Floor Statements

Madam President, on behalf of Senator Gregg, I call up amendment No. 1085 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam President, 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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, for weeks, Republicans in Congress have been saying what Democrats are finally beginning to acknowledge: that the administration has no plan for closing Guantanamo and that closing this secure facility without a safe alternative is irresponsible, dangerous, and, frankly, unacceptable.

Over the years, Guantanamo has housed some of the most hardened terrorists ever captured alive, and many of those who remain are the worst of the worst. Some have already killed innocent Americans, and many are outspoken about their desire to kill more Americans. These men are exactly where they belong: locked up in a safe and secure prison and isolated from the American people where they can do no harm.

America has not been attacked at home since 9/11 because of the hard work of our Armed Forces, dedicated intelligence officials, the men and women at the Department of Homeland Security, and State and local law enforcement officials. But another reason we have not been attacked is because some of those most likely to do so are locked up down at Guantanamo. These inmates are not spectators. They are the enemy. They are the plotters, the planners, the funders, the ones who pull the trigger.

The administration says our country would be safer if Guantanamo is closed and its inmates are transferred overseas or onto U.S. soil. If people knew who was down there, I think they would disagree.

One of the men who is locked away safely at Guantanamo is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who actually organized the 9/11 attacks. We captured him while he was planning followup attacks to 9/11, including a plot to destroy a west coast skyscraper. If we had not captured Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, he may very well have succeeded in carrying out the same kind of attack on the west coast that he carried out on the east coast. This is a man who boasts about using his ``blessed right hand'' to decapitate the American journalist Daniel Pearl. And he is unrepentant. Earlier this year, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed joined a number of detainees at Guantanamo in declaring themselves ``terrorists to the bone'' and proclaiming September 11, 2001, as a ``blessed'' day.

Another inmate who still declares himself a ``terrorist to the bone'' is Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, who served as a key lieutenant for KSM on several plots against the United States and the United Kingdom, including the 9/11 attacks. During what he described as the ``blessed 11 September operation,'' Ali transferred money to U.S.-based operatives and served as a sort of travel agent for some of the hijackers. This man is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Another terrorist at Guantanamo who is responsible for the deaths of Americans is Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who masterminded the attack on the USS Cole which killed 17 U.S. sailors in 2000. When he was arrested, Nashiri was planning new terrorist attacks, including a plot to crash an airplane into a Western naval vessel and a plan targeting a U.S. housing compound in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia.

These are just three of the men locked up safely and securely on an island miles from the United States in a facility that even the administration acknowledges to be humane and well run. Americans want these men kept out of our neighborhoods and off the battlefield, and Guantanamo guarantees that. Closing this facility by an arbitrary deadline without an alternative is irresponsible and it is dangerous. It is unacceptable to the American people and unacceptable to an increasing number of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

The Attorney General has said that when it comes to Guantanamo, his chief concern is the safety of the American people. Yet, at the moment, the safest option is clearly the one we are exercising. If safety is our top concern, then the administration will rethink its arbitrary deadline for closing Guantanamo until it presents us with an equally safe alternative.

Mr. President, this week we commemorate National Police Week, recognizing the service and sacrifice of the men and women across America in law enforcement. We especially honor those peace officers who have been tragically killed in the line of duty while protecting our communities and safeguarding our democracy.

Over 25 years ago, I served as a county executive in Jefferson County, KY, which includes my hometown of Louisville. I got to work with the county's police force and witnessed up close their dedication and their professionalism. In Jefferson County, we pioneered new techniques for tracking down abducted children that met with much success--enough success that other jurisdictions adopted these techniques, eventually leading to Congressional establishment of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Decades later, peace officers in Louisville are still proud to protect and serve, even with their lives in the balance. And those we have lost are not forgotten. I was moved to read in my hometown paper recently an article about a memorial ceremony in Louisville coinciding with National Police Week. Fellow officers and family members of fallen officers gathered to remember them and thank them for their service. Police forces across Kentucky reverently marked National Police Week as well. At a service in Richmond, Gov. Steve Beshear watched 120 police cadets march at the State Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, while flags were presented to family members of those lost in the performance of their duties. This Friday in Covington, officers will honor their fallen brothers at the northern Kentucky law enforcement memorial.

This Senate has the deepest admiration and respect for police officers in every community in the Nation. We recognize their work is both an honorable job and a dangerous one. They bravely risk their lives for ours, and America is grateful.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full articles about the recent ceremonies in both Louisville and Richmond.

Mr. President, word has reached me that the health of Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi has taken a turn for the worse and that the Burmese Government is not allowing her to get the medical attention she needs. I join the administration in calling for Burmese officials to allow her doctor the access he needs to treat her. The Obama administration is currently reviewing our Nation's policies toward Burma.

It is important for the international community to press for Suu Kyi's unconditional release. We also need to continue to call for an end to the attacks against ethnic minorities.

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

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

Madam President, for the past several weeks, Republicans in Congress have expressed serious concerns about the administration's insistence on closing Guantanamo before it has a safe alternative. These concerns are rooted, among other things, in the fact that roughly 10 percent of the detainees who have already been released from Guantanamo have returned to the field of battle. These concerns are rooted in the fact that the administration has talked about releasing some of these trained terrorists into the United States--not into detention facilities but directly into our communities. These concerns are rooted in the fact that Americans like the fact that we have not been attacked at home here since 9/11, and they do not want the terrorists at Guantanamo back on the battlefield and certainly not in their backyards.

These concerns are real. Yet all we have gotten from the administration on this issue is silence.

Five weeks ago, Senator Sessions sent the Attorney General a letter asking what legal authority the administration has to release trained terrorists into the United States. He sent another letter asking the same question earlier this week. In response, he has gotten silence. Senator McCain and Senator Graham wrote an op-ed yesterday asking serious questions about what the administration plans to do with the detainees it releases or transfers from Guantanamo. We have not heard anything in reply.

These are not academic questions we are asking. When Americans hear about a former detainee named Said Ali al-Shihri, who was last seen serving as one of al-Qaida's top deputies in Yemen, calling on his Somali comrades to increase attacks on Americans ships, they have reason to be concerned. When Americans hear about a former detainee who was last seen serving as the Taliban's operational commander in southern Afghanistan, they have reason to be concerned. These are just a couple of the men previously deemed safe for transfer. They are living proof that the dangers of closing Guantanamo without a safe alternative are absolutely real. Yet all we get from the administration is a request for funds to close Guantanamo. Does the administration really think Congress will appropriate these funds before it presents us with a plan that keeps the American people as safe as Guantanamo has? The administration needs to explain its actions to the American people and their representatives in Congress. And Republicans will continue to ask these questions until they do.

Madam President, it is clear the budget the Democrats

passed last week on a party-line vote spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. As a result, the President has now proposed some modest spending reductions totaling a fraction--a fraction--of a percent of the trillions his budget would add to the debt.

Well, that is a start, but with Democrats in Congress adding to the national debt at a rate of more than $100 billion every month already this year, and with a budget that triples the already unsustainable public debt over the next decade, it is clear there is not much more we can do to protect our children and grandchildren from the unprecedented trillions in additional debt proposed by this administration.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, the Nation says its last farewell to Jack Kemp tomorrow afternoon. But Americans will long remember the tremendous impact he has had on our lives and on our politics. So today I would like to add my voice to the many others who have spoken well of this good man.

The arc of Jack's life is well known: middle-class son of a small businessman and his social worker wife. Jack never wanted to be anything but a professional football player, and he worked very hard at it. Good enough to get drafted by the Lions but not quite good enough to make the team, Jack dug in, passing briefly through a few football teams before being sidelined by an injury and ending up with the Buffalo Bills, where he became one of the great quarterbacks of all time. Jack showed his skills early on with the Bills. In his very first game, he completed 21 of 35 passes, including 2 touchdowns for 230 yards. By the time he retired in 1969, he would rank first in passes, completions, and passing yardage among all American Football League quarterbacks.

But Jack's restless mind was stirring even before he left the field. Teammates would later recall that on long plane rides, while they would be reading playbooks, Jack would be reading economic theory or the latest ``National Review.'' During the off season, Jack volunteered on political campaigns, including the gubernatorial campaign of Ronald Reagan. It was all the training he would need.

After retiring from pro football, his path to politics was as sure as his 10-yard pass. And so was his path to success. Armed with a kinetic personality, a sharp mind, and a passion for ideas and for people, Jack set about with the zeal of a preacher to spread his convictions about the economic benefits of sharp tax cuts. He was so convincing that tax cuts became the centerpiece of his party's platform in 1980, the basis of its revival and, most importantly, the cause of the unprecedented prosperity of the next two decades.

Growing up, Jack was the captain of every team for which he ever played. That didn't change when he came to Washington. He was calling the plays here now, and people were eager to follow. He was as likable as he was persuasive, all the more so because he didn't seek out popularity.

He was always driven by something else. At his core, Jack was motivated by nothing more than a deep desire to see America live up to its founding promise of equality for everyone, regardless of color, religion, or background. The fight for equality was Jack's consuming passion.

Like everyone who grew up playing sports, he knew firsthand that winning ball games had nothing to do with color. But as a quarterback, he appreciated this more than most. The crowds may have cheered for Jack, but he knew that every time he threw a pass or ran for a touchdown, an offensive line stood guard, many of them African American. These were his teammates, his friends, and he witnessed the discrimination they encountered many times. But there was one moment from those days that always lived in Jack's memory. It was in 1960. Jack was playing for the Chargers at the time. They were in Houston for the AFL Championship, and during the playing of the ``National Anthem,'' Jack looked over toward his father at the 50-yard line. The father of his cocaptain, Charlie McNeil, was not there. He later found out that Mr. McNeil had been forced to sit in a section of the end zone that was roped off for Blacks. It was one of many terrible indignities that would make Jack a restless promoter of equality throughout his life.

A self-described bleeding heart conservative, Jack's childlike love for America and all it promised was evident until the end. In a letter to his grandchildren just this past November, Jack said his first thought upon learning that an African American had won the Presidency was: ``Is this a great country or not?'' ``Just think,'' he wrote, ``a little over 40 years ago, Blacks in America had trouble even voting in our country, much less thinking about running for the highest office in the land.''

Jack was not your average politician, but he was a necessary one, constantly challenging the establishment. He was a political entrepreneur, restless to get things done. Colleagues remember how Cabinet meetings were always livelier with Jack there--whether he was rolling his eyes in disagreement or squirming in his chair. No room ever seemed big enough to contain him. Sometimes when congressional leadership would meet over in the White House, Jack's former colleague and ours, Trent Lott, would have to kick him under the table to keep him from saying something he might regret later on. Convention just never suited him, and the Nation and our party was always a lot better because of it.

We will miss Jack's insistence, his passion, his energy, and we will miss seeing him, the broad smile, the snow-white hair, plowing into a crowd, bounding up on a stage, and hurling an imaginary football off into the distance.

Jack was a happy, raspy-voiced evangelist for the ideas that shaped a generation and revived a political party. He believed, rightly, that conservative ideas were universal--that if they applied to one group, they applied to all groups. And he rolled up his sleeves to prove it, whether as a candidate for Vice President, a Cabinet Secretary spending a night in a Philadelphia housing project, or in these last years as an advocate for many of the causes he believed in, a speaker, a wise party elder and, above all, a devoted husband to his beloved Joanne, father, and grandfather.

It is hard to imagine someone of Jack's energy and enthusiasm succumbing to anything; he was always so full of life, the vital center of every room he entered and every debate. We will miss his passion. We are all grateful for his goodness. And as we say our final goodbye to Jack French Kemp, we are consoled by the thought that after a painful illness, he has broken away now like a wide receiver from the pack, into the welcoming embrace of a loving God.

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

Mr. President, it should be clear to everyone at this point that the administration got ahead of itself by announcing an arbitrary closing date for Guantanamo before it even drew up a list of safe alternatives. So I rise this morning to express my continuing concerns about the administration's apparent lack of a plan for detainees at this facility and to press the administration for answers on a number of important questions.

Over the past 2 weeks, I and others have asked the Attorney General to provide the American people with the assurance that closing Guantanamo will keep the American people as safe as Guantanamo has. We have asked a series of questions. So far these questions have gone unanswered. But the questions remain.

Which detainees will be released or transferred overseas?

How do we know these men will not return to the battlefield?

Will they be tried in American courts or will we use military commissions?

Will any be sent to U.S. soil, even though the Senate voted against it 94 to 3?

Finally, what legal basis does the administration have to release trained terrorists into the U.S.?

Americans want answers. Unfortunately, the administration seems more comfortable discussing its plans for the inmates at Guantanamo with a European audience than it is discussing these details with Americans.

Senator Sessions wrote a letter to the Attorney General weeks before his trip to Europe asking about the legality of releasing trained terrorists into the U.S. He sent another one to the same effect on Monday. He still has not heard back.

During the same trip, Attorney General Holder talked specifics about Guantanamo with European leaders. He said that the administration has identified 30 detainees at Guantanamo who are ready for release and that he would ``be reaching out to specific countries with specific detainees.'' And according to reports, the administration has presented at least one country with a list of detainees it would like that country to accept.

Americans want to know that on the issue of Guantanamo the administration is as concerned about safety as it is about symbolism. They are concerned about the administration's plans for releasing or transferring some of the most dangerous terrorists alive. They want to know that these terrorists will not end up back on the battlefield or in their backyards.

At the very least, they should know as much about the administration's plans for these men as our European critics do.

So this morning I would like to ask the Attorney General to provide Congress with any information he has provided to foreign governments about his plans for detainees at Guantanamo. If the administration will not relate its plans to the American people or their representatives in Congress, it should at least relate the details of its conversations on this issue with foreign leaders. This is not too much to ask.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, Justice Souter's decision last week to retire from the Supreme Court presents us with an opportunity to prepare for an important debate about the role of the courts and the meaning of the Constitution. Of all the Senate's duties, few have come to enliven our civic life as much as the consideration of a Supreme Court nominee.

Justice Souter never made a secret of the fact that he prefers New Hampshire to Washington, and the fact that he has served so long in spite of that preference speaks of a deep commitment to public service. As Justice Souter returns to New Hampshire, we thank him for his many years of dedicated service.

Now attention turns to the President's eventual nominee.

Republicans are hopeful that President Obama will choose someone with the same qualities that have always characterized a good judge: superb legal ability, personal integrity, sound temperament, and, above all, an evenhanded reading of the law.

These are the qualities Americans have always looked for in their judges. Any judge who has them can fulfill his or her judicial oath to ``administer justice without respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.'' And these are the qualities that we should expect of any nominee to the highest court in the land.

Over the years, there has been a growing tendency among some on the left to pick or promote judges based on policy and political preferences, and President Obama's past statements on judicial appointments strongly suggest that he shares this view.

As a candidate for President, he said that his criteria for a judicial nominee would be someone who would empathize with particular parties or particular groups. This viewpoint was evident again last week when, in describing a good nominee, the President seemed to stress empathy over and above a judge's role of applying the law without prejudice.

The problem with this philosophy is that it arises out of the misguided notion that the courts are simply an extension of the legislative branch rather

than a check on it. Americans do not want judges to view any group or individual who walks into the courtroom as being more equal than any other group or individual. They expect someone who will apply the law equally to everyone, so everyone has a fair shake.

Americans expect, and should receive, equal treatment whether they are in small claims court or the Supreme Court. And any judge who pushes for an outcome based on their own personal opinion of what is fair undermines that basic trust Americans have always had and should always expect in an American court of law.

The President is free to nominate whomever he likes. But picking judges based on his or her perceived sympathy for certain groups or individuals undermines the faith Americans have in our judicial system. So throughout this nomination process, the impartiality of judges is a principle that all of us should strongly defend.

In a nation of laws, the question is not whether a judge will be on the side of one group or another. It is not ``whose side,'' the judge is ``on,'' as a senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee framed the issue during another debate over a Supreme Court nominee. The issue is whether he or she will apply the law evenhandedly.

Once the President chooses his nominee, Senate Republicans will work to ensure the Senate can conduct a thorough review of their record, and a full and fair debate over his or her qualifications for the job. This is a responsibility we take seriously, and one that the American people expect us to carry out with the utmost deliberation.

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