Government refused to permit Suu Kyi's doctor to see her, despite her very poor health. Then the Government took the flimsiest of pretexts to drag Suu Kyi into this trial.

It was in this context that the Obama administration last week issued an Executive order extending for another year sanctions against the Burmese regime. I applaud the administration for taking this step, and I look forward to working with the administration once it has concluded its review of Burma policy, which I have discussed on several occasions with Secretary Clinton.

The Government of Burma should be aware that its actions are highly troubling to democracies the world over. This is reflected not only in the administration's new Executive order but also in the strong support the Burmese people enjoy in the Senate. My colleagues and I on both sides of the aisle will continue to follow Suu Kyi's trial with great interest and deep concern.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, last night we learned that the supplemental war spending bill the Senate will take up contains $80 million to be used for closing Guantanamo. But the language of the bill acknowledges what Republicans have been saying for months: The administration has no plan to safely close this secure detention facility.

Closing Guantanamo without a safe alternative would be irresponsible,

dangerous, and unacceptable to the American people. Americans are worried that closing Guantanamo by an arbitrary deadline won't keep them as safe as Guantanamo has. They are particularly worried about the administration's reported plan to transfer some detainees to detention facilities right here on American soil. State and local officials in places such as Louisiana, California, Virginia, and Missouri have been introducing resolutions to keep terrorists from coming to their communities.

One look at the experience that Alexandria, right across the river here, had a few years ago during the trial of 9/11 conspirator Zacharias Moussaoui makes it easier to see why all these communities are so concerned. Moussaoui was just one terrorist. Yet the effect his presence had on the city of Alexandria was enough for the city's current mayor to state emphatically that he is absolutely opposed to relocating prisoners from Guantanamo to Alexandria. ``We had this experience,'' he said recently. ``Let someone else have it.''

According to press accounts, housing Moussaoui turned parts of Alexandria into a virtual encampment. Every time he was moved to the courthouse, he was transferred in a heavily armed convoy that shut down traffic and locked down the surrounding community.

One security expert recently told the Washington Post that housing detainees from Guantanamo would likely be even more complicated than it was for Moussaoui, with more locations for security personnel to cover and even more snipers.

According to the same Post article, one of Moussaoui's lawyers said that bringing just two or three Guantanamo detainees to Alexandria would be a ``major headache.'' Alexandria's sheriff has warned that multiple detainees could ``overwhelm the system.''

Based on the Moussaoui experience, local business owners in Alexandria also think the arrival of detainees from Guantanamo could be a serious drag on commerce. But even more worrisome for residents is the concern that housing detainees in Alexandria could invite terrorist attacks.

I ask unanimous consent to have the Washington Post article I am referring to entitled ``Security Worries in the Suburbs, Possible Move of Terrorist Suspects to Alexandria for Trial Raises Outcry'' printed in the Record.

The problems that one terrorist caused for Alexandria could be duplicated in any city or town to which detainees from Guantanamo

are sent. Although the administration hasn't given us any details on which cities or towns they might choose, we can imagine what they could look forward to, based on Alexandria's experience with Moussaoui. So here is what a community would have to experience: heavily armed agents patrolling local neighborhoods, rooftop snipers, streets locked down and access to local businesses cut off, identification checks and bomb- smelling dogs checking cars, millions of dollars in cost and strained local resources. That is what you get when you have a terrorist in your hometown. Kentuckians don't want to live under these conditions. I doubt any other American would either, especially if we consider that any community that becomes a home to these detainees could have to endure these conditions for literally years, given the possible length of terror trials.

Some of the other locations that have been mentioned as possible destinations for the terrorists at Guantanamo include facilities in South Carolina and Kansas. One local official in South Carolina responded to the possibility by saying he didn't have the police resources to deal with an influx of terrorists from Guantanamo. An official in Kansas said Guantanamo detainees would significantly tax his police resources.

The administration claims that closing Guantanamo and transferring some detainees to U.S. soil would make the American people safer. It is hard to understand that statement. But based on the experience of Alexandria, it is easy to see why many Americans are skeptical. The administration has said that when it comes to Guantanamo, its highest priority is the safety of the American people. But safety is our top concern. The administration should rethink its plan to transfer terrorists to American communities.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday afternoon, the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds released their annual report. After reviewing its findings, it is clear that the future of Social Security and Medicare can be summed up in one word: unsustainable.

Even before the report was issued, we knew these programs could not remain solvent for long under current conditions. Last year's report predicted that Social Security would start paying out more than it takes in by 2017, and that it would be bankrupt about two decades after that. Last year's report also predicted that Medicare would start paying out more than it takes in within a year and that the trust fund for this vital program would go bankrupt about a decade after that.

The report that was released yesterday presents a far graver scenario.

As a result of the current recession, Social Security will start paying out more than it takes in by 2016, and it will go bankrupt 4 years earlier than previously expected. The situation for Medicare is even more serious. Medicare is already paying out more than it takes in, and it will be bankrupt in just 8 years, 2 years earlier than expected, according to yesterday's report.

It would be irresponsible for Congress to wait any longer before addressing this problem. Some say we haven't reached a point of crisis yet, so we can continue to kick the problem down the road until these programs actually go bankrupt. They seem to think that if the house is on fire, it is OK to wait until the whole place burns down before you call the fire department.

Most Americans disagree. Most people think that if a program they depend on is falling apart, or is about to fall apart, then their elected representatives in Washington have an obligation to tell them about it, and to do something. The time to act is now, before these programs go bankrupt--not after.

The warning signs about Social Security and Medicare have been around us for years, and the problems with these programs are also at the core of the current record levels of government spending and debt. At the moment, programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, as well as the interest we pay on the national debt, consume nearly seven out of every 10 dollars the Federal Government spends--Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and the national debt. Soon we will have little money left for anything else, including vital priorities such as defense, health care, transportation, and programs that fuel job creation.

Reform has been put off for too long. Take Medicare reforms, for example. By law, the President is required to submit legislation to lower Medicare spending levels if the cashflow of this program falls below a certain level. So last year, when Medicare cashflow fell below that level, the President submitted legislation to lower spending. Unfortunately, this legislation did not move forward in Congress.

Real leadership on entitlement reform will require action from both parties. And yesterday's report is the wake-up call. Reform is no longer just a good idea--it is absolutely necessary. It is the only way to restore these programs to fiscal health, and to get at

the root of our larger fiscal problems. Unless we act now, these programs will no longer be sustainable, and spending and debt will continue to spiral out of control.

The good news is that a solution actually exists. As I have said many times before, the best way to address this crisis is the Conrad-Gregg proposal, which would provide an expedited pathway for fixing the long- term challenges of entitlement spending and our unprecedented national debt--challenges that the Democratic budget and their economic policies of the past few months completely ignore.

There has never been a better time to adopt this sensible bipartisan proposal. This week we learned that the deficit for the current fiscal year will be nearly $90 billion higher than previously estimated-- bringing the deficit for this year to $1.8 trillion. This is nearly four times--four times--higher than the record set last year. It also means that this year's deficit is higher than those of the past 5 years combined.

The danger of all this debt is simple: higher inflation that threatens to derail an economic recovery, and trillions in debt that our children and grandchildren will have to repay to countries such as China and nations in the Middle East.

Secretary Geithner said yesterday that when it comes to reforming Social Security, the administration will build a bipartisan consensus to ensure Social Security remains solvent. I welcome the statement, and I urge the administration to support the Conrad-Gregg proposal which is the best way and, I would argue, the only way to address entitlement spending and our unprecedented national debt. After yesterday's report, it is clear we cannot wait any longer to address this crisis.

Americans have relied on programs such as Medicare and Social Security for decades. It would be dishonest and unfair not to tell them the truth about these programs--that they are near collapse and that urgent reform is needed to bring them back to sustainability. More than 800,000 Kentuckians receive Social Security benefits, and nearly that many are enrolled in Medicare. They deserve our honesty. And they deserve action from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. We need to make sure programs such as Social Security and Medicare remain viable for them and for their children and their grandchildren.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I say to my good friend the majority leader, I am sure his decision to stick with not voting on Monday was greeted with great pleasure on this side of the aisle as well.

Mr. President, for the past several weeks, I have repeatedly expressed my concerns about the administration's decision to fix an arbitrary deadline on closing Guantanamo before it has a plan for the detainees. In my view, it was irresponsible for the administration to announce the closure of this safe and secure facility before it could assure the

American people that the alternative would be no less safe.

So far the administration's response to these concerns has been to simply assure people that any future transfer will not endanger Americans. Attorney General Holder says that detainees from Guantanamo would only be sent to American prisons if he is convinced that doing so won't impact the safety of the communities they are sent to. National Security Adviser Jim Jones has said the same thing. On Sunday, he said nothing would be done to make Americans, ``less safe.''

These assurances may be consoling to some. But Americans deserve more than vague assurances. They want to know which communities are being considered, and they want to know how the people who live in these communities would be affected by the arrival of terrorists. In short, Americans want the kind of assurances and specifics the Attorney General has evidently shared with foreign governments like he did recently on a trip to Europe, but not with the U.S. Congress.

News reports indicate that Alexandria, VA is a possible destination for some detainees from Guantanamo. A few years ago, when one of the 9/ 11 conspirators, Zacharias Moussaoui, was held in Alexandria, the jail had to set aside a unit of six cells and a common area just for him. Every time Moussaoui was moved to a nearby courthouse, he was transferred in a heavily armed convoy and the entire prison was locked down. And whenever Moussaoui was transferred to the courthouse, traffic was stopped due to security concerns, a major inconvenience to locals and local businesses.

These were the security requirements for just one terrorist. Now imagine duplicating these procedures many times over for multiple detainees from Guantanamo.

Based on its own past experience with Moussaoui, local officials in Alexandria are extremely concerned. The mayor of Alexandria said recently that he is ``absolutely opposed'' to detainees from Guantanamo going to Alexandria and that he would do everything in his power to stop it. Alexandria's sheriff is also unconvinced by the administration's claims. He said that if multiple detainees were sent to Alexandria, they could ``overwhelm the system.''

Congressman Jim Moran, who represents Alexandria, is one of the few people who is open to the idea of domestic transfers. But even he admits the strain would be intense.

Yet what is even more worrisome to some officials at the local level is the prospect that any city which houses these detainees could become the target of a terrorist attack. The residents of Alexandria are concerned about it, and so are the residents of communities all across the country. I can assure you that Kentuckians don't want detainees from Guantanamo living anywhere within our borders, and I know that communities all over the country share the same concerns.

Already, State and local officials in places like Louisiana, California, and Mississippi have been introducing resolutions to stop these terrorists from being sent to their communities. In Virginia, the Stafford County Board of Supervisors has passed a resolution opposing the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to the Marine base at Quantico. In Missouri, the legislature passed a resolution urging Congress to keep detainees out of the State.

Similar measures have been introduced or approved in other States, including California where Camp Pendleton is considered a candidate to receive detainees. Here in Washington, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are also raising concerns. When one Democratic Senator was asked about the possibility of detainees being sent to his State, he was blunt: ``No way,'' he said, ``not on my watch.'' Other Democrats have voiced serious concerns about the impact transferring detainees would have on their communities. They know about the experience of Alexandria during the Moussaoui trial, and they don't want it duplicated many times over in their own communities.

So there is strong bipartisan opposition to this proposal. I can't think of a congressional district in America that would welcome terrorists. Local communities want the administration to explain how transferring or releasing detainees won't make them, quote, ``less safe''. And the American people want the administration to explain its plans to their elected representatives in Congress.

Senator Sessions, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, has now sent the Attorney General two letters asking what legal authority the administration has to release trained terrorists into the United States. He has yet to receive the courtesy of a response. Imagine that. The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee sent the Attorney General a letter pointing out that the law prohibits the transfer of terrorists to the U.S. soil, and he has not received a reply after two letters. Virginia Congressman Frank Wolf sent a letter to the Attorney General in March regarding concerns he had with transferring Guantanamo detainees to Alexandria. He has since sent two more letters. The Attorney General has not responded to any of these requests.

Democrats are also demanding that the administration provide details for how it plans to deal with the terrorists at Guantanamo. Senior Democrats are now acknowledging that the administration simply doesn't have a plan and are asking the administration to provide one. Members of Congress have a responsibility to ensure the administration is not taking any actions that endanger the American people, and we have a responsibility to protect our constituents.

It is unacceptable that the Attorney General is willing to discuss details about his plans for Guantanamo with foreign countries--foreign countries--but not with the American people or their elected representatives. Members of Congress deserve, and the American people expect, the administration to provide us with answers.

Mr. President, later today the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds will release their annual report which will give us an idea of the current and projected financial health of these programs. We do not know exactly what they will say, but we know the news will not be good. Everyone knows these programs are unsustainable under current conditions, and the problem is only getting worse.

Unfortunately, it is a problem the Democrats' budget does not address. Despite repeated calls from our side of the aisle, entitlement spending has been overlooked for far too long, and now it is completely--completely--out of control.

This is a fiscal crisis of the first order, and it is a crisis that cannot wait any longer to be addressed. Nearly 7 out of $10 the Federal Government spends every year goes directly to mandatory spending on programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the interest on the national debt. Soon enough, Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlements will consume about twice the percentage of the Federal budget they did four decades ago. If we do not get control over this spending soon, we will only have a fraction left for vital priorities such as defense, health care, transportation, and other job creators.

We must address the issue of entitlement spending now before it is too late. As I have said many times before, the best way to address the crisis is the Conrad-Gregg proposal, which would provide an expedited pathway for fixing these profound long-term challenges. This plan would force us to get debt and spending under control. It deserves support from both sides of the aisle.

The administration has expressed a desire to take up entitlement reform, and given the debt that its budget would run up, the need for reform has never been greater. So I urge the administration, once again, to support the Conrad-Gregg proposal. This proposal is our best hope for addressing the out-of-control spending and debt levels that are threatening our Nation's fiscal future. More than 800,000 Kentuckians receive Social Security benefits, and we need to make sure the program remains solvent not only for them but for their children and their grandchildren.

Today's report will underscore the urgent need for action, and Republicans stand ready to work with Democrats and the administration to meet that challenge.