Sam Brownback

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I, too, want to take a moment to thank my colleague Senator Kohl who has worked on this for some period of time. I thought this was one of the smoothest appropriations bill we have had flow through the floor. I congratulate our colleague and particularly his work and that of the staff to make this happen: Galen Fountain, Jessica Frederick on his staff, Bob Ross, Dianne Nellor; on mine, Fitz Elder, Stacy McBride, Katie Toskey, and then Riley Scott and Melanie Benning were also key on it. There is an item about which I have some consternation at the end where we broke the 302(b) allocation. My hope is in conference we can get that worked back down because clearly we have a huge budget crisis on our hands and we have to hit these numbers. I know it was an important issue to the chairman on dairy funding and that is an important issue; particularly if you are from Wisconsin, that is an important issue. It is my hope we can work that down. I do think it shows a lot of support and strength when you have a major bipartisan vote on this bill at the end. My hope is that is the way we will operate in the body, in a bipartisan way so we can move things through for the good of the country. We are in the minority, obviously, but there is no reason we cannot work these issues together as much as we possibly can. Senator Kohl was excellent to work with. I appreciate that chance to do it. I look forward to us getting this through on a stand-alone basis, not rolled together in an omnibus package if at all possible. I think it is an important package, one we should be able to do that with. I think we have the ability to get that done. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues, if people have amendments, that they come down to the floor now and start working on these. It would be my hope we can move through this bill as fast as possible so that we can get to the debate on Judge Sotomayor and have as much time as possible to deal with that. I urge colleagues to start working with us on these issues. By unanimous consent, the cloture vote has been scheduled for 5:30 today. There are things we need to get resolved; they should be taken care of now. Amendment No. 2229, as Modified

Mr. BROWNBACK. This is an amendment that has been cleared by both sides. It is on neglected and rare diseases. Senator Brown has asked to be a cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that this be considered the pending amendment and that it be passed.

Mr. BROWNBACK. What we are trying to do is to work through the amendments to the degree we can. We certainly want to. I ask our colleagues to bring those to the floor as soon as they possibly can. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, the reason I ask that on this bill-- and I do urge my colleagues to come forward to speak on the Agriculture appropriations bill. We have already cleared some amendments, and we need to move forward. Something happened yesterday that affected my State directly, and that was the statement by the administration--or leak from the administration--that they are considering moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to my State, associated with Fort Leavenworth. This has riled up everybody. I was just there this morning, and we had 100 people who came out after very short notice. It is virtually unanimous in their opinions--not everybody but close to everybody is opposed to this idea for a multiple set of reasons. Moving the Guantanamo Bay detainees to Fort Leavenworth and the Fort Leavenworth area would not work, to start off with, and will significantly hurt the core educational and international mission of the fort. On top of that it is totally unnecessary. I hope the administration will start to rethink this idea of moving the Guantanamo Bay detainees. I think it is a bad idea that we replicate the facility we already have at Guantanamo Bay somewhere in the United States because we already have a facility to hold the detainees. We already have a facility to try the detainees. It is all set up. I was there. I led a congressional delegation a couple of months ago. They are being humanely treated, and if they are not, and if there are credible reports that they are not, then let's work on fixing Guantanamo Bay rather than moving the detainees to the United States. If there are problems, let's fix them rather than just say we are going to change the name of the place and we are going to move the detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Leavenworth. We are not going to change the opinion of the world of the United States one iota by substituting the name ``Leavenworth'' for the name ``Guantanamo Bay,'' creating a replica of what we already have at Guantanamo Bay, only somewhere else. It would cost hundreds of millions of dollars we don't have when we already have an $11 trillion debt, and it is growing at a rate of nearly $2 trillion a year. So why would we spend hundreds of millions of dollars doing something that is not going to change world opinion, replicating a facility that we already have, that slows the process? This doesn't make any sense. On top of that, what is being considered at Leavenworth would not work. The fort at Leavenworth--if I could just talk to my colleagues about this, and I hope they will look at the factual setting. Fort Leavenworth is one of the smallest Army bases we have around the world. It is 8 square miles. It butts up in and is a part of an urban area of Kansas City. It has on its border a river and a train that goes through about every 25 minutes. It is not the secure facility one would need to have for these detainees. We don't have any setbacks like we have in a number of other facilities, and it has one of the highest population densities per square mile or square foot of any of our military bases because it houses the Command and General Staff College of the military. If I could just point out that facility to my colleagues--and I hope some of them come and attend and address the Command and General Staff College. We get students from around the world on a regular basis at that facility. Generally, some 90 countries at any one point in time have students at the Command and General Staff College. Of these 90 countries that send students for their Army training for their military, half of those students will become general flag officers before their career is done. A number of them will become civilian leaders in their own country as well. So you get the cream of the crop from around the world. They come here. They also meet with our future military leaders, and this is the training center they have. It is the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth. The primary mission of Fort Leavenworth is that training as well as that relationship and integration between our U.S. Army forces and forces of militaries, Army forces from around the world, which is critically important when you go into places such as Pakistan or Afghanistan or you are working with the Jordanians or the Egyptians, just to name a few. They send leaders from all of those countries, future flag officers to Fort Leavenworth to be trained. We have already heard in canvassing students from Jordan, Egypt, and Pakistan that they will pull their students from Fort Leavenworth if the detainees are moved there. They don't want to have their military leaders, their future military leaders at the same place that the detainees are being held in the United States, and they have already stated that to us. So we are going to hurt the core mission of Fort Leavenworth in a facility that doesn't have setbacks to safely handle this for no gain. I would point out that I spoke with the commanding general at Fort Leavenworth yesterday. I called him after I heard about this report on MS-NBC. That was how I got the news of it. My wife was on the Internet, and she was on MSNBC's Web site and she sees that they are thinking about moving the Gitmo detainees to either Leavenworth or Michigan. That didn't set very well with me, that that is how I learned about this to start off with. As I started calling around, I called the commanding general, and he said he learned about it pretty late as well and has difficulties, although he is a military man. He will salute and take orders and do what he is directed to do, but he is not--he needs to be asked and brought in to testify about what his opinion would be about this issue. I talked to the Governor in Kansas last night. The Governor, a Democratic Governor, has issued a statement previously opposed to this move taking place to Fort Leavenworth. The Congresswoman from the area was there this morning opposed to this move. The mayor of Leavenworth was there opposed to this move. We have voted in this body virtually unanimously--close to a unanimous vote--that you have to work with local officials before the Gitmo detainees can be moved anywhere into the United States. Well, the local officials are uniformly opposed to this at Leavenworth, and we wake up and it is in the morning paper and nobody has been consulted about it. I wish to say the detainees in my estimation deserve appropriate humane treatment. They deserve to be treated under our international obligations. If they are not getting that, then that needs to be changed, and it needs to be changed at Guantanamo Bay. I hope we would have international investigations to tell us what is not being met that we are required to do, that is not being done. I have not seen any credible international reports that say there are things we are not doing that we should do at Guantanamo Bay. There is a gray category that is involved where you have enemy combatants who don't represent a foreign country, and that is a big part of our problem. There is also a very tough area, and that is--I saw this when I was at Guantanamo Bay-- a number of the detainees are continuing the fight today. While in prison, at Gitmo, they continue the fight. So whoever gets these or takes these detainees is going to have to be prepared to have the continuation of the war on terrorism happening near them and happening in the prison facility. That is not everybody, but some of them continue to fight in prison. That is going to be a difficult situation for whoever is to handle it. On top of that, our folks at Leavenworth--we have prisoners in there, and the town is proud of their ability to handle various prisoners. Their concern is not keeping the detainees in, because you can staff up for that, but it is keeping out people who seek to get in or make a statement in that area. Plus, they would have to scale up their facilities. We have a medium-security Bureau of Prisons facility. It is not maximum security. We have a dominated medium-security disciplinary barracks there, and we have space for 25 maximum-security prisoners-- only 25. You would have to move out all of the current military personnel convicted in military courts who are held in the disciplinary barracks. We are not situated to handle this. It would cost a huge amount of money, and it would not be safe to do it at Leavenworth. It is a bad idea for us to do that there. I ask the President to come to Leavenworth. He was invited by the mayor this morning. He can look at the facility and examine it himself. The Attorney General can come and examine the facility, look at it, and see what estimation they come up with after examining and looking at the facility. I understand they are looking at some sort of hybrid facility. We don't have the situation to be able to house it in Kansas. On top of that, I ask the President to really listen to the American people. The American people don't want these detainees moved to the United States. They don't want to hurry up artificial timelines set for moving the detainees to the United States, and they feel the President should be listening to them and not to European leaders or somebody around the world who doesn't like the Guantanamo Bay facility and thinks it has a bad name. Listen to the American people on this issue. I ask that the President come and talk to the Members of Congress who may be impacted by this and ask our opinions and look at what is taking place. This is being rushed. It is on an artificial time deadline. It doesn't need to happen. It is replicating a facility we have, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, and it will slow the process down. It is a bad idea chasing a bad idea with an artificial time limit. I ask that the President not do that. My colleague and I from Kansas will fight every step of the way to keep this facility from being moved to Kansas. We are representing our constituents, who don't want these detainees moved to Kansas. We are going to fight it every step of the way. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, we are attempting to work through some amendments. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 2253 on behalf of Senator Chambliss, and the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, it is my understanding this amendment has been cleared on both sides, so I ask unanimous consent that the amendment, as modified, be agreed to.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I have been asked by Senator Barrasso to ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 2240 on behalf of Senator Barrasso.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. I wanted to get this for Senator Barrasso. We will be handling that at a later point in time. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2243 to Amendment No. 1908

Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion upon the table. The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to. Amendments Nos. 2254 and 2255 to Amendment No. 1908

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 2254 on behalf of Senator Chambliss and 2255 on behalf of Senator Vitter en bloc.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I understand these amendments have been cleared on both sides. I offer them for Senators Chambliss and Vitter. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to en bloc.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Cloture Motion

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rachana Chhin of my office be granted the privileges of the floor during the remainder of debate on this bill.

Mr. BROWNBACK

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues, particularly on my side of the aisle, to get their amendments and bring them forward, bring them forward this morning. It would be my hope we could get this bill done on Monday, early evening, so we can move to the Sotomayor discussion and debate on the floor. I think most Members want to speak about Sotomayor, so it is going to take a lot of time next week, being the last week before we go on break. I hope we could start that as fast as possible and we could move through this bill expeditiously. We worked very closely with the majority. I think we have a good bill. It certainly is not perfect; no bill is. But it is one for which we have done a lot of work, and I do not see the issues outstanding here to the degree that I think it would merit us putting off the discussion and debate on Sotomayor. So I am hopeful we can get those amendments coming forward. Amendment No. 2229 To Amendment No. 1908 Mr. President, I have discussed with the majority about bringing up an amendment to deal with the issue of neglected and rare diseases. The FDA funding is in this bill, and we have negotiated an amendment with the proper authorizing committee. So with that, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, to call up amendment No. 2229, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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