Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, with the administration still unsure of what to do with the detainees at Guantanamo, Attorney General Holder has described its arbitrary closing date as one of his most daunting challenges. Secretary Gates said some would be released or transferred overseas, some tried in American courts, and the administration doesn't know what to do with 50 to 100 who can't be released or tried. Clearly, the administration lacks a plan and a safe alternative for closing Guantanamo. Let me make a suggestion. The administration should reconsider its arbitrary deadline on Guantanamo, as it has reconsidered its commitment to arbitrary withdrawal deadlines in Iraq. Once the administration has a plan to safely detain, prosecute or transfer these detainees, Congress should be consulted and briefed to evaluate the proposal. With no safe alternative, this is the only sensible approach.

No American will penalize the administration for putting safety over symbolism. Europe should not either, since it has been far more critical than helpful. It is increasingly clear that working through the problems related to Guantanamo will require time and close consultation with Congress. The Senate voted 94 to 3 against sending detainees to American soil even if only to prisons. Let me say that again. The Senate voted 94 to 3 against sending detainees to U.S. prisons, not to mention the possibility that they would simply be released into neighborhoods. Secretary Gates has conceded that no one wants these detainees in their communities.

The legal authority for releasing trained terrorists is in question, a concern the administration hasn't publicly

addressed at all. The administration hasn't decided if it will use the military commissions process that Congress passed on a bipartisan basis at the suggestion of the Supreme Court.

Finally, the administration hasn't said how it plans to deal with the problem of terrorists we release returning to the battlefield even, even as DOD has confirmed that 18 of the prisoners we released have returned to terrorism and that at least 44 are suspected as having done so.

The American people want to keep the terrorists at Guantanamo, out of their neighborhoods and off the battlefield. At this point, the only way we can assure them that neither one of these things will occur is for the administration to keep this secure facility open until it develops a sensible plan for the Congress to evaluate. We remain a nation at war with ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite disagreements over the best way to combat international terrorism, the truth remains that we haven't been attacked at home since 9/11. That is a record we wish to continue. Maintaining a safe and secure way to detain terrorists is a critical part of protecting the American people.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State will appear before the Appropriations Committee to support the administration's request for funding to execute our combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. They will be explaining the need to expend more than $80 billion in our efforts to defeat the Taliban, al-Qaida, and to preserve our security gains in Iraq.

The administration's request also includes $80 million to close the secure detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Yet rather than appear before the Senate to explain why these funds are necessary, and what the administration

plans to do with the terrorists housed at Guantanamo, Attorney General Holder chose to deliver a speech in Berlin yesterday in which he reiterated the administration's intent to close it.

During that speech, Attorney General Holder acknowledged once again that Guantanamo is ``run in an efficient, professional manner.'' He said detainees there are treated humanely. Yet Guantanamo must be closed, he said, because it represents, as he put it, a time and an approach that we want to put behind us. And keeping this so-called symbol open ``makes America less safe'' and makes our friends, including Europeans, ``less secure.''

It is clear from these remarks that the administration is putting symbolism ahead of safety. This becomes even more apparent from Attorney General Holder's admission that closing Guantanamo will be ``one of the most daunting challenges'' he will face. He clearly realizes what most Americans realize: closing Guantanamo is not a good option if no safe alternatives exist.

In an effort to circumvent this dilemma, Attorney General Holder says the U.S. will not only transfer detainees but also release some of them and try others in Federal court. Nowhere did the Attorney General mention the use of the military commissions process that Congress passed on a bipartisan basis at the direction of the Supreme Court. The Attorney General's comments present a whole range of new problems and potential dangers that some of my colleagues will detail throughout the day.

Attorney General Holder also failed to address recent news reports that the administration was considering releasing Guantanamo detainees into American communities. On April 2, Senator Sessions sent the Attorney General a letter asking him what legal authority the administration has to release detainees who have participated in terrorist-related activities into the United States. The Attorney General still has not responded to Senator Sessions. But it is a question the American people want answered right away.

This weekend I will be attending the Kentucky Derby with well over 100,000 Kentuckians and other Americans, and if I asked every one of them if they thought sending terrorists to our neighborhoods was a good plan, I would get more than 100,000 resounding ``noes.''

Since the administration has not given any indication where it plans to put the 240 terrorists currently housed at Guantanamo, the Attorney General was asked in Berlin if any of the detainees could be put up in hotels. According to the Associated Press report on the meeting, the Attorney General joked that ``hotels might be a possibility, it depends on where the hotel is.''

The question of where the terrorists at Guantanamo will be sent is no joking matter--and the administration needs to tell the American people how it will keep the terrorists at Guantanamo out of our neighborhoods and off of the battlefield. Its one thing not to have a plan. It is another to joke about not having one.

Madam President, the Nation and the Commonwealth of Kentucky are poorer today for the loss of SGT David K. Cooper of Williamsburg. On August 27, 2008, Sergeant Cooper was tragically killed when his dismounted patrol came under small-arms fire in Iraq. He was 25 years old.

Sergeant Cooper was in his third tour in Iraq. For his bravery in uniform, he received several medals, awards and decorations, including the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star Medal.

Sergeant Cooper was laid to rest at Bowlin Cemetery in Jellico, TN, about 10 miles south of Williamsburg. Ed Bailey, a friend who watched him grow up, said of Sergeant Cooper, ``I don't know where our country keeps getting these heroes.''

Ronald and Judy Cooper, David's parents, could tell you. They fondly remember David, who was born in Whitley County and raised in Williamsburg, as a fun-loving kid who enjoyed football, track and playing in the school band.

``David seemed to go straight from being a little boy at 11 to being a man at 12, full facial hair and all,'' says his mother, Judy. ``David played junior-high football. The coach had David and one other player like him. Coach had to carry a copy of these two players' birth certificates to prove they were not over age for junior-high football.''

David went on to play defensive end and tight end on his highschool football team, the Williamsburg Yellow Jackets. One friend who played with him, Steven Moses, still remembers David as ``hard as heck to block.''

David had many friends, who called him by the nickname ``Coop.'' As for David's friends, they all seemed to have the same first name--``My Buddy.''

In a eulogy she wrote with David's sisters, Veronica and Vanessa, and graciously shared with me, Judy recalls what David would call his friends: ``My Buddy Matt, My Buddy Chapman, My Buddy Black.''

Once when David went out with his friends to cut down their own Christmas tree, he demonstrated that he barely knew his own strength. The group borrowed a parent's truck, went out and cut down a big beautiful cedar.

``David was always a big, strong man, even in high school,'' says Judy. ``As they were loading the tree, one of the branches got stuck on the tailgate. David and one of his friends got up into the truck, gave a mighty heave, and pulled the tree up into the bed of the truck and straight through the back window.''

David graduated from Williamsburg High School in 2001 and attended Eastern Kentucky University. In May 2004, he enlisted in the Army.

Roddy Harrison, the mayor of Williamsburg and David's former teacher and high school football coach, remembers seeing David soon after he enlisted and telling him how proud he was of him. ``He was a smart kid,'' Mayor Harrison recalls. ``A good student, very likable. He had a great sense of humor. . . . We are going to miss him.''

David attended basic training at Fort Sill, OK, and advanced individual training at Fort Sill and Redstone Arsenal in Alabama. By 2005, he was assigned to Golf Forward Support Company, 4th Battalion, 42nd Field Artillery, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, based out of Fort Hood, TX. He was soon deployed to Iraq and served as a radar repair mechanic.

David's commanding officer in Iraq, CPT Christopher M. Guillory, wrote to Judy about her son. ``I usually called him Coop; [he] called me `sir' or `Captain G,' '' he wrote. ``Whether it was at Chapman's house while they were working on trucks, the drag strip, or at the monster truck shows, he was always respectful to me while we had a great time. David was a great young man, who had shown a great deal of maturity in the time I knew him.''

In Iraq, David served as a command team driver and company armorer. He was selected to serve on his command sergeant major's personal security detail for his tactical knowledge and record of performance.

When home on leave, David would tell his childhood friend Matt Mountjoy about the excitement of serving in the Army. He knew the dangers but was unafraid to face them. ``He really was a brave person,'' Matt says. ``I never, never heard him say he was ever scared.''

His mother Judy remembers that after David's death, a group of his friends came to visit her and share stories about her son. The stories mostly began, ``You remember that time when me and you and Coop . . . '' Judy says. ``They were all funny, most of them dangerous. . . . Were they funny at the time? No. Where do you think I got all of these gray hairs and wrinkles? But time does give us perspective.''

David's many friends and family members are in our thoughts as we remember him today. We are thinking of his wife, Amanda Fuston Cooper; his parents, Ronald Cooper and Judy Parrot Cooper; his sisters, Veronica Cooper and Vanessa Cooper, and Vanessa's finance Dave Seeger; his grandparents, Wanda and E.L. Cooper; his aunts, Jenny Begluitti, Janice Rutherford, and Joyce Dippel, and Joyce's husband Marty; his uncles, Steve Cooper and John Parrot, and John's wife Sonya; and many other beloved friends and family members.

All of those who knew him will remember a man of many fine qualities, including honesty. His mother Judy

says no one ever had to guess where they stood with David. ``David and I had a very close relationship,'' she says. ``He always said, `Mom, I know there isn't any sense in me trying to lie to you. I know you're just going to find out the truth anyway.' ''

What is the truth now is that our Nation must never forget SGT David K. Cooper's service, nor can we ever forget the loss and pain caused to his family by his enormous sacrifice. I hope they will remember that this Senate is proud to honor SGT David K. Cooper for his bravery, his patriotism, and his love of country.

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

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

Mr. President, we were all saddened this morning to hear

that a Texas child has died from the recent outbreak of the H1N1 flu. This is a very worrisome situation, and we are all following it very closely.

Yesterday, Secretary Napolitano briefed Republicans on this matter, and we appreciate the administration's coordination with Congress. The administration has said that it currently has all the personnel and equipment it needs to handle the situation, but going forward, Congress is prepared to work on the request for additional funds in the supplemental.

I would note that Congress is in a much better position to deal with outbreaks such as this as a result of the hard work of Senator Burr and others, who have done a great deal on the issue of biopreparedness and on coordinating all of the relevant Government agencies. We stand ready to closely work with the administration to protect the American people as this situation unfolds.

Mr. President, from the very first days of the new administration, Senate Republicans have pledged to work closely with our new President and his Cabinet to find solutions to the Nation's many foreign and domestic challenges.

On the foreign policy front, we felt strongly about the need to work with the new administration on a unified agenda that protects the American people and furthers our interests abroad. So far, we have had two major points of convergence.

On the enormously important question of our strategies in both Afghanistan and Iraq, Republicans support the President's decision to follow, in both cases, the best advice of his military commanders on the ground.

We may part ways on a number of other foreign policy issues, some of which I outlined in greater detail earlier this week, but when it comes to the question of Iraq and Afghanistan, the President's strategy is one that most everyone can support.

Here at home, there have admittedly been fewer opportunities for agreement.

An ongoing recession and the continuing reverberations of a financial shock that began in the housing industry led both parties to come up with their own respective plans to jumpstart the economy in the short term and strengthen its foundations in the long term.

The administration's plan revolved around a trillion dollar stimulus that was neither timely, targeted, nor temporary--as well as a decision to press forward on several major, controversial legislative proposals. If the President's budget is fully implemented, it would double the national debt in just 5 years and nearly triple it in 10.

Republicans had a different approach. We worked closely with Democrats last fall to pass a financial rescue plan aimed at stabilizing the overall economy. But we refused to support a second round of funds when the administration couldn't assure us it would only be used to address the crisis at hand.

When it came to an economic stimulus, Republicans pointed out the glaring weaknesses in the Democrat plan and we offered a plan of our own that would have cost half as much and gone straight to the root of the problem, which is housing.

We also suggested that instead of spending billions on wasteful projects, we loan State and local governments money. This would have encouraged the careful use of taxpayer dollars since State and local governments would have known they would have to pay the money back when the economy improved.

We also refused to support bailouts for the auto industry, since we don't think the Government should be picking winners and losers. We said bailouts would only delay necessary reforms for long-term success. Our position was recently vindicated when the automakers came back for even more money, forcing the administration to talk seriously about bankruptcy as a means of achieving the necessary restructuring.

When it comes to protecting taxpayers and to a mounting debt that our children will inherit, the new administration has been remarkably carefree. Most of this debt is being financed by China and countries in the Middle East, which of course increases the economic leverage these countries have over the United States.

Americans are worried about this and they should be. In a time of economic hardship, we should not be borrowing money we will not be able to pay back.

The current administration seems to disagree. In just 1 week in February, the administration's acts cost the American taxpayers more than $1 trillion, or more than the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina combined.

Federal support for a single company in the financial sector now amounts to almost $175 billion over the past year alone. That is more than what we will spend this year on the deployment costs of our Armed Forces fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So far this year the most far-reaching legislation we have considered is the budget. In the middle of a recession, the same Democrats who were outraged over a $455 billion deficit last year came to us this year with a budget that would lead to trillion-dollar deficits and which saddles Americans with more debt than all the debt we had accumulated from George Washington to the present day, combined.

Hundreds of thousands of American workers are losing their jobs every month. They are concerned that all this spending and debt will not just slow the economic recovery but make it harder to keep or find jobs. These Americans may like the President, but they do not understand how a giant expansion of Government will help create or preserve jobs.

They do not think the administration has done enough to explain how borrowing money to create those programs will make America stronger, more secure, and more economically sound.

Americans are also increasingly concerned about the administration's approach to a number of foreign policy issues that are related to our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. One of the most troubling of these decisions relates to the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Shortly after taking office, the new Attorney General was tasked with closing Guantanamo by next January.

Yet 3 months later, the administration still has not provided the American people with any further details about what will happen to these inmates once the January deadline arrives. The American people do not want terrorists back on the battlefield, and they certainly do not want them released into their neighborhoods, as some in the administration have shockingly proposed, according to news accounts.

The administration has not been clear about its reason for closing Guantanamo before it has a plan for these detainees. But its reason cannot be that the facility is poorly run, since Attorney General Holder has said himself that the facilities there are good ones. It cannot be that the administration has a better alternative. If it did, we would have heard about it by now. The American people do not want trained terrorists released into their neighborhoods. They want answers. Unfortunately, the administration has only offered silence.

In the face of tremendous challenges at home and abroad, the new administration offered a burst of activity and a veritable explosion of debt. Meanwhile, Republicans have proposed responsible solutions that are meant to empower the American people and improve the quality of their daily lives.

On this front, Republicans will continue to offer sensible ideas on health care that address the concerns Americans have about the high cost of doctors visits, about finding good health coverage, and about keeping the coverage they have.

The lesson of the failed health care proposal of the Clinton era is not that Americans do not want reform, it is that any reform should reflect the needs of all Americans, not just a select few in Washington. Americans do not want a health care solution that puts bureaucrats in charge of medical decisions, delays appointments or diminishes the quality of health care they already receive.

Health care is an area where Americans expect the President and Congress to work together. The divide-and-conquer approach did not work in 1993, it will not work in 2009.

Energy is another area where Republicans have offered and will continue to offer commonsense solutions. Last year, even before gas prices hit the roof, we proposed a sensible approach of finding more and using less. Republicans are also proposing a dramatic expansion of nuclear power. This would match the high demand for energy in the world's largest economy with a growing public desire for cleaner, more efficient energy sources.

Health care and energy are just two of the areas where Republicans will continue to offer better ideas in the coming months. We hope our friends on the other side are more supportive of these ideas than they have been of our proposals on the economy.

On this point, it is interesting to know that just a few weeks ago, Democrats showed strong support on the Senate floor for Republican proposals to protect small businesses and middle-class taxpayers, as well as a proposal to keep the Nation's debt at a level we can manage. They also expressed strong support for a Republican proposal that climate change legislation not lead to higher gas and electricity bills.

Yet these Republican proposals which drew such broadspread support on the Senate floor just a few weeks ago were, for some reason, taken out of the final product that came out of the closed conference.

Democrats cannot have it both ways. Americans are suffering. They are losing homes, and they are losing jobs. Republicans have offered, and will continue to offer, proposals that put the concern of these ordinary Americans first: Democrats' overspending, taxes, and debt.

Massive spending and debt is not the answer to a recession. A one- party solution with no checks and balances is not the answer for health care. Opposing clean, nuclear power and expanded use of other domestic energy sources is not an answer for our energy needs.

Voting for tax relief before voting against it is not the way to show the American people you have their best economic interests in mind. Republicans have not been hesitant to offer our strong public support for the new administration, and, again, I commend the President on his approach to Afghanistan and Iraq. But we have not been hesitant to state our differences clearly.

That has been the story of the first 100 days for Senate Republicans and will continue to be the story for Senate Republicans: Principled support, principled opposition, and pragmatic, creative solutions to meet the challenges of the day.

Mr. President, I rise because my State and our country have lost one of our last links to a bygone era. On Tuesday, April 28, Robley Rex passed away a few days shy of his 108th birthday. He will forever be remembered as Kentucky's last World War I-era veteran.

Ninety years ago, a teenaged Robley Rex landed in France, caring a rifle and wearing a U.S. Army uniform. He was a long way from Christian County, KY, where he was born in 1901 and raised.

Wanting to see the world and fight for his country, Robley enlisted in the Fifth, and later the 28th, Infantry Division and was deployed to Europe. After leaving the Army in 1922, he returned to Kentucky and settled in Louisville, where he became a postal worker and ordained Methodist minister.

Robley was not only the Bluegrass State's preeminent veteran, he was also its preeminent volunteer on behalf of veterans. Decades after his own active service ended, he continued to serve his fellow soldiers by volunteering at the Louisville Veterans Affairs Medical Center, right up until the last years of his life.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars honored him for over 14,000 hours of service in 22 years. I was proud to call Robley a friend of mine. Our lives intersected a number of times over the last 20 or 30 years. A few weeks ago when I was in Louisville, I had the pleasure to read a wonderful article about Robley in the Southeast Outlook. On a sad note, the article mentioned how Robley was looking forward to his impending birthday. I know a lot of the rest of us were too. His friends were planning a special birthday celebration at the Louisville VA hospital next month. Instead, it will be an opportunity to remember how much Robley meant to all of us.

As much as we will all miss him, I take comfort knowing that Robley is reunited with his beloved wife Gracie, who passed away in 1992, after more than 60 years of marriage.

Because I wish to share with my colleagues this article on Robley Rex's long and exciting life, I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

I know all my colleagues join me in honoring the memory of this great patriot and soldier. Through his long lifetime of service, Robley Rex proved his faith and devotion to his country. Now his country will forever be faithful and devoted to him.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, tomorrow night in Berlin, Attorney General Holder is scheduled to deliver a speech about the administration's plan to shut down the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay by the arbitrary deadline of January 2010.

Many Americans are skeptical of the administration's decision to close Guantanamo before it has a plan to deal with the 240 terrorists who are currently housed there. And Americans were rightly alarmed by recent news reports that the administration is considering releasing some Guantanamo detainees into the U.S.--not to detention facilities, but directly into our neighborhoods.

Aside from the question of why the Attorney General thinks a German audience should hear about the administration's plans for Guantanamo before the American people do, there are a number of questions about the administration's plan for releasing terrorists into the United States that I hope the Attorney General will address tomorrow night.

Queston No. 1: What is the legal basis for bringing these terrorist- trained detainees to the United States, given that Federal law specifically forbids the entry of anyone who endorses or espouses terrorism, has received terrorist training, or belongs to a terrorist group? That is U.S. law.

Question No. 2: Can the administration guarantee the safety of the American people, particularly in the neighborhoods where these terror- trained detainees will live?

Question No. 3: Will the residents of the communities where these men will be released be made aware of it?

Question No. 4: Will these trained terrorists be allowed to travel freely anywhere in the United States?

Question No. 5: What will their status be? Will they be allowed to stay here permanently? Will they be eligible for citizenship? Will they receive or be eligible to receive taxpayer funding? Why did no other country agree to accept them? What threat do these men pose of returning to terrorist activities and what threat assessments have been conducted to evaluate whether these men will attack U.S. troops on the battlefield or Americans at Embassies abroad?

There are now less than 300 days until the President's Executive order mandates the closure of the secure detention facility at Guantanamo and the transfer or release of its remaining detainees. I recognize the difficulty of the challenge these detainees present, but we shouldn't let an arbitrary deadline and a desire to appease critics overseas lead to decisions that make American citizens less safe.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, America faces many serious challenges, not only at home but abroad. I was reminded of that fact in a vivid way during my own recent trip to Iraq and to the broader Middle East. I was reminded of it as I followed, with great interest, the President's recent trips to Europe and South America as well as some of his recent decisions relating to the shape and spirit of U.S. foreign policy.

What these trips and decisions have shown many of us is that looking forward we would do well to reaffirm some basic foreign policy principles that have served America well in the past; namely, that our security and our prosperity rely on a strong national defense, both militarily and with regard to the gathering of intelligence, and that America must honor its commitments to allies and alliances. This afternoon, I would like to take a few moments to explain why these principles are so important. I would also like to outline a few of the areas where I agree and where I respectfully disagree with the foreign policy decisions the new administration has made.

I will begin with the praise. In my view, the President admirably followed the principle of maintaining and employing a strong defense when he accepted the advice of his military commanders to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq based on conditions on the ground, not political calculations. He followed this principle again by pursuing in Afghanistan the same counterinsurgency strategy that has worked in Iraq. The administration deserves credit for both decisions. I have not been hesitant in giving it that credit.

The next step, of course, is to keep our forces ready. In order to do so, the Senate must pass the administration's supplemental spending request to train and equip the armed services. This is a spending request I will support.

Unfortunately, the administration erred when it selectively declassified a number of so-called CIA interrogation memos almost in their entirety. The choice on this issue was clear: Defend career intelligence professionals or reveal to al-Qaida terrorists the interrogation methods they can expect to face if captured.

The administration chose the latter. That was a mistake. It would also be a mistake for the administration to pursue or condone the kind of protracted investigation that some have proposed into intelligence- gathering efforts after the 9/11 attacks.

Some of the President's own advisers have warned that such an investigation would only serve to demoralize the intelligence community and, therefore, weaken its ability to protect the American people. Moreover, the President himself has repeatedly said America must use all the tools in its arsenal addressing problems we face, including, presumably, the ongoing threat of Islamic terrorists.

Weakening our tools of intelligence through an investigation of the intelligence community and other key decisionmakers would, by definition, make that pledge impossible to fulfill. It would also serve to divide us, I fear, at a time when we must continue to present a united and determined front to our known enemies.

In my view, the Commander in Chief has an obligation to unify the country while we are at war and at risk. Looked at in this context, attacking each other on these issues is not only counterproductive, it is actually dangerous. It is important to remember we are still very much engaged in a global fight against terror, and as long as that fight continues, a strong, ready defense will require strong support for an intelligence community that is uniquely equipped to deal with many of the problems that arise in this fight.

At a time such as this, hampering the vital work of our Nation's intelligence professionals is exactly the wrong thing to do. I have already openly and repeatedly expressed my disagreement with the administration's approach on Guantanamo. Americans would like to know why they are preparing to transfer prisoners involved in the 9/11 attacks either to facilities that are outside our control entirely or here in the United States. They want assurances the next detention facility, or the country to which they are transferred, keeps them as safe as Guantanamo has.

So far, the administration has not been able to provide those assurances. Its only assurance is that Guantanamo will close sometime within the next 9 months. To achieve that goal, the administration has asked Congress for $80 million in the upcoming supplemental war funding bill. In my view, Congress would be shirking its duties if it were to approve these funds one second--one second--before we know exactly what the administration plans to do with these terrorists.

News reports over the weekend suggest the administration is very close to announcing the release of a number of detainees into the United States, not to detention facilities but into the

United States, directly into our communities and neighborhoods right here on U.S. soil.

Virtually every Member of the Senate is on record opposing the transfer of detainees to U.S. soil, even if it only meant incarcerating them in some of our Nation's most secure prisons. We had that vote a couple years ago, 94 to 3. The presumption was that they would be coming to the United States and incarcerated, not free. The Senate expressed itself 94 to 3 against such a release.

Until these new reports emerged, no one had even ever contemplated the possibility of releasing trained terrorists into American communities. It never occurred to anyone. If the administration actually follows through on this shocking proposal, it will have clearly answered the question of whether its plan for the inmates at Guantanamo will keep America as safe as Guantanamo has.

By releasing trained terrorists into civilian communities in the United States, the administration will, by definition, endanger the American people. Moreover, by releasing trained terrorists into the United States, the administration may run afoul of U.S. law, something that was pointed out to us by the Senator from Alabama some weeks back. Many were unaware that such a release might actually violate U.S. law, and I believe the Senator from Alabama will have more to say about that shortly.

That law presumably would prohibit admission to the United States of anyone who has trained for, engaged in, or espoused terrorism. Before any decision is made that will affect the safety of American communities, the Attorney General needs to explain how his decision will make America safer and whether this decision complies with U.S. law.

I also disagree with the administration's recent pledge to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a treaty that we have voluntarily abided by for years. Before the President rushes to fulfill this goal, America needs assurances that our nuclear stockpile is both reliable and safe. As our nuclear stockpile ages, the assurance becomes increasingly important. There are only two ways to ensure the safety of our nuclear stockpile: through actual tests or by investing in a new generation of warheads. At the moment, the administration is not willing to do either. When it comes to deterrence, this represents a serious dilemma.

As Defense Secretary Gates has said:

There is absolutely no way that we can maintain a credible

deterrent and reduce the number of warheads in our stockpile

without resorting [either] to testing our stockpile or

pursuing a modernization program.

As we seek to keep our defenses strong, we must also be careful to keep our commitments to our allies and friends, particularly in the Middle East and in NATO. After all, what good is an alliance if one of its members cannot be trusted to uphold its end of the bargain. If America cannot be expected to keep its word, we cannot expect others to keep theirs.

Now, our NATO allies need to know we will not walk away from missile defense or rush to reduce our own nuclear stockpile in the misguided hope of securing a promise of cooperation from Russia with respect to Iran. The notion that the key to containing Iran lies with Russian cooperation is not new. But it has repeatedly proven to be futile. The previous administration pursued the path of cooperation in the form of the Nuclear Cooperation 123 Agreement, and Russia did not end its arms sales to Iran as a result.

I might add, that treaty was subsequently withdrawn. We should learn from our mistakes, not repeat them. This means that as we engage the Russians, we must also do so as realists. The newer members of the NATO alliance must know the United States will not help Russia carve out a new sphere of influence in the 21st century to match the one it had in the second half of the 20th century.

The administration should be equally realistic in its dealings with Iran. It must make perfectly clear that pursuit of nuclear weapons is unacceptable. This means explaining to our friends and to our foes that the pursuit of such a program will have consequences. Israel and a number of moderate Arab regimes have all risked a great deal in confronting Islamic extremism. We need to assure every one of them that the administration's negotiations with Iran will lead to real results.

The challenges we face abroad will require much patience and endurance, as they always have. Efforts to improve our image abroad are a part of that. But we should not overvalue the power of personal diplomacy in overcoming problems that have been with us for years. We saw this recently with Iran. In response to the administration's offer of a new era of engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect, Iran convicted an American journalist to 8 years in jail after a secret trial and accused the United States in an international forum of conspiring to create Israel on the ``pretext of Jewish sufferings.''

The administration offered respect, and Iran responded with contempt. Iran continues to fund terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and there is little evidence that any incentive can keep the Supreme Leader of Iran, Khamenei, from pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Iran must be deterred.

Then there is Cuba. In response to the administration's proposal for a ``fresh start'' in our relations with Communist Cuba, Fidel Castro said the new administration had confused his brother Raul's reaffirmation of the Cuban Revolution and its principles for an openness to discussing Democratic reform.

As far as fresh starts go, this was not particularly encouraging to me, nor was it likely to encourage the 11 million Cuban citizens who continue to be denied any basic human right, the thousands of Cubans who, according to the State Department, are forced to serve jail sentences without even having been charged of a specific crime or human rights advocates who face arbitrary arrest, detention, and the denial of a fair trial.

What about Venezuelans who face arbitrary arrest and detention and who cannot expect a fair trial? It is unlikely they would cheer by the new administration's warm embrace of a man who oppresses them. Imagine the signal this sends to those in Venezuela and throughout the world who are fighting for the freedom and Democratic reforms and who expect the United States to defend and to protect their efforts in our dealings with friends and foes alike.

Similarly concerning is the increasing reliance on special envoys. The administration has rushed several of those envoys, all fine public servants, to foreign capitals. Yet none of them were subject to Senate confirmation or are answerable in any way to Congress. I see by the morning paper they require considerable staff.

These envoys face significant challenges, from divides among the Palestinian people to the growth of the Taliban inside Pakistan. During their negotiations, these envoys are likely to make commitments that Congress will be expected to fulfill or fund, but Congress cannot be expected to simply hand out funds to support negotiations we know nothing about. These special envoys should be accountable to Congress.

Every American President from George Washington to the current day has struggled to balance America's interests with its ideals. This is something Americans have long accepted. But the rush to initiate fresh starts with old adversaries or to find quick solutions to the many complex problems we face is not always advisable when it comes to advancing our long-term interests or in preserving and strengthening alliances or our relationships with allies.

Republicans will have many reasons to stand with the President in the months and years ahead. But we will not be reluctant to remind them of some of the principles that have served us well in the past or to speak out against decisions with which we respectively disagree.

As we wage two wars overseas, we must be sure to maintain strong relations with our allies.

Some days they will need us. Some days we will need them. But in a dangerous world, these vital relationships must be preserved. We must also preserve the dominance of the U.S. military in the near term and in the long term. And any arms control agreement sent to the Senate must be verifiable and clearly in the national interest.

These are principles all of us should agree on and all of us should be eager

and able to defend. Our allies deserve to know that we will be guided by them, and so too, I believe, do the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the great national parks in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cumberland Gap National Historical Park, located southeastern Kentucky, near Middlesboro. The park will celebrate its 50th anniversary this year.

In the 1920s, the idea of creating the Cumberland Gap National Historical Park was formed, and after 30 years of planning and hard work, the park was finished and dedicated, 50 years ago this coming July.

The park will hold several special events in July celebrating the anniversary of the historic dedication, including the gathering of oral histories from people who were present during the creation, early days, and dedication of the park.

At the time of the dedication, Cumberland Gap National Historical Park included 20,184 acres--10,679 in Kentucky, 7,478 in Virginia, and 2,027 in Tennessee. Until 1980, it was the largest historical park in the country. It is estimated that more than 1 million people will visit the park this year.

Efforts have been made by the National Park Service since 1997 to prevent surface coal mining in the area surrounding Fern Lake. In cooperation with my friend in the House, Congressman Hal Rogers, we were able to pass legislation that authorized the Secretary of the Interior to acquire Fern Lake and the surrounding watershed to preserve this natural resource.

I value the importance of this park and have consistently secured funds to help acquire and preserve the lake. Located just southeast of Middlesboro, Fern Lake serves as the primary water source for the community and is visible from the Pinnacle Overlook, which is a popular visitor attraction at the Cumberland Gap National Park.

This park shows the importance Kentuckians place on our natural environment, and I applaud the work of the individuals who helped make this park a reality and those who continue to safeguard its natural beauty for many generations to come.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join with me in celebrating the 50th anniversary of the dedication of one of our Nation's most beautiful historical parks.

Reserving the right to object, let me say to my good friend the majority leader, there is at least one Member on my side who is not yet prepared to clear this matter. Therefore, I must, for the moment, object.

Madam President, I would say to my friend, the majority leader, that I am not able, at this particular time, to enter into an agreement on this nomination.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, this nomination came out of committee yesterday. It was fairly contentious. It was not a party-line vote, but a number of Members on my side opposed the nomination. So at least for today, I am not able to enter into a consent agreement on a time specific to consider the nomination of Governor Sebelius. I object.

I would say to my friend, the majority leader, I cannot today agree to a time specific for consideration of this nomination.

Madam President, I would say to my good friend, the majority leader, not at this time.

Madam President, later this morning, President Obama will speak at a Days of Remembrance ceremony here in the Capitol Rotunda--an annual event that was established by Congress as a living memorial to the victims of the Holocaust. Throughout the week, Louisville, Lexington, and other communities in Kentucky and the Nation have held events to commemorate this solemn occasion.

As we remember the terrible sufferings of the Jewish people and all others who have suffered and who continue to suffer at the hands of hatred and intolerance, we spread one of the most enduring lessons of the Holocaust--that evil exists in the world and it is the responsibility of free and just nations to protect the innocent by speaking for all those who cannot speak for themselves.

The theme of the 2009 Days of Remembrance is ``Never Again: What You Do Matters.'' Those words should serve as a reminder to all of us that anti-Semitism and other forms of religious hatred are as real today as they were in the middle of the last century and that the best way to honor the victims of the Holocaust is for us to work toward building a more hopeful and a more peaceful world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask there be a modification to allow Senator Bunning 20 minutes of the time available for the nomination of Kathleen Sebelius.

Mr. President, I rise to note the sad and sudden passing of a very familiar face to me and to many others around the Capitol.

Steve Mosley had been a fixture on the Capitol Facilities staff for 32 years when he passed away last night--and those of us who knew him will miss his great disposition and all that he did for so many years behind the scenes to keep this place running smoothly.

It has been noted that Steve was a pretty serious Redskins fan. That is an understatement. People who knew him say they can't remember him ever missing a single home game, rain or shine. And he liked to share his enthusiasm for the Skins with colleagues, particularly the Cowboy fans.

But Steve's friends also remember him for his generosity.

Like the time he offered to help set up the wedding reception of one of his colleagues so the colleague would be able to go out and enjoy his bachelor party. Steve never made it to the bachelor party himself. He spent the night making sure everything was ready for the reception.

One colleague recalled the time he wanted to get a limousine for his daughter on prom night but couldn't afford to spend the money. He told Steve about it at work one day, and the night of the prom, Steve showed up at the house in a black Mercedes Benz that he had washed and waxed for the occasion. Not only could the daughter use Steve's car for the prom--she could have him as a chauffeur too. A couple years later, Steve did the same thing for the girl's younger brother.

A lot of us have been here a long time, but few of us have been here as long as Steve was. He loved his job. He took a lot of pride in doing it well. And anytime someone new came on board, they knew they could learn the ropes, and a lot more, from Steve Mosley.

Senator Reid mentioned earlier that the Senate is really a family. And whenever we lose somebody in the Senate, whichever office they are from or duty they perform, we lose a member of the family. And with Steve it is like we are losing one of the elders in that family. He takes a lifetime of proud and service with him and he leaves a distinguished legacy and many friends behind.

So on behalf of the entire Senate, I want to extend our condolences to Steve's wife, Michelle, and to their son, Steven, Jr, for their loss. And I want to take this opportunity to express my deep appreciation and my thanks to our friend Steve for his many years of devoted service.

We'll miss him.