Floor Statements

Mr. President, I believe under a previous agreement I have time allotted at the present time; is that correct, if I could inquire of the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. I had the opportunity to meet with Judge Sotomayor 2 weeks ago. I was in the Senate when she was previously before this body on the Second Circuit Court nomination, and I appreciated the chance to meet with her recently.

I have also appreciated the chance to review her record in depth and also to hear my colleagues speak about Judge Sotomayor, because it represents the distinction that I think is very important to note here. My colleague from Missouri just spoke, and she was talking about the wonderful qualifications of Judge Sotomayor and the candidate's background and experiences that she brings. She has a very interesting, a very American story to tell of her background. It is a compelling story. She is the daughter of immigrants who overcame diversity to go to two of the Nation's best universities. I admire that, and I admire the things they pointed out in their presentation of her background and what she has done. I think those are all admirable characteristics.

But what we are doing here is picking somebody to be on the U.S. Supreme Court, and what their judicial philosophy is that they will take with them. It isn't all just about the background or the experience. It is about the judicial philosophy that comes forward, and that is what my colleagues didn't discuss. So that is what I want to discuss here this afternoon.

I have had the chance to review Judge Sotomayor's records. In 1998, the Senate voted to promote Judge Sotomayor to the appellate court. I voted against her at that time because I was concerned not about her background, not about her qualifications, but I was concerned that she embraced an activist judicial philosophy. That is what I want to talk about today, because that is what we are deciding when we put somebody on the Supreme Court--what is the judicial philosophy this person carries with them.

It is not necessarily about their own background or their qualifications. Those are important to review, but at the heart is what is the judicial philosophy. Is this a person who supports an activist judiciary getting into many areas in which the American public doesn't think they should go into or is it a person who believes in more of a strict constructionist view, that the Court is there to be an umpire and not an active player in policy development? Are they an umpire who calls the balls and strikes, and not how do we do law; how do we rewrite what is here?

I think the Court loses its lustre when it gets into becoming an active player in policy development instead of being a strict umpire of policy development. Unfortunately, what I saw in Judge Sotomayor in 1998 was somebody who embraced an activist judicial philosophy. During a 1996 speech at Suffolk University Law School 2 years before the Senate voted on her nomination to the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor said:

The law that lawyers practice and judges declare is not a

definitive capital ``L'' law that many would like to think

exists.

Translated, that is to say the law is not set. It is mobile, as moved by judges, not by legislatures. This is not the rule of law. This is the rule from the bench. This is the rule of man, and it makes our law unpredictable. That is not good for a society like ours which is based on the rule of law, not the rule by a person.

Any nominee to the Federal bench, and especially to the U.S. Supreme Court, must have a proper understanding and respect for the role of the Court--for the role they would assume. The Court must faithfully hold to the text of the Constitution and the intent of the Founders, not try to rewrite it based on ever changing cultural views. This is at the heart of what a judge does.

Democracy, I believe, is wounded when Justices on the high Court, who are unelected, invent constitutional rights and alter the balance of governmental powers in ways that find no support in the text, the structure, or the history of the Constitution. Unfortunately, in recent years, the courts have assumed a more aggressive political role. In many cases, the courts have allowed the left in this country to achieve through court mandates what it cannot persuade the people to enact through the legislative process. The Constitution contemplates that the Federal courts will exercise limited jurisdiction. They should neither write nor execute the law.

This is very basic in our law and goes back to the very Founders. As Chief Justice John Marshall said in his famous 1803 case, Marbury v. Madison, that every law student has studied at length, the role of the court is simple. It is to ``say what the law is.'' It is not to write the law. It is not to rewrite the law. It is to ``say what the law is,'' what did the legislature pass, when it needs interpretation. It is not about

writing it. It is not about the mobility, that the law isn't with a capital ``l,'' and we can move it here based on these factors that we think are different with the cultural environment and we may have to move it over here in 10 years because the environment has changed and the law changes with it.

If the law changes, it is by legislatures. It is not by the court. That is why Marbury v. Madison said the law is to ``say what the law is,'' not to rewrite it.

In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote this--law students study this as well:

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of

power must perceive that, in a government in which they are

separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of

its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the

political rights of the Constitution; because it will be

least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The executive

not only dispenses the honors but holds the sword of the

community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but

prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every

citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary,

has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no

direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the

society, and can take no active resolution whatsoever. It may

truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely

judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the

executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

The court is to have judgment. A judge is to have judgment, not write the law.

In Hamilton's view, judges could be trusted with power because they would not resolve divisive social issues--that is for the legislature to do--short-circuit the political process, or invent rights which have no basis in the text of the Constitution.

I have long believed the judicial branch preserves its legitimacy with the public and has its strength with the public through refraining from action on political questions. This concept was perhaps best expressed by Justice Felix Frankfurter, a steadfast Democrat appointed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Justice Frankfurter said this:

Courts are not representative bodies. They are not designed

to be a good reflex of a democratic society. Their judgment

is best informed, and therefore most dependable, within

narrow limits. Their essential quality is detachment, founded

on independence. History teaches that the independence of the

judiciary is jeopardized when courts become embroiled in the

passions of the day and assume primary responsibility in

choosing between competing political, economic and social

pressures. Primary responsibility for adjusting the interests

which compete in the situation before us of necessity belongs

to the Congress.

That is to quote Justice Frankfurter.

I recall a private meeting I had with then-Judge Roberts, before assuming the position of Chief Justice, when he had been nominated to be Chief Justice--a wonderful Justice on the Supreme Court who then- Senator Obama voted against. Senator Obama voted against the confirmation of John Roberts, voted against the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court based, I believe, primarily on judicial philosophy because they believed in strict constructionism; that a court was to be a court and not a legislative body. Then-Senator Obama voted against both John Roberts and against Samuel Alito.

In my meeting with Judge Roberts, he talked about baseball and about the courts and his analogy to baseball. He gave a great analogy, I thought, when he said:

It is a bad thing when the umpire is the most watched

person on the field.

Imagine that, watching a baseball game and the thing you are watching the most is the umpire because the umpire is both umpire and a player. How confusing, how difficult, and what a wrong way to have a game. He, of course, Judge Roberts, was alluding to the current situation in American governance where the legislature can pass a law, the executive sign it, but everybody waits, holding their breath to see what the courts will do with it.

Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor seems to me far too interested in being both an umpire and active player. Prior to becoming a Federal judge, Sonia Sotomayor spent more than a decade on the board of directors of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. A September 25, 1992, article in the New York Times referred to Judge Sotomayor as ``a top policy maker'' on the group's board.

In 1998, the group brought suit against the New York City Police Department, claiming that a promotion exam was discriminatory because the results gave a disproportionate number of promotions to White police officers. As a judge on the appellate court, Judge Sotomayor was involved in a nearly identical case, Ricci v. Destefano, involving a group of White firefighters seeking promotion in New Haven, CT. City officials in New Haven decided to void the results of the exam because it had a disparate impact on minorities. Judge Sotomayor agreed with the city's decision, and we are now waiting on a ruling from the Supreme Court.

Sotomayor's work as an activist challenging the New York

Police Department's test results in 1998 is evidence that she

may have allowed personal biases to guide her decision to

rule against New Haven firefighters. I hope we can find out

more in her confirmation interviews and in her hearings. But

I am also troubled by the number of amicus briefs filed by

the fund in support of what are radical positions on pro-

abortion issues during the time Sotomayor was on this same

board.

Six briefs were filed taking positions outside of the mainstream in support of abortion rights in prominent cases such as in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services or in Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health. In that Ohio v. Akron case, the Court upheld Ohio's parental consent laws. These are laws that say, before a minor can have an abortion, they must have parental consent.

Joining the majority opinion were moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and liberal Justice John Paul Stevens. Yet the group that Judge Sotomayor was associated with filed a brief opposing this parental notification law, saying ``any efforts to overturn or in any way to restrict the rights in Roe v. Wade,'' they opposed any restriction, even allowing parents of a minor child to have parental notification that their child was going to go through this major medical procedure. She took a stand opposed to that parental right that most of the American public, 75 percent of the American public supports; that parental right of that notification. She opposed it.

According to the New York Times:

The board monitored all litigation undertaken by the fund's

lawyers, and a number of those lawyers said Ms. Sotomayor was

an involved and ardent supporter of their various legal

efforts during her time with the group.

I am also deeply concerned that Judge Sotomayor will bring this radical agenda to the Court.

Judge Sotomayor has given speeches and written articles promoting judicial activism. The President who appointed her said judges should have ``the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom; the empathy to understand what it is like to be poor or African- American or gay or disabled or old,'' and that difficult cases should be decided by ``what is in the Justice's heart.''

While I think it is admirable to have empathy, a Justice and a person who sits on the bench is to decide this based on the law. That is what they are to decide it upon, not an interpretation or rewriting of the law.

The President's view of the role of a Judge on the Court is not shared by Justices Marshall or Frankfurter, nor is it the view of Hamilton and the drafters of the Constitution.

The oath that all Supreme Court Justices take says:

I will administer justice without respect to persons, and

do equal right to the poor and to the rich.

That is the oath they take. The Justice is to be blind and just to hear the case and decide it based on the facts and what the law is and say what the law says, not what they wish it to be nor what is in their heart. It is to be blind and it is to hold these and to weigh these equally and fairly to determine the truth and to determine the outcome in the case.

The President is asking his nominees to ignore, in essence, their oath. I fear Justice Sotomayor is all too eager to comply.

In her writings, Judge Sotomayor has rejected the principle of impartiality and embraces a rather novel idea that a Judge's personal life story should come into play in the courtroom. In a 2001 speech at the UC Berkeley Law School, which was later published, Judge Sotomayor dismissed the

idea that ``judges may transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law,'' by saying that ``ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.''

I am not sure why Judge Sotomayor believes the law is somehow different when interpreted by people of a different gender, but I think Judge Sotomayor is absolutely wrong and we do a disservice to law and society when we don't transcend our personal sympathies and prejudices and base our decisions upon the facts and the law.

Judge Sotomayor's view is contrary to the words engraved upon the Supreme Court's entrance which state ``equal justice under law.''

In the same 2001 speech, Judge Sotomayor made the following astonishing statement:

Personal experiences affect the facts judges choose to see.

. . . I simply do not know what the difference will be in my

judging. But I accept there will be some.

When Judge Sotomayor says that ``personal experiences affect the facts judges choose to see,'' does that mean she is willing to ignore other facts? Is justice blind or is it actually interpreting and seeing which facts to pick and which facts not to pick?

The role of judges is to examine all the facts of a particular case, not solely the facts that deliver a desired outcome or solely the facts that the judge can relate to based on his or her personal biography. It is dangerous for this body to consent to elevating a judge who believes that justice equates with picking winners and losers based upon his or her own personal biases. That is not judging.

I hope my colleagues understand this 2001 speech at Berkeley was not an isolated incident. In a 1994 speech, Judge Sotomayor used language nearly identical to that of the 2001 speech, saying judges should not ignore their differences as women and people of color and to do so would be a disservice to the law and society. In 1994, Judge Sotomayor discussed the impact that more women on the bench will have on the ``development of the law.''

``Development,'' like this is about the writing of the law. If that is the case, that is done by the Congress not by the courts. Judges do not make law, and under no circumstances should they be under the impression they do.

Judge Sotomayor sees judges as lawmakers, as both umpire and player. In the 2005 appearance at Duke Law School, she said: ``The court of appeals is where policy is made.''

I wonder how Alexander Hamilton would respond. I think he would wholly disagree with that interpretation. Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor's writings and statements lead me to believe that she is a proponent, a clear proponent, of an activist judiciary. I cannot support her nomination. I will vote no when it comes before the full Senate.

I ask unanimous consent that her speech in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, on behalf of the Republican leader, I yield back the time on our side.

Madam President, first, I start with acknowledging a couple of individuals. First and foremost, the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, has orchestrated and navigated this matter to bring it forward. I think everybody owes a deep debt of gratitude to him and his staff for getting this done.

This is a significant day and a significant event. It doesn't happen without a lot of effort. It is going to be one of those days and places and times that goes down in history in this body. It is important. It is important to us. It is important to the Nation, and it is important that it be clearly acknowledged, and it is going to get done. I thank my colleague from Iowa for getting this organized and moving it forward. I also thank, obviously, the majority leader for setting this time up, the Republican leader, and our colleagues, particularly Senator Levin, who is a sponsor, and on our side, Senator Cochran, Senator Bond, and many others.

I ask unanimous consent at this time that Senator Corker be added as a cosponsor to the resolution.

Also, our staffs worked very hard on this. I have to thank LaRochelle Young on my staff, who has worked hard on this issue. She has been dedicated to get this through and forward. I thank her for her great work.

It is my experience that apologies are tough to do. They are tough as individuals, tough as groups, and tough as nations. When this issue would come up, a lot of people would say: Yes, I acknowledge that happened, but I didn't do it or that happened a long time ago, so can't we move past it? Yet my experience has been that until you actually acknowledge the wrong that has been done and say, ``I did this and it was wrong and I apologize,'' there remains a barrier there--something you cannot get over, no matter how many words you put around it, no matter how much feeling may be there, until you actually say it. That is why apologies are tough, because they are hard to do when they get right at the core of the issue. They get at the core that a wrong was done. What we are saying in the Senate today is that a wrong was done-- a wrong of slavery was done by the Federal Government of the United States, a wrong of segregation was done by the Federal Government of the United States. We acknowledge that. We say it was wrong and we ask for forgiveness for that.

It doesn't fix everything, as Senator Harkin pointed out but it does go a long way toward acknowledging it and it gives us the ability to move to the next step in building a more perfect union, and do the things that Martin Luther King would talk about, where you can have a colorblind society. It is significant and important that we do it.

I think in my own personal experiences in this category, learning about William Wilberforce, from the British Parliament, who worked on ending the slave trade in Great Britain. It was a key issue for them to get over that hurdle. It took years and they got it done. I also acknowledge friends of mine, in current iterations, who traveled across America with a kettle. This kettle was a kettle that former slaves used to cook in. They would do the evening cooking for their meals in it. This was kind of the gathering place for the slaves--this gentleman's ancestors' kettle. He took it around the country and he would talk about them getting together and using it for a meal. After the meal was done, they would clean the kettle, and it was big enough that they would actually huddle under the kettle and pray. They would pray for their freedom. That was the kettle tour. Their aspiration and hope for so many years was to be free. They were taking the kettle around the country as a physical symbol of the yearning for freedom that the people had. The slaveowners would get mad about it, but they could not hear them as they would mutter their silent and soft prayers under the kettle. I have seen many different physical representations of what has taken place.

I grew up in eastern Kansas, where the fight started about whether my State would be a free State or a slave State. In the Nebraska-Kansas compromise that this body crafted, Nebraska was supposed to be a free State and Kansas a slave State because Iowans would come across to Nebraska and populate that. Missourians were closer to Kansas and they would populate Kansas and be a slave State and maintain that balance of power. That is also something we should apologize for. John Quincy Adams called slavery the ``original sin of the United States,'' for which we are asking forgiveness today. And in that situation developed my part of eastern Kansas--known as Bleeding Kansas because while people did come across who were proslavery, other individuals organized from the Northeast to populate Kansas, and they were abolitionists and they came with a desire to fight for freedom. There were many irregular battles that took place, guerilla warfare, the Battle of Osawatomie, where my mother grew up, the burning and sacking of Lawrence, and all this back and forth about slavery taking place.

Just before the Battle of Osawatomie, John Brown said--and he was in that fight, and one of his sons was killed in it--there will not be peace in this land until the issue of slavery is resolved. He was right. Less than 10 years later, the Civil War broke out over the issue of slavery.

Today in the Senate, we pledge to move beyond this shameful period, and we officially acknowledge and apologize for the institution of slavery in this country--what many refer to as the original sin of America--which was once woven into the fabric of our Nation, and for the Federal laws we passed in this Chamber and upheld by the highest Court in our land, the Supreme Court. My colleague has already referred to some of those laws, but I want to refer passingly to several as well, laws such as the Fugitive Slave Law, first approved on February 12, 1793, and subsequently amended in 1850 and 1864, which sought to punish those persons who dared to escape the brutality of slavery and those who helped to free individuals in bondage. Not only would a suspected runaway slave be dragged into court, but they would be unable to say a word on his or her behalf, not one word. They weren't allowed to say a single word.

My colleague mentioned the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which was crafted as a solution to the ever-increasing and volatile dispute over the question of slavery in the United States. In 1819, when Missouri sought statehood, the question was whether Missouri would be admitted to the Union as a slave State or a free State. This set off an intense debate between northern and southern legislators. Missouri's ratification would upset this delicate balance between slave States and free States in the Senate.

In order to keep the already tenuous balance, Henry Clay worked out a compromise consisting of three parts: Maine would separate from Massachusetts and be admitted as a free State, Missouri would enter the Union as a slave State, and the remaining territories of the Louisiana Purchase would be closed off to slavery.

However, unrest around the brutal practice of slavery continued until further compromises came forward. Additionally, a compromise to outlaw the slave trade, but not slavery, in the District of Columbia--where we are today--was enacted to facilitate the retrieval of slaves who had run away to the North. While this compromise did little to satisfy the antislavery movement, it did temporarily preserve the Union, and many historians refer to this period as the ``calm before the storm.'' And then my State enters--Bleeding Kansas.

As the United States continued to expand, the very fabric of our Nation was about to be torn in two regarding a people's right to be free. In the midst of this debate was my great State of Kansas.

On May 30, 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act became law. Frederick Douglass deemed the new law ``an open invitation to a fierce and bitter strife,'' and those words proved to be very prophetic. Shortly after the Kansas-Nebraska Act became law, there was a rush to settle Kansas. As I mentioned, both proslavery and abolitionists alike were determined to settle Kansas for their cause. The turmoil continued. We had bloody balloting, we had stolen elections taking place, until we did finally enter the Union as a free State.

There were passions surrounding that which ignited even on the Senate floor, passions that abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner delivered a rousing speech on the Senate floor called ``The Crime Against Kansas,'' accusing proslavery Senators of siding with slavery. In apparent retaliation, Congressman Preston S. Brooks attacked and beat Charles Sumner senseless with a cane--an issue of some high memory on this floor even today.

Following on June 2, 1856, there was retaliation. The Battle of Black Jack, in my State, ensued, which is widely believed to be the first conflict between free State supporters led by John Brown and the proslavery supporters, as well as one of the first battles of the Civil War.

These things continued until my State came into the Union.

I do wish to conclude at this point in time with noting just the importance of apologies. As I mentioned at the outset, they are difficult and they are important and they are hard to do and they are significant. Today, we right that wrong of not offering an apology previously. Today, we move forward in a spirit of unity. Today, we move toward a true cleansing of our Nation's past sins rooted in racism.

There may be those who consider an apology insignificant or purely for symbolic means. I completely disagree. In 1988, Congress apologized for the internment of Japanese Americans held during World War II. When asked in an interview 20 years after the apology was signed to give thoughts on the matter, Aiko Yamamoto, who at the time of the interview was 72, said: ``It was the apology that mattered.'' Similarly, Norman Mineta, former Congressman and U.S. Secretary of Commerce and of Transportation, who was also interned during World War II, said of the apology: ``It will always mean more to me than I can ever adequately express.''

However, the cleansing effects of an apology are not only limited to those who are owed an apology but to those giving the apology as well. It is the acknowledgment that a terrible wrong was committed--never to be committed again--and a willingness to now, through the process of reconciliation, work toward a brighter future for all people unburdened by the difficulties of the past but uplifted by the promises of the future--a future where our destinies are inextricably linked together.

Although this anthem is correctly titled ``The Negro National Anthem,'' the final stanza of its words so eloquently written by James Weldon Johnson not only rings true for the African-American community but for all America.

God of our weary years, God of our silent tears, thou who

hast brought us thus far on the way; thou who hast by thy

might, led us into the light, keep us forever in the path, we

pray. Lest our feet stray from the places, our God where we

meet thee, lest our hearts, drunk with the wine of the world,

we forget thee; shadowed beneath thy hand may we forever

stand, true to our God, true to our native land.

May we, with this apology, move forward into the light of unity, united under a common purpose, linked together in a singular humanity. I am delighted that we are doing this today.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I, too, wish to acknowledge some individuals who have really helped to make this historic day take place. One for me is Congressman John Lewis, with whom I have been working for some period of time to get the Museum of African American History and Culture to be a reality on The Mall. The design has now been picked and the location has been picked. It is going to be at the base area of the Washington Monument. It is going to be a fabulous entity. What I like about it is it is going to show the difficulty, the tragedy, and is also going to show the promise in the future. It moves through the whole piece of it, and this resolution will be a part of it, of how a nation deals with such an enormous problem as this.

John has been a very courageous, longstanding advocate in the mode of what John Quincy Adams was for years in fighting against slavery. He has been dedicated to this. I remember first going over to his office and him showing me a book of pictures that were of lynchings that had taken place, such a tragic set of pictures that you look at that happened in the early part of the 1900s in my State and many other States around the country. I am very appreciative of him.

There are people who recently passed away, like Rosa Parks, who gave us these defining moments of the ending of segregation or in my State, like Cheryl Brown Henderson of the Brown family, Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark desegregation case where we said even if a school is equal, segregation is inherently wrong, and they stood for it, and stood tall, to bring us to a better point in time.

It has not been all that long ago. I started out in a professional period in broadcasting. One of the guys next to me was a sports broadcaster, and he would tell the story about--and this is even in the Big 8, where Senator Harkin and I shared some territory--he talked about African Americans coming on the basketball court, being cheered wildly by everybody at the school but then not able to eat at the lunch counter in the community. While everybody is cheering for them on the basketball court, they cannot eat at the lunch counter. The sportscaster was talking to me about that.

My old friend Jack Kemp, who recently passed away, was a strong advocate for African Americans and for doing things like this--what he saw in the sports field, for years, people in the Negro Baseball League Hall of Fame in Kansas City. We have a wonderful museum showing what it took to break through the racial barriers in sports and how positive that was but also how difficult that was during that period of time.

All of these I am mentioning simply because it is part of how difficult it is to get to the point we get to today as a society. These things do take time, they are difficult, and there is a lot of pain and suffering that goes along the way.

What Senator Harkin and I and all the cosponsors hope--it will be unanimously approved on this Senate floor--is that for all those individuals who have had these personal experiences themselves and felt it themselves, they will be able to see in this some acknowledgment of what happened to them, an acknowledgment that it was wrong and an apology for it. It doesn't fix it, but hopefully it does address it and starts to dig out the wound. There is a great book on this, ``Healing America's Wounds.'' The last name of the author is Dawson. He pointed out that these are very significant for society to be able to pull together around and that they have to be done for a society to be able to move forward. There is just no way around it, you have to actually address the problem and the topic.

For those reasons and for the many millions of people who have suffered the legacies of slavery and segregation or suffered personally themselves under segregation in this country, we apologize as a United States Senate.

I read the final words because they express it so well, that there is a sense of Congress of the following:

Apology for the enslavement and segregation of African-

Americans--The Congress--

acknowledges the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality,

and inhumanity of slavery and Jim Crow laws;

apologizes to African-Americans on behalf of the people of

the United States, for the wrongs committed against them and

their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow laws;

and . . .

Nothing in this resolution:

authorizes or supports any claim against the United States;

or

serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States

expresses its recommitment to the principle that all people

are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights to

life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and calls on all

people of the United States to work toward eliminating racial

prejudices, injustices, and discrimination from our society.

It specifically does the apology but deals with nothing else. It says, ``Nothing in this resolution authorizes or supports any claim against the United States; or serves as a settlement of any claim against the United States,'' to leave that issue aside.

I am very appreciative that a number of States have led the way moving forward with the apology. Virginia, Alabama, Florida, Maryland, North Carolina led in adopting resolutions officially expressing that remorse for slavery and for Jim Crow laws.

I look forward to this unanimous consent. I am glad we are doing it now. We will have a recognition of this in a Rotunda ceremony. I think that will be important. I hope many Members will join us at that, and I think it will be a historic point in time.

Madam President, I believe we are ready to call for the passage of the resolution? I yield to the Senator from Iowa.

On behalf of the Republicans, I yield the remainder of our time.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Brownback pertaining to the introduction of S. 1282 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I want to follow up on what my colleague from North Dakota said regarding the financial regulatory issue. This is a huge problem.

In my office, I have a debt clock running. I put it there purposely so people can see what it is, and it is running at $11.5 trillion. At this point in time, it has a dizzying amount of numbers that are running on it. Usually my constituents come in and say: Good, I wanted to get out of the waiting room. That clock is driving me crazy, the numbers are going so fast. It is so huge, the numbers and the rate we are going.

What troubles me as well, as a member of the baby boomer generation, is that I look at this and I feel as though we are following on the heels of the ``greatest generation''--the World War II generation, with all the sacrifices and the things they did to make this country what it is. My predecessor in the seat I am in, Bob Dole, I think epitomizes the ``greatest generation''--the World War II generation--that sacrificed so much so the rest of us could live and do so well, and I am deeply appreciative of that. But I look at my generation, sometimes called the ``me generation.'' I don't know that that is particularly an applauding sort of title, saying it is more focused that way, but I think we need to, ourselves, step up a lot more for the country, for the people in this Nation, and deal with the problems we have.

One of the biggest ones, as far as the legacy we leave, is the mortgage that is growing on this country, this $11.5 trillion I started off talking about. When I first started in Congress in 1994, it was roughly 50 percent mandatory spending and 50 percent discretionary spending. This year, we are looking at 70 percent mandatory spending-- between 60 and 70 percent mandatory spending, depending on what ends up in the final package--and 30 to 40 percent discretionary spending. And of that discretionary, half of that is military. So we have this huge growth in entitlement programs and spending programs that are on autopilot and that are setting that clock to going faster and faster, at $11.5 trillion and up.

We are looking at a $1.8 trillion deficit this year alone. This is unsustainable and it is irresponsible. And it is irresponsible of the baby boomer generation, which has inherited and been given so much, not to step up and to start to deal with this. I feel very strongly about this, that it is something we need to start dealing with as a generation. I am not talking about from a party perspective, or even from a legislative perspective, but I am talking about it from a generational perspective. This is the sort of thing we need to start dealing with for our children's future and our grandchildren's future, so that when future generations come up and they look back and see the ``greatest generation'' of World War II, they don't then look at the baby boomer generation and say: Well, that is the generation that used a lot of it up. Rather, they say: No, that was the generation that used a lot, but then got it together and started to address the problems of fiscal irresponsibility--the fiscal irresponsibility that is taking place in this country and in this government today.

We have program spending that is out of control. Everybody is against waste, fraud, and abuse, but I have not found that line in the budget yet which allows us to X it out. What I am talking about here--and I will introduce at the end of my speech--is a bill that actually does start to get at that, and it does it via a mechanism that is a proven mechanism we have used before in this body which actually reduced government spending. It is called the Commission on Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies, CARFA. We have 20 original cosponsors, and it is a very simple concept that we have used before.

It is based on the BRAC Commission--the Base Realignment and Closure Commission--only it applies to the rest of government, not just military bases. You create a commission, and the commission says 300 bases should be closed. They send that to the administration to check off on that, and then it sends it to the Congress, requiring an up-or- down vote within a limited timeframe, no amendments and a set amount of time to debate. Yes or no, deal or no deal: Are we going to keep the bases or close the bases, which way is it?

That is the only mechanism I have ever seen us come up with in this body to actually cut Federal spending and to do the things we talk about all the time but in the trading nature of the legislative body never gets done. This one has actually done it, the BRAC Commission, on military bases, which is a substantial but certainly not all of our budget. So I am saying, let's take that mechanism and apply it to the rest of the budget, mandatory and discretionary spending, both pockets of this.

I am fully open to suggestions and ideas for amendment on this bill, but I would break the Federal Government into four different categories, to where every fourth year there is a CARFA commission which reviews one-fourth of the budget, and then that recommendation is sent to the Congress to either eliminate these pieces or to keep them.

I have a scorecard up here. It turns out that the OMB does a regular scoring of the effectiveness of Federal Government programs and then they assign a percentage out of 100 to each. I put the grade equivalent on it, and you can see the programs that were reviewed here: State Department has the highest score that I have up here, of C+ for effectiveness, at which the OMB scored it. The Education Department-- and I don't know what that says here--has scored below 50 percent and gets an F--the Education Department--on its scorecard. You can look through and these are the programs that are reviewed: 51 for the State Department; 93 for the Education Department.

So I am saying you would have this CARFA commission go through to do a similar type of review for effectiveness. Those programs that would fail would be put in an overall bill which would say: Okay, Congress, keep this entire package or eliminate this entire package.

If you eliminate them, the same year you can come back and reauthorize that bill and reappropriate the program if you believe it is effective. But this gives you an automatic culling process. It is a culling process that takes place on programs that have been put in the budget year after year and have somehow been sustained or have gotten supporters around them. Most programs have a number of different supporters around them, so they keep going on and on. Even though they are not particularly effective, the supporters like them, so they keep getting in the budget, even when we do an objective review of them and find out these are failed programs by our own standards.

This is something we need to do. It is something I would hope that the baby boomer generation could stand up and

start to say it is time for us to take fiscal responsibility for the situation that is being created and that is unsustainable in this country. We are already starting to see interest rates move up. That is likely to continue. We are seeing people beside themselves when looking at the level of Federal spending, and the waste in it, and saying: What is going on? Can't you guys get ahold of it?

Here is a way to actually get ahold of it and deal with it and be able to say to generations in future years that, yes, we stood up and took ownership and we dealt with the problem.

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal a week ago where a gentleman was saying that the unfunded obligations of the Federal Government today--these are things such as the entitlement programs, whether it is Medicare, Social Security, veterans' benefits, and pension guarantees that we have--are getting close to $100 trillion. Those are unfunded obligations existing on the part of the Federal Government today. That number seems high to me, but I know if you look at Medicare and a couple of other ones, we are looking at nearly $60 trillion in that category. To give some perspective, the total economy is $14 trillion, or thereabouts.

This is irresponsible to the highest degree, and it is irresponsible to future generations, and it is time to put a mechanism in place for us to deal with it. I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this bill. I am submitting it now to the desk, with 20 cosponsors. This is an idea whose time has come.

Mr. President, I want to follow up on what my colleague from North Dakota said regarding the financial regulatory issue. This is a huge problem.

In my office, I have a debt clock running. I put it there purposely so people can see what it is, and it is running at $11.5 trillion. At this point in time, it has a dizzying amount of numbers that are running on it. Usually my constituents come in and say: Good, I wanted to get out of the waiting room. That clock is driving me crazy, the numbers are going so fast. It is so huge, the numbers and the rate we are going.

What troubles me as well, as a member of the baby boomer generation, is that I look at this and I feel as though we are following on the heels of the ``greatest generation''--the World War II generation, with all the sacrifices and the things they did to make this country what it is. My predecessor in the seat I am in, Bob Dole, I think epitomizes the ``greatest generation''--the World War II generation--that sacrificed so much so the rest of us could live and do so well, and I am deeply appreciative of that. But I look at my generation, sometimes called the ``me generation.'' I don't know that that is particularly an applauding sort of title, saying it is more focused that way, but I think we need to, ourselves, step up a lot more for the country, for the people in this Nation, and deal with the problems we have.

One of the biggest ones, as far as the legacy we leave, is the mortgage that is growing on this country, this $11.5 trillion I started off talking about. When I first started in Congress in 1994, it was roughly 50 percent mandatory spending and 50 percent discretionary spending. This year, we are looking at 70 percent mandatory spending-- between 60 and 70 percent mandatory spending, depending on what ends up in the final package--and 30 to 40 percent discretionary spending. And of that discretionary, half of that is military. So we have this huge growth in entitlement programs and spending programs that are on autopilot and that are setting that clock to going faster and faster, at $11.5 trillion and up.

We are looking at a $1.8 trillion deficit this year alone. This is unsustainable and it is irresponsible. And it is irresponsible of the baby boomer generation, which has inherited and been given so much, not to step up and to start to deal with this. I feel very strongly about this, that it is something we need to start dealing with as a generation. I am not talking about from a party perspective, or even from a legislative perspective, but I am talking about it from a generational perspective. This is the sort of thing we need to start dealing with for our children's future and our grandchildren's future, so that when future generations come up and they look back and see the ``greatest generation'' of World War II, they don't then look at the baby boomer generation and say: Well, that is the generation that used a lot of it up. Rather, they say: No, that was the generation that used a lot, but then got it together and started to address the problems of fiscal irresponsibility--the fiscal irresponsibility that is taking place in this country and in this government today.

We have program spending that is out of control. Everybody is against waste, fraud, and abuse, but I have not found that line in the budget yet which allows us to X it out. What I am talking about here--and I will introduce at the end of my speech--is a bill that actually does start to get at that, and it does it via a mechanism that is a proven mechanism we have used before in this body which actually reduced government spending. It is called the Commission on Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies, CARFA. We have 20 original cosponsors, and it is a very simple concept that we have used before.

It is based on the BRAC Commission--the Base Realignment and Closure Commission--only it applies to the rest of government, not just military bases. You create a commission, and the commission says 300 bases should be closed. They send that to the administration to check off on that, and then it sends it to the Congress, requiring an up-or- down vote within a limited timeframe, no amendments and a set amount of time to debate. Yes or no, deal or no deal: Are we going to keep the bases or close the bases, which way is it?

That is the only mechanism I have ever seen us come up with in this body to actually cut Federal spending and to do the things we talk about all the time but in the trading nature of the legislative body never gets done. This one has actually done it, the BRAC Commission, on military bases, which is a substantial but certainly not all of our budget. So I am saying, let's take that mechanism and apply it to the rest of the budget, mandatory and discretionary spending, both pockets of this.

I am fully open to suggestions and ideas for amendment on this bill, but I would break the Federal Government into four different categories, to where every fourth year there is a CARFA commission which reviews one-fourth of the budget, and then that recommendation is sent to the Congress to either eliminate these pieces or to keep them.

I have a scorecard up here. It turns out that the OMB does a regular scoring of the effectiveness of Federal Government programs and then they assign a percentage out of 100 to each. I put the grade equivalent on it, and you can see the programs that were reviewed here: State Department has the highest score that I have up here, of C+ for effectiveness, at which the OMB scored it. The Education Department-- and I don't know what that says here--has scored below 50 percent and gets an F--the Education Department--on its scorecard. You can look through and these are the programs that are reviewed: 51 for the State Department; 93 for the Education Department.

So I am saying you would have this CARFA commission go through to do a similar type of review for effectiveness. Those programs that would fail would be put in an overall bill which would say: Okay, Congress, keep this entire package or eliminate this entire package.

If you eliminate them, the same year you can come back and reauthorize that bill and reappropriate the program if you believe it is effective. But this gives you an automatic culling process. It is a culling process that takes place on programs that have been put in the budget year after year and have somehow been sustained or have gotten supporters around them. Most programs have a number of different supporters around them, so they keep going on and on. Even though they are not particularly effective, the supporters like them, so they keep getting in the budget, even when we do an objective review of them and find out these are failed programs by our own standards.

This is something we need to do. It is something I would hope that the baby boomer generation could stand up and

start to say it is time for us to take fiscal responsibility for the situation that is being created and that is unsustainable in this country. We are already starting to see interest rates move up. That is likely to continue. We are seeing people beside themselves when looking at the level of Federal spending, and the waste in it, and saying: What is going on? Can't you guys get ahold of it?

Here is a way to actually get ahold of it and deal with it and be able to say to generations in future years that, yes, we stood up and took ownership and we dealt with the problem.

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal a week ago where a gentleman was saying that the unfunded obligations of the Federal Government today--these are things such as the entitlement programs, whether it is Medicare, Social Security, veterans' benefits, and pension guarantees that we have--are getting close to $100 trillion. Those are unfunded obligations existing on the part of the Federal Government today. That number seems high to me, but I know if you look at Medicare and a couple of other ones, we are looking at nearly $60 trillion in that category. To give some perspective, the total economy is $14 trillion, or thereabouts.

This is irresponsible to the highest degree, and it is irresponsible to future generations, and it is time to put a mechanism in place for us to deal with it. I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this bill. I am submitting it now to the desk, with 20 cosponsors. This is an idea whose time has come.

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

Madam President, I rise to speak briefly about North Korea and what is taking place there. To put some of this in context, I think everybody knows--around the country and the world--what North Korea is doing today. Two Americans are on trial, in a crazy setting. They have a missile on a pad that can reach the United States. They have tested another nuclear device. They have tested previously a nuclear device. They are in the throes of some sort of possible change within the regime. It is a very unstable, very provocative situation in North Korea.

I raise all that because at the end of the Bush administration, they took North Korea off the terrorism list, and they did it as a way to try to negotiate, to try to get them into the six-party talks to do more things and to work with us and with the world community.

Since that period, the North Korean Government has taken the exact opposite tack. Instead of working with us, they have done everything they can to provoke us even further. President Bush, when he took North Korea off the terrorism list, said:

We will trust you only to the extent that you fulfill your

promises . . . If North Korea makes the wrong choices, the

United States . . . will act accordingly.

That was President Bush. He is, obviously, not President any longer. At that point in time, many of us objected to taking North Korea off the terrorism list, but he went ahead and did it anyway. Then Candidate Obama said, at roughly that same period:

Sanctions are a critical part of our leverage to pressure

[North Korea] to act. They should only be lifted based on

North Korean performance. If the North Koreans do not meet

their obligations, we should move quickly to reimpose

sanctions that have been waived, and consider new

restrictions going forward.

Since President Bush said that, since Candidate Obama said that, here is what the North Korean regime has done. I mentioned some of these, but I will go into detail. They have: launched a multistage ballistic missile over Japan; kidnapped and imprisoned two American journalists; pulled out of the six-party talks, vowing never to return; kicked out international nuclear inspectors and American monitors; restarted their nuclear facilities; renounced the 50-year armistice with South Korea; detonated a second illegal nuclear bomb; launched additional short- range missiles; are about to launch a long-range missile capable of reaching the United States; and, at this very moment, are calling the detained American journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, before a North Korean court, if you could even call it that possibly, to answer for supposed crimes of illegal entry into North Korea and unexplained hostile acts. The two could face years in a North Korean labor camp. That is what has taken place since those statements.

We want to put forward an amendment on this bill or on some future bill--but I would like to do it and we should do it on this bill--to label North Korea a terrorist state again, like President Bush said we should, if they don't act right; like Candidate Obama said we should, if they don't fulfill their obligations. We think the administration should do this now, should relist them as a terrorist state. We think it would be an important vote and statement by this body if we would say the North Korean Government is a terrorist government because it is. It is one of the lead armers to provide armament to rogue regimes and individuals around the world. Some of my colleagues may have seen the story this week about a North Korean general who was one of the lead counterfeiters in the world of United States one hundred dollar bills. They were very good quality, done on state machinery I have no doubt. He is one of the lead counterfeiters around the world.

Why, then, the State Department would say earlier today that they don't think this ``meets the test'' is beyond me. I think this body should vote and send a very clear signal that we believe the North Korean regime should be listed as a terrorist state and a terrorist sponsor. It has taken an incredible list of provocative acts. The Obama administration has said: Let's get the U.N. to issue sanctions against them.

Let's get the United States to do our sanctions against them for what they are doing. All this amendment does that I want to vote on is have the administration place North Korea back on the terrorism list, where it rightly deserves to be and should have been all along. Of course, the amendment does allow the President to waive the requirement of relisting so long as he certifies that certain conditions have taken place, that they have met their obligations, which they clearly are not going to.

I think it is wrong for this body not to be clear on this toward North Korea. It is wrong for this country not to be clear toward North Korea of what we believe of their provocative actions, that we will not stand by and say: Yes, you can keep doing this; yes, you can keep launching missiles; yes, you can keep detonating nuclear devices, and we will not do anything. We should be clear we are going to act. These are wrong and provocative actions, and they deserve the minimum response this is. That is why I would like to get a vote on this amendment. I would hope I would get a unanimous vote by my colleagues to relist them as a terrorist state. I would hope we could get that up on this bill. We are in negotiations now with the majority leader about this. It is time to vote. It is time to send this at least minimal message to the North Korean Government that these actions cannot stand without some response from the United States. I hope we could get a vote up on this.

I urge the majority leader and those working on coming up with an agreement to go to the next bill to allow us to vote on this North Korean amendment to provide these sanctions.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleague from Michigan in support of this bill. This is the right way forward. She has outlined most of the provisions, and I will add a few points, if I may.

It is a humbling time for auto manufacturers globally. She went through the figures for all auto manufacturers, and there has been a huge falloff in the market. As the global credit crisis has impacted the world, maybe the industry hit the most has been automobile manufacturing on a global basis. We saw the numbers in the United States. One of the ways other countries have responded is with what they call scrappage programs. We have heard it referred to in different terms but several countries have looked at doing a type of scrappage program. It has been very successful. I was looking at the numbers. In March, Germany, France, and China saw increases in car sales--all three did scrappage programs--of 40 percent, 8 percent, and 8 percent, respectively.

During the same period of time, the United States and the United Kingdom did not have scrappage programs, and we saw declines in car sales of 37 percent here and 30 percent in Great Britain. That is the difference these programs are making on a global basis because the credit crisis has hit this industry the most. A lot of things one has to buy on a regular basis. We have to buy gasoline, food, shoes for the kids. But often, for a lot of people, they look at their car or pickup, and they say: I am not sure what is going to take place. I will hold off on this one. So they hold off and the sales tank. That is what has taken place. People say: I am not sure what is going to take place; therefore, I am going to hold off.

I have a brother who is a veterinarian who was saying to me the other day--he has an old pickup in his business. He is doing just fine in his business. He said: I am just going to wait a while. I said: No. This is the time we need you in the marketplace. This gets him back to the marketplace. It has been proven effective in other countries to get people back in the marketplace. It has worked in other places. We now see that the United Kingdom--that did not do the scrappage program--has enacted their own scrappage program. That is another reason why I think we should do that one here.

There is another point, and I think it is an important one to make. It is often very difficult to find ways to support manufacturing without breaking international trade rules because we have a number of international trade rules that restrict what governments can do to help a particular industry.

As to the World Trade Organization, this is a legal and consistent way for us to help automobile manufacturing without breaking any trade rules. That is important because we cannot be getting into some sort of trade sanctioning or there being offsets to it. This one is consistent with that.

Another thing I think is very important--and my colleague from Michigan was very good to talk about this--this is a balanced approach that helps the environment, helps the economy, and helps our energy sector as well with us being more efficient with energy.

I think as we move forward with concerns about CO2, concerns about the environment, concerns about the economy, concerns about domestic energy production and the need for domestic energy production, we have to balance the three Es: energy, the environment, and the economy. This bill does that. So here you are stimulating the economy, reducing your energy demand, and improving your environment-- all at the same time.

And this bill--and this, to me, as a fiscal conservative, is the key point--also uses funds that have already been appropriated. There is no new money on this bill. These funds have been appropriated. They are going to be reprogrammed. I believe they will be reprogrammed. We are being told by the Obama administration that if this passes, this will be implemented with reprogrammed funds. So those funds--having already been approved by the Congress--would be used in a more effective way for a consumer-driven economic stimulus that helps the local dealerships, that helps the car manufacturers, that helps the environment, that helps our energy dependency in a very positive way.

It has worked around the world. It will work in the United States. It will get people such as my brother back in the showroom, I hope. I am certainly going to push him to do that, as all of us will. We have seen an unprecedented falloff in car sales. It helps in a State such as mine where there are a lot of work trucks being used. This voucher program is targeted for use and utility by businesses that use trucks, and they can use that on this one as well. It works, and it helps out there.

For all those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is balanced. We have worked a long time on it.

Senator Stabenow recognized her staff member. I have had Landon Fulmer in my office working for some period of time on this issue to get it to where it would work. It would be simple, it would be direct, it would hit, and it would hit quickly. He has

worked to do that, as her staff has. I think we have got a good product here, and it is not any new appropriated money.

I would say particularly to my colleagues on my side that I am very concerned about where our deficit and debt is going. This is no new appropriated money to do this, which I think is key.

For those reasons, I urge the backing of this bill.

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

Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. I hope we can get everybody's support. I wish to read it because it is so short, simple, and straightforward:

It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense

should consult with State and local government officials

before making any decision about where detainees at Naval

Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, might be transferred, housed,

or otherwise incarcerated as a result of the implementation

of the Executive Order of the President to close the

detention facilities at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay.

We should all be for that. We put this as ``should'' instead of a requirement. In Leavenworth, KS, they are very concerned about this. They need to be consulted. In Alexandria, VA, the 20th hijacker, Moussaoui, was tried, and here is what the mayor of Alexandria said:

We would be absolutely opposed to relocating Guantanamo

prisoners to Alexandria. We would do everything in our power

to lobby the President, the Governor, Congress, and everybody

else to stop it. We have had this experience and it was

unpleasant. Let someone else have it.

I think we need to consult with the local communities and let them speak. That is why I urge a unanimous vote in favor of this sense-of- the-Senate amendment.

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

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

Madam President, I have an amendment that I wish to call up at the desk. I wish to note that the chairman of the committee has been very good to work with me on getting this called up.

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

Madam President, I wish to thank my colleague, the chairman of the committee, for allowing this to be brought up. Obviously, people can object to different things, but he is allowing this to be brought up.

It is a very simple amendment. It is germane as far as the Guantanamo Bay issue. Basically, what it says is, the Department of Defense needs to consult with local communities and States before they locate these detainees in a State or locale in the United States. I think that is something all of us would basically agree to--that this is something that should be done. This is a very contentious issue. It is obviously a very contentious issue in my State, having been mentioned a number of times as a possible site for detainees.

People in the community of Leavenworth, KS, and people across the State of Kansas, including former Governor Sebelius, now Cabinet Secretary, sent a letter to the Department of Defense saying we can't handle the detainees at Leavenworth, the military disciplinary barracks that are there.

So what I hope is that at some point in time we could vote on this amendment and send that clear message to the administration and the Department of Defense that before any of these things are considered, State and local officials are consulted because, obviously, on security issues, we are going to have to do a lot of cooperation. If these detainees are moved anywhere into the continental United States-- anywhere into the United States--they are going to have to be dealt with.

Further, I wish to speak about the Inouye-Inhofe amendment. Last week, on Friday, I led a congressional delegation of four Members to view the facility at Guantanamo Bay. I would urge all of my colleagues to go and look at the facility. It is really an extraordinary piece of real estate which the Navy has used for many years, but it is also an extraordinary facility where we have invested several hundred million dollars into this mission. They built it up over a period of time. They have security that is being provided.

The conclusion I came away with is that Guantanamo Bay is a highly specialized detention system for hundreds of terrorists, and replicating it would be enormously difficult, expensive, and unnecessary. I think my view represents the views of the colleagues of mine who went on the trip with me. I would urge people to go.

Attorney General Holder has gone and said it is a well-run facility. I would urge President Obama to go and to look at the facility firsthand. What they have put in there is a very specialized facility to handle a very difficult situation.

I know it has an image issue around much of the world. But an image issue is one thing. The practicality of dealing with the prisoners we have there, the detainees, is another. This is a specialized facility for handling them. I found they were able to handle dangerous detainees. I found that how they were being handled was quite fair.

I think we should treat detainees fairly, humanely, according to the conventions, and they are being treated as such. But to transfer the detainees to the United States, we don't have a facility that could handle this. I question whether we could get a locale that

wants to handle the detainees in the United States. It would also delay the justice of the military commissions operating. We have constructed a courtroom at Guantanamo, at the cost of several million dollars, which is completely secure, which is ready to start the military commission trials. It has a video streaming system in it that is completely secure, so that witnesses can be interviewed around the world into this courtroom setting. It is set up and ready to go.

Now that the President has gone forward with some adjustments in the military commission process, it would delay the process further if you required this military commission facility to be constructed somewhere else in the United States or around the world. It would delay it in the setup and in the movement of these detainees to other places around the world.

There is a second key point I want to make, which is that when you look at the situation at Guantanamo Bay and meet with the military personnel who are handling it--who I think are doing an excellent job-- they point out clearly that the members of al-Qaida who are there continue the battlefield in the prison. They talk about various things that are being done, a number of which--I will not mention some here-- are quite difficult to deal with among our military personnel. Our people look at the detainees as continuing the battlefield in the prison.

Do we want to bring that into the prison system in the United States--a continuation of the battlefield into the prison system here? I don't think so. We are not set up to handle that. We need to consider that issue. The practical issue here is what we do with the detainees, which is a difficult problem for us. They are not in the criminal system in the United States, nor should they be. They are not enemy combatants, as far as representing a foreign country.

We are going to have to figure out our way through it. I invite the administration to talk with Members in opposition to closing it. We shouldn't have an artificially specific date to close Guantanamo Bay, when we don't have an alternative set up. We don't have a system set up for how we are going to handle the detainees we are going to try. It makes better sense to not have this arbitrary timeline set and for us to work together on how we are going to work our way through this, and we should work together in a bipartisan fashion. I think we can do it. I support the Inouye-Inhofe amendment. It is appropriate and I think it represents where most U.S. citizens are.

I close by congratulating and thanking our military personnel who work at Guantanamo Bay. I think they are doing an outstanding job under very difficult circumstances. It is a tough setting they are working in. It is a tough issue we are dealing with. I think they are doing a good job. I think we are going to have to detain these people for some time because too many are answering the battlefield again. They even continue it in incarceration. There is no reason to think they wouldn't continue it if they are allowed to get back onto the battlefield. I look forward to votes on my amendment and others.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I applaud my colleague from California for raising this issue. This is one that has been here since I have been here, and we have seen it a number of times and we are seeing the effects of this. I applaud her leadership in bringing this forward. It is a serious issue. It is a serious matter. It is one that has significant consequences to our overall economy across the country--in California, in Kansas, my State--in New York, and other places.

Madam President, I rise to address an issue that is front and center for us. It is the Guantanamo Bay detainees. Tomorrow I will be leading a congressional delegation to Guantanamo to look at the facility there. We will bring this issue up--it will be up next week in the supplemental appropriations bill--the effort of the administration to close Guantanamo Bay, which most of the American public do not support. I realize it is quite popular in Europe to close Guantanamo Bay. I would hope we would start to get a more factual setting on this issue.

I would also hope, and I would invite the administration to engage all of us here in the Senate--certainly I am willing to be engaged-- about what we can do with the detainees. They need to be treated humanely. They need to be treated appropriately under international conventions. They do not need to be brought to the United States.

We do not have a facility in the United States to be able to hold these detainees in a way and in a situation that would be safe for the people of the United States. We are not prepared to release these detainees because we have found so many of them back on the battlefield after they have been released. So there is a quagmire that exists as a result of the administration's efforts to close Guantanamo Bay to please foreign detractors who I don't believe will be pleased, even if the facility is closed. They will complain about the next facility. I would invite them to work with us--the administration to work with us-- to come up with an acceptable solution to this difficult problem. I stand ready and willing to do that.

To borrow a phrase from Winston Churchill, the administration's detainee policies seem to me to be a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. The administration started with a confident announcement that military commissions would end and Guantanamo's detainee facility would be closed. But according to a report in Saturday's Washington Post, the administration is preparing to restart military commissions.

That same report, however, also cited an unnamed lawyer who said that the new commissions would be held on American soil, probably at military bases. Such a move would be a first step toward permanent transfer of detainees to the United States. Apparently, detainees would be moved to the United States whether or not the new commissions would be able to prevent the release of terrorists in the United States. Such a policy is truly an enigma.

I have not been briefed on these plans, and it is disappointing that unnamed lawyers apparently know more about the administration's plan than Members of Congress. The administration is famous for its willingness to talk with its opponents and have meaningful dialog on tough issues. I hope that desire to talk extends to detainee policy matters.

Detainee policy is too complicated and controversial to make decisions behind closed doors and have them be made by one party alone. It needs to be a bipartisan approach. As I said in January, when the administration announced its plans to close Guantanamo Bay, I believed policy changes must be made openly and transparently and in a bipartisan fashion to be credible. So far we have had riddles, mysteries, and enigmas, but no clear sense of direction. Now the American people are skeptical of what is going to happen.

A poll last month showed that just 36 percent of Americans agree with the administration's decision to close Guantanamo Bay. I am sure that number would be higher in Europe, but we don't represent the European people. Seventy-six percent oppose releasing detainees in the United States. Two weeks ago, Secretary of Defense Gates told the Appropriations Committee that he expects that every Member of Congress would oppose detainees being moved to his or her district or State. In fact, I learned in a written response from Secretary Gates yesterday that DOD will make no attempt to discuss detainee transfers with State and local officials until a final decision about where to put detainees is reached. As I said, the number was 66 percent opposing releasing detainees into the United States.

If my constituents in Leavenworth, KS, are any indication of the level of American concern over the administration's mysterious plans, Secretary Gates is right to be wary about negative reactions to detainees in the United States. Folks in Leavenworth are quite comfortable with tough criminals living in nearby prisons, but they see detainees differently. They don't want terrorists coming into Kansas. We are not set up to handle terrorist threats because of detainees coming to Fort Leavenworth.

The administration cannot and should not duck this debate. They need to tell the American people how their security is improved by bringing terrorists inside our borders. They need to be upfront about how detainees will be handled and where they will be housed.

Then the administration needs to listen to the American people before it charges forward.

Of course, a national debate on this issue should be based on facts. Just after last year's election, I invited members of the Presidential transition team to visit Fort Leavenworth to see for themselves why it could not handle a detainee mission. Nobody visited. Nobody even responded.

In January, I invited the President to Fort Leavenworth so he could hear the facts directly from the people who work and live at Fort Leavenworth. That invitation is still open.

I tried to provide some facts to Attorney General Holder during his confirmation hearing. I noted that Fort Leavenworth's primary mission is education, and that many international students of the command and general staff college will refuse to participate in military education programs if detainees are nearby. This could harm the interests of our Nation. Unfortunately, Fort Leavenworth is still being considered as a detainee destination.

I was pleased that Attorney General Holder made his visit to Guantanamo Bay in February and found out that it is, to use his words, ``a professional and well-run facility.'' I would like for him to visit Fort Leavenworth, too, because the facts speak for themselves. It is not just that Fort Leavenworth should not have the detainees; it cannot take on this mission.

The Missouri River forms the eastern border of the post. The city of Leavenworth wraps around the other three sides. There isn't enough space in the existing maximum security prison wing to handle the Guantanamo detainees. The post doesn't have a hospital. It doesn't have adequate legal facilities. The fact is, the Fort Leavenworth idea just doesn't work.

In order to resolve all of the issues surrounding the Guantanamo detainees, we need a full debate with all of the facts available and everybody engaged. That means everyone needs to do their homework. I was pleased that our colleagues in the House rejected the administration's request for more than $80 million in supplemental funding related to closing the Guantanamo detention facility. The House Appropriations Committee chairman was absolutely right to demand that the administration come to Congress and defend a concrete plan before we consider this request. We should not be in the business of spending taxpayer money on hypotheticals, especially in a matter as significant as moving terrorists inside the borders of the United States.

It is my hope that next week this body will vote on whether detainees should be moved to the continental United States.

I hope that we would vote against such a move. I believe there would be a strong bipartisan vote against such a move.

I am doing my homework as well, as I mentioned previously. I will be traveling to Guantanamo Bay tomorrow. I have been to Fort Leavenworth many times. I want to see what we have accomplished at Guantanamo with the more than $200 million in taxpayer funds in the last 8 years that we have spent on that facility. I want to understand what it takes exactly to operate a detainee facility that is ``professional and well run,'' to use Attorney General Holder's statement.

When the supplemental reaches the floor, I hope we can have a full and informed debate over detainees. I hope we can agree to set aside the request for the funding of hypothetical detainee transfer plans. I hope we can agree that we are not ready to bring detainees to the United States. I hope we vote on that and send a clear message to the administration and to the American people, most of which oppose moving detainees to the United States.

If we poll different States on whether that State wants detainees moved to their State, they are overwhelmingly opposed--the States are-- to moving detainees to their States. From my own State, I know we do not feel confident at all that we would be able to house the detainees in a safe fashion for the people of Kansas.

I hope we can set aside the arbitrary timeline for withdrawing detainees from Guantanamo Bay and do the hard work of determining what status detainees should have, how military commissions work, how long we are willing to hold detainees, and whether they might ever be released to threaten Americans again. This is a tough problem. The Bush administration wrestled with this for years. When I was on the Judiciary Committee, we wrestled with the issue of how to handle the legal rights of detainees. We have a situation that we haven't seen before. This is one where we have detainees who are enemy combatants but don't represent a foreign country. They are freelancing or in an organized effort not based in a country. Normally, in the past, we would have a conflict with another nation, and we would hold prisoners of war until the conflict is over, and then there would be a military exchange or an exchange of prisoners at the end or there would be trials for these combatants so they didn't go back on the battlefield.

We are still in the war on terrorism, despite efforts by the administration to rename it. Whether it takes place in Afghanistan, Iraq, and many other places; whether it is the Horn of Africa, where we are seeing problems, or Somalia, and in many other locations around the world, there is a dedicated terrorist force that doesn't represent a country which seeks to do us harm and kill American citizens and harm our interests. That continues to be the factual setting.

When people are released from Guantanamo, we are seeing them back on the battlefield, and it is like they have received a promotion. In Afghanistan, one of the leaders of the Taliban effort was a person released from Guantanamo Bay. It is like this was a credentialing exercise. Now he is leading a broader group. We don't want that to take place. We don't want to release new commanders into the field.

In normal history, this wouldn't be an issue until the war itself was resolved. We have to figure out the military commissions. We tried multiple times, in various ways, to be able to give legal rights to individuals without revealing confidential information that would hurt our troops on the battlefield. We haven't found the appropriate route yet. I stand ready to try to do that. But I don't stand here willing to release people who will harm U.S. citizens. I don't think that is in our interest, and that is not our job.

I don't think it is our job to try to meet a European public's impression of a facility that our Attorney General believes is well run. It may have image issues that are taking place, but let's get actual facts. If the Europeans are that concerned about it, why don't they get more involved in Guantanamo Bay or be willing to take some detainees and not release them back onto the battlefield. I think this is one of the tough problems that needs to involve everybody. If there is an open debate and dialog--and the American people and interests should be our primary concern--we can resolve this but not by releasing detainees or putting them on U.S. soil, and certainly not by putting them at Fort Leavenworth, KS, where people are saying clearly that we cannot handle this. We are not prepared to do this.

It will hurt the primary mission at Fort Leavenworth and the education of our students and also the foreign military officers as well. We have students from Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. These are students and army officers from those four countries. We get army officers from 90-some countries on a regular basis to Fort Leavenworth for training and for relationship building with U.S. military forces. When we go to joint exercises--and there is rarely one around the world that isn't a joint exercise--there is confidence and communication that is built up among the individuals. We have been told by these four countries--by students from these countries--if we move the detainees to Fort Leavenworth, KS, at the same place we are training future military leaders, they will pull their students out. We will defeat the purpose.

We need to be able to work with the Pakistani military, the Saudi military, and the Jordanian and Egyptian militaries. Now we will lose those officers because we move detainees to Fort Leavenworth, a place we are not set up to handle them. It will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, even if we could put a facility there, and the people in the community will feel threatened. This is an urban setting. For what? Why are we doing this? So we can make ourselves less secure and make ourselves

less effective around the world? So that we can please the European public with this move? That is the reason.

None of this makes any sense. We have invested $200 million in the Guantanamo Bay facility that is well run. I don't know why we would do this. It doesn't make any sense. I think we ought to work on this in a bipartisan fashion and roll up our sleeves and see what is in the best American interests. Treating detainees humanely, rightly under the international conventions we have agreed to with other countries, yes, but not harming U.S. citizens or subjecting our military to recycled individuals who have been captured and put at Guantanamo Bay and released, and where we can meet them on the battlefield again as organizers and as people held up as examples to the terrorist fight.

We can do this but not with the direction that the administration is going in, and certainly not by excluding members of the other party.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity and discuss a former resident of my home State of Kansas and a disease that is affecting millions of Americans and honor him today on a special occasion that is occurring to benefit the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation.

Multiple myeloma is an incurable cancer of the plasma cell. It is the second most common blood cancer. There are approximately 50,000 people in the United States living with multiple myeloma and an estimated 15,000 new cases of the disease diagnosed each year. The 5-year survival rate for multiple myeloma remains only 32 percent.

Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation, MMRF, was established in 1998 as a nonprofit organization with a unique mission to urgently and aggressively invest in research that would result in the development of effective treatments and, ultimately, a cure. Today, MMRF has raised over $100 million to support the world's most cutting-edge myeloma research. The MMRF is widely recognized as the driving force behind progress made against the disease and one of the Nation's most groundbreaking cancer research organizations.

Guided by an innovative scientific plan, the MMRF supports one of the world's most strategic and aggressive research drug and development portfolios. This diverse portfolio is comprised of cutting-edge programs in three paths--basic science, validation, and clinical trials--that represent the MMRF's research strategy. Taken together, these research programs will accelerate the pace of scientific discovery, rapidly transform scientific progress into lifesaving treatments, and ultimately lead to a faster cure for multiple myeloma.

I ask Congress to continue to look at ways that we can assist the research and health communities to fight this disease and help treat myeloma patients.

I would like to take a few minutes and tell you about a special Kansan

whom I know quite well and who is currently battling multiple myeloma.

Kent Wells was born and raised in Garden City, KS. Kent's first job was working at the radio station in Garden City. His family moved to Washington, DC, in 1970 while Kent was in high school because his dad was appointed as an FCC Commissioner. Kent attended Jeb Stuart High School for 1\1/2\ years before returning to Garden City to complete his senior year and graduate with his class.

Kent attended college at the University of Kansas from 1972 to 1976, interning for Representative Keith Sebelius in 1975, who at the time was the chief of staff of my current Senate colleague from Kansas, Pat Roberts. Kent attended law school at George Washington University from 1976 to 1979. Kent's first job after law school was as a legislative assistant to former Senator Nancy Kassebaum from Kansas from 1979 to 1982.

Kent then went to work for Southwestern Bell in 1985, shortly after divestiture and the opening of the Washington offices for the Baby Bells. He moved to the Cingular office in February 2001 and back to AT&T in January 2007.

Kent has kept close ties to Kansas through his love of sports. He follows the Kansas City Chiefs and the Royals closely, but as anyone who knows him will tell you, he is crazy about Kansas basketball and rarely misses a Jayhawks' game. One of his joys is that he has passed the love of KU basketball to his two boys, Trevor and Bryan, both of whom proudly sport KU attire on campus at USC and Wisconsin. Kent's parents moved from Garden City to Lawrence several years ago, which gives him lots of chances to visit Lawrence and Allen Field House just to get another look at that championship trophy. He also is always for a trip to Hutchinson, KS, to play golf at Prairie Dunes Golf Club.

Kent was diagnosed in 2007 with multiple myeloma and has been benefited from the work of MMRF in the research and the clinical drugs that have been established. But as Kent and thousands of other Americans face this disease, there is more work to do.

Colleagues of Kent's and his wonderful wife Debbie are sponsoring an upcoming event on May 13, 2009, that will raise money for Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation and continue the efforts to develop the necessary research to fight this disease.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution that in many ways is long overdue, a resolution to officially apologize for the past ill-conceived policies by the US Government toward the Native Peoples of this land and re-affirm our commitment toward healing our nation's wounds and working toward establishing better relationships rooted in reconciliation.

Apologies are often-times difficult, but like treaties, go beyond mere words and usher in a true spirit of reconciling past difficulties and help to pave the way toward a united future. Perhaps Dr. King said it best when he stated, ``The end is reconciliation, the end is redemption, the end is the creation of the beloved community.'' This is our goal, with this resolution today.

Native Americans have a vast and proud legacy on this continent. Long before 1776 and the establishment of the United States of America, Native peoples inhabited this land and maintained a powerful physical and spiritual connection to it. In service to the Creator, Native peoples sowed the land, journeyed it, and protected it. The people from my State of Kansas have a similar strong attachment to the land.

Like many in my State, I was raised on the land. I grew up farming and caring for the land. I and many in my State established a connection to this land as well. We care for our Nation and the land of our forefathers so greatly that we too are willing to serve and protect it, as faithful stewards of the creation with which God has blessed us. I believe without a doubt citizens across this great Nation share this sentiment and know its unifying power. Americans have stood side by side for centuries to defend this land we love.

Both the Founding Fathers of the United States, it and the indigenous tribes that lived here were attached to this land. Both sought to steward and protect it. There were several instances of collegiality and cooperation between our forbears--for example, in Jamestown, VA, Plymouth, MA, and in aid to explorers Lewis and Clark. Yet, sadly, since the formation of the American Republic, numerous conflicts have ensued between our Government, the Federal Government, and many of these tribes, conflicts in which warriors on all sides fought courageously and which all sides suffered. Even from the earliest days of our Republic there existed a sentiment that honorable dealings and a peaceful coexistence were clearly preferable to bloodshed. Indeed, our predecessors in Congress in 1787 stated in the Northwest Ordinance:

``The utmost good faith shall always be observed toward the Indians.''

Many treaties were made between the U.S. Government and Native peoples, but treaties are far more than just words on a page. Treaties represent our word, and they represent our bond. Treaties with other governments are not to be regarded lightly. Unfortunately, again, too often the United States did not uphold its responsibilities as stated in its covenants with Native tribes.

I have read all of the treaties in my State between the tribes and the Federal Government that apply to Kansas. They generally came in tranches of three. First, there would be a big land grant to the tribe. Then there would be a much smaller one associated with some equipment and livestock, and then a much smaller one after that.

Too often, our Government broke its solemn oath to Native Americans. For too long, relations between the U.S. and Native people of this land have been in disrepair. For too much of our history, Federal tribal relations have been marked by broken treaties, mistreatment, and dishonorable dealings.

I believe it is time to work to restore these relationships to good health. While the record of the past cannot be and should not be erased, I am confident the United States can acknowledge its past failures, express sincere regrets, and work toward establishing a brighter future for all Americans. It is in this spirit of hope for our land that I and my Senate colleagues, Senators Inouye, Baucus, Boxer, Crapo, Cantwell, Coburn, Harkin, Lieberman, and Tester, are offering this Senate Joint Resolution, the Native American Apology Resolution. I am also pleased to be in partnership with Representative Dan Boren who is offering the companion Joint Resolution in the House of Representatives today as well.

This resolution will extend a formal apology from the U.S. to tribal governments and Native peoples nationwide--something we have never done; something we should have done years and years ago.

I am proud that this Joint Resolution, which I have introduced since the 107th Congress, has passed the Indian Affairs Committee unanimously in the 108th, 109th and 110th Congresses and passed the Senate in the 110th Congress.

Additionally, I want my fellow Senators to note this resolution does not--does not--dismiss the valiance of our American soldiers who fought bravely for their families in wars between the United States and a number of the Indian tribes, nor does this resolution cast all the blame for the various battles on one side or another.

Further, this resolution will not resolve the many challenges still facing Native Americans, nor will it authorize, support or settle any claims against the United States. It doesn't have anything to do with any property claims against the United States. That is specifically set aside and not in this bill. What this resolution does do is recognize and honor the importance of Native Americans to this land and to the U.S. in the past and today and offers an official apology for the poor and painful path the U.S. Government sometimes made in relation to our Native brothers and sisters by disregarding our solemn word to Native peoples. It recognizes the negative impact of numerous destructive Federal acts and policies on Native Americans and their culture, and it begins--begins--the effort of reconciliation.

President Ronald Reagan spoke of the importance of reconciliation many times throughout his Presidency. In a 1984 speech to mark the 40th anniversary of the day when the Allied armies joined in battle to free the European Continent from the grip of the Axis powers, Reagan implored the United States and Europe to ``prepare to reach out in the spirit of reconciliation.''

This resolution is not a panacea of course, but perhaps it signals the beginning of the end of division and a faint first light and first fruits of reconciliation and the creation of beloved community Dr. King so eloquently described.

This is a resolution of apology and a resolution of reconciliation. It is a step toward healing the wounds that have divided our country for so long--a potential foundation for a new era of positive relations between tribal governments and the Federal Government.

It is time, as I have stated, for us to heal our land of division, all divisions, and bring us together. I hope a number

of my colleagues in the Senate will join me and support this resolution and begin a much needed healing process in this Nation.

Mr. President, I ask that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.