Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we have been working with Senator Sessions--myself, Senator Levin and his staff, and Senator Sessions' staff. This amendment basically clarifies the fact that when a detainee is in military custody or an intelligence agent's custody, being detained as a result of wartime activity, to be interrogated for intelligence gathering, there is no requirement that person have article 31, or Miranda, rights read to them. We don't want to criminalize the war. Military intelligence gathering is not a law enforcement function. There has been some confusion at Bagram Air Force Base about the Department of Justice FBI agents reading Miranda rights. Clearly, there could be a time when that would be appropriate, but this amendment states unequivocally that Miranda warnings, or article 31 rights, are not to be read or required to be read by DOD personnel or intelligence agencies as a result of battlefield activities or military intelligence gathering. I think it is a good amendment that will clarify a potentially confusing situation. I appreciate Senator Levin's staff helping us with it.

Mr. GRAHAM. That is correct.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to echo the sentiments of Senator Webb. We have been working together on this. I very much appreciate Senator Isakson. I understand this is a bit complicated-- there are parochial interests involved--until we understand the dilemma we are in here. In the fiscal year 2008 Defense authorization bill, we included language that grants a 5-year waiver to the Berry amendment for the procurement of flame-resistant rayon, the material used to make military uniforms. There are 3 years left on the waiver. The Isakson amendment permanently extends this waiver and will end all efforts to produce a domestic material to make military uniforms. I respectfully oppose the amendment. We are currently procuring the material from Europe. There is no source of domestic rayon. Neither Congress nor DOD has ever issued a determination or finding that the domestic market lacks sufficient products that could perform the functions desired by DOD. This amendment unfairly excludes, in my opinion, U.S. manufacturers from competing for DOD procurements and improperly limits competition since the domestic market contains products such as flame-resistant cotton, Nomex, and nylon which can fulfill DOD's needs. DOD's decision to procure flame-resistant fabric from foreign suppliers without even examining whether domestic manufacturers could meet the agency's need with other products violates DOD's statutory mandate to use performance rather than material specifications and to seek free and fair open competition whenever practical. Instead of affirmatively extending a waiver that has 3 years remaining, we should continue to let the technologies and fabrics develop and reassess where we are in 1 or 2 years. I think that is the wise thing to do, and I respectfully urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 30 minutes, although I doubt I will take that long.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I take to the floor to inform the Senate and my colleagues about how I intend to vote on the pending nomination of Supreme Court nominee Judge Sotomayor. I understand the path of least resistance for me personally would be to vote no. That is probably true anytime you are in the minority party and you lose an election. But I feel compelled to vote yes, and I feel this is the right vote for me and, quite frankly, for the country in this case. Why do I say that? Well, elections have consequences. I told Judge Sotomayor in the hearing that if I had won the election, even though I wasn't running, or Senator McCain had, she would probably not have been chosen by a Republican. We would have chosen someone with a more conservative background--someone similar to a Judge Roberts or Miguel Estrada. She is definitely more liberal than a Republican would have chosen, but I do believe elections have consequences. It is not as though we hid from the American people during the campaign that the Supreme Court selections were at stake. Both sides openly campaigned on the idea that the next President would be able to pick some judges for the Supreme Court. That was known to the American people and the American people spoke. In that regard, having been one of the chief supporters of Senator McCain and one of the chief opponents of then-Senator Obama, I feel he deserves some deference on my part when it comes to his first selection to the Supreme Court. I say that understanding, under our Constitution, I or no other Senator would be bound by the pick of a President. But when you look at the history of this country, generally speaking, great deference has been given to that selection by the Senate. While I am not bound to vote for Judge Sotomayor--voting no would be the path of least political resistance for me--I choose to vote for Judge Sotomayor because I believe she is well qualified. We are talking about one of the most qualified nominees to be selected for the Supreme Court in decades. She has 17 years of judicial experience. Twelve of those years she was on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. I have looked at her record closely. I believe she follows precedent; that she has not been an activist judge in the sense that would make her disqualified, in my view. She has demonstrated left-of-center reasoning but within the mainstream. She has an outstanding background as a lawyer. She was a prosecutor for 4 years in New York. Her record of academic achievement is extraordinary--coming up from very tough circumstances, being raised by a single mother, going to Princeton, being picked as the top student there, and doing an extraordinary job in law school. She has a strong work ethic. That all mattered to me. It is not just my view that her legal reasoning was within the mainstream. She received the highest rating by the ABA--the American Bar Association--as ``well qualified.'' The reason I mention that is not because I feel bound by their rating, but during the Alito and Roberts confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court under President Bush, I used that as a positive for both those nominees. I feel, as a Republican, I can't use it one time and ignore it the other. So the fact that she received the highest rating from the American Bar Association made a difference to me. Her life story, as I indicated before, is something every American should be proud of. If her selection to the Supreme Court will inspire young women, particularly Latino women, to seek a career in the law, that is a good thing, and I hope it will. On balance, I do believe the Court will not dramatically change in terms of ideology due to her selection. Justice Souter, whom I respect as an individual, has been far more liberal than I would prefer in a judge. I think Justice Sotomayor will not be any more liberal than he. On some issues, quite frankly, she may be more balanced in her approach, particularly when it comes to the war on terror, the use of international law, and potentially the second amendment. But time will tell. I am not voting for her believing I know how she will decide a case. I am voting for her because I find her to be well qualified, because elections matter, and because the people who have served along her side for many years find an extraordinary woman in Judge Sotomayor, and I confirm their findings. What standard did I use? Every Senator in this body, at the end of the day, has to decide how to give their advice and consent. One of the things I chose not to do was to use Senator Obama's standard when it came to casting my vote for Judge Sotomayor. If those who follow the Senate will recall, Senator Obama voted against both Judge Alito and Judge Roberts, and he used the rationale that they were well qualified; that they were extraordinarily intellectually gifted; but the last mile in the confirmation process, when it came to Judge Roberts, was the heart. Because 5 percent of controversial cases may change society, one has to look and see what is in a judge's heart. I totally reject that. If the Senate tries to have a confirmation process where we explore another person's heart, I think we are going to chill out people wanting to become members of the judiciary. Who would want to come before the Senate and have us try to figure out what is in their heart? Can you imagine the questions we would be allowed to ask? I think it would have a tremendous chilling effect on the future recruitment of qualified candidates to be judges. Let me say this: Judge Sotomayor agreed with me and Senator Kyl that trying to find out what is in a judge's heart is probably not a good idea. Senator Obama also indicated that judicial philosophy and ideology were outcome determinative when it came to Judge Alito. If I used his standard, knowing that her philosophy is different than mine, her ideology is different than mine, she would have no hope of getting my vote. I daresay not one Republican, using the Obama standard, would provide her with a confirmation vote. So I decided to reject that because I believe it is not in the long-term interest of the Senate or the judiciary. I went back to a standard I think has stood the test of time--the qualifications standard. Is this person qualified to sit on the Court? Are they a person of good character? Do they present an extraordinary circumstance--having something about their life that would make them extraordinary to the point they would be unqualified? There was a time in this country where a Justice, such as Justice Ginsburg, who is clearly left of center, received 90-something votes in this body. There was a time in this country, not long ago, where a conservative judge, such as Justice Scalia, received over 95 votes from this body. Every Democrat who voted for Justice Scalia could not have been fooled as to what they were getting. They were getting an extremely qualified, talented, intellectual man who was qualified for the job but had a different philosophy from most Democrats. Someone on our side of the aisle who voted for Justice Ginsburg had to know what they were getting. They were getting someone who was very talented, extremely well qualified, incredibly smart, and who was general counsel for the ACLU. You had to know what you were getting, but you understood that President Clinton, in that case, had the right to make that decision. What happened to those days? I would say to my Democratic colleagues--and I am sure Republicans have made our fair share of mistakes when it comes to judges--that this effort, not too far in the past, of filibustering judges, declaring war on the Judiciary, has hurt this body. In my opinion, the politicization of our Judiciary has to stop for the good of this country, for the good of the Senate, and for the good of the rule of law in America. What am I trying to do today? I am trying to start over. The political ``golden rule'' is: Do unto others as they did unto you. The actual Golden Rule is: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I hope we can get back to the more traditional sense of what the Senate has been all about. That brings me back to the recent past. This body was on the verge of blowing up. Our Democratic colleagues were filibustering President Bush's nominees for the appellate court, and even the Supreme Court, in a fashion never known by the body. There was an effort by frustrated Republicans to change the rules so all you needed was a majority vote to get on the bench--the Supreme Court. This body, for a couple hundred years, had not gone down that road. A Gang of 14 was created--7 Republicans and 7 Democrats--and they tried to find a better way; they tried to get the Senate back to a more reasoned position. That Gang of 14--the 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans--said filibustering judges should only be done in an extraordinary circumstance. We left that up to the Members of the body, but we were focusing on someone who was clearly out of the mainstream when it came to judging. If you look at Judge Sotomayor's record for 17 years, it is left of center but not the record of someone who is wearing a robe but under the robe is an activist. An extraordinary circumstance would be somebody clearly not qualified--a pick that is political in nature alone. I am glad to say my colleagues on the Democratic side and the Republican side who were part of that group--and they are still here-- did not see an extraordinary circumstance. I would like to compliment Senator Sessions, who did a very fine job in this hearing. He has acknowledged there is nothing extraordinary about this nominee for the Republican Party to try to block her through filibustering. I think that is a correct assessment. But then it comes down to the individual vote. I have tried to indicate the best I can that I desire, as a Senator, to find a new way to start over and get back to a Senate that is more rational in its approach when it comes to confirmations. Having said that, to my colleagues who vote no, I understand your concerns and there are things about this nominee that are troubling. The speeches she has given in the past are troubling because I think they embrace identity politics, something I don't embrace. The ``wise Latina'' comment that has become famous, that she believes more often than not that a wise Latina woman with her experience and background would reach a better conclusion than a White male--we had a long discussion about how that does not set well with most Americans and that is not what we want to be expressed by people trying to become Supreme Court nominees. But having said that, do we want to exclude from consideration people with boldness, who are edgy? Do we want milk toast nominees who are afraid to speak their minds and to disagree with their fellow citizens? I think not. Her speeches, while troubling, have to be looked at in terms of her record. When we look at this 17-year record we will find someone who has not carried out that speech. I will take her at her word. She rejected this idea of picking winners and losers and was very mainstream in her understanding of the role of a judge. She understood the difference between a policymaker and a judge. I will take her at her word. I cannot understand her heart any more than she can understand mine. The speeches are troubling, but I guarantee I have made some speeches that are probably troubling to people on the other side. I hope they would look at everything I have done, not just the speeches I may have given. Her time as a lawyer--this is very important to me. During the Alito and Roberts hearings, they were pushed hard about some legal memos they wrote for Ronald Reagan espousing conservative thought and how that made them dangerous. How dare you write a memo about the Civil Rights Act that somebody on the other side may disagree with? Lawyers who advocate positions should not feel chilled in terms of picking their clients if they hope to be a judge. The worst thing we could do is take a lawyer's advocacy position, their clientele, and hold it against them for being a judge. She was a board member of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund. Some people say we should not talk about her time as a lawyer or even mention that organization. I do not believe that at all because when I am looking at this nominee, I am looking at every aspect of her life. During her time as a board member, the board and the organization advocated positions I think are out of the mainstream, that I do not agree with, but certainly are legitimate positions to take--such as taxpayer-funded abortion. I could not disagree with her more. I don't think most Americans want their taxpayer dollars to be used to fund abortion. The Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund argued to the court that if we do not allow taxpayer-funded abortion for poor women, it is a form of Dred Scott kind of oppression. I could not disagree more, but that is not the point. Disagreeing with me is OK. What I hope will happen in the future is, if a conservative gets into the White House, and we pick someone who was on the other side of that case, we will have the same understanding I do: being an aggressive advocate for causes I disagree with does not disqualify them from being a judge, if otherwise they have demonstrated the capability. The advocacy role of a lawyer is unique. I have represented people with whom I disagreed. I have represented people accused of child molesting. I have been a criminal defense lawyer. There is nothing more noble in our system than making the government prove their case regardless of how one feels about the defendant. The fact that she was an advocate, choosing causes I disagree with, does not, in my opinion, disqualify her because, when I looked at her record, I did not see a judge who was continuing to be a lawyer for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund. I saw a judge who felt bound by the law. Temperament--for those Members who have practiced in court, I do not like a bully judge, and I know it when I see it. I don't mind being pressed, I don't mind being challenged, I don't mind being interrupted. I just do not want to be belittled in front of my clients for no good reason. There were some things said about Judge Sotomayor, anonymous comments from lawyers who were asked by the Federal Almanac how they rate the temperament of people on the Second Circuit, and Judge Sotomayor had some things said that were, frankly, disturbing. But I looked at the other part of the record, the people who served with her as a prosecutor, the defense attorneys who wrote on her behalf, people who served with her on the court, and I found on balance that her temperament does not disqualify her. Frankly, I found somebody a lot of people from different backgrounds admire. Ken Starr, one of the strongest conservatives in the country, found her to be a qualified person who would do a good job; Louis Freeh, the former Director of the FBI, is someone who came and vouched for her character and her qualities as a person. When I look at the record, the anonymous comments by lawyers who were asked by Federal Legal Service did not win the day, nor should they have. I do not know what is ahead for this country when it comes to picking Supreme Court Justices. I don't know what openings may occur and when they will occur. I know this. Elections have to matter. I don't want to invalidate elections by disagreeing with someone against whom I ran or I opposed politically because when the election is over, everything has to change to some extent. I am not bound to agree with every pick of President Obama, but when it comes to trying to show some deference, I will. I will try to do better for him than he was able to do for President Bush. I don't want to turn over the confirmation of judges to special interest groups on the left or the right, and that is where we are headed if we don't watch it. Special interest groups are important, they have their say, they have every right to have their say, but we can't make every Supreme Court vacancy a battle over our culture. I am trying to start over. I have only been here one term plus a few months. But since I have been here, I have been worried about where this country is going when it comes to judges. I happen to be here at a time when we are about to change the rules of the Senate in a way it had never been done in 200 years. I was new to the body, but I was understanding of the law and how our system works well enough to know that I did not want to be part of that. I had not been here long, but I understood what would happen to this country if we changed the rules of the Senate, even though people felt frustrated and justified to do so. As a member of the minority, I promised President Obama that I would look hard at his nominees. I will try to help him where I can, but I will not abandon the right to say no and to stop, in an extraordinary circumstance, a nominee who I think would be bad for the country and would dramatically change the power of a branch of the government, the Supreme Court, that is very important to every American. As to my colleagues who find a different decision on the Republican side, I can understand and appreciate why they did not feel comfortable giving their confirmation votes to Judge Sotomayor. But I am trying to look beyond this moment, look to the future and come up with a reason to support her that will create a different way of doing business, that will help the judiciary, the Senate, and the country as a whole. Senator Sessions did an outstanding job. Senator Leahy did a very good job. People wanted to know more about her at the hearings, but she is limited, like every nominee, in terms of what she can say. One last comment about Judge Sotomayor. She is 1 year older than I am. I grew up in the Deep South. I am the first person in my family to go to college. I lost my parents when I was in college and had a 13- year-old sister to raise. She grew up in the Bronx, came to this country from Puerto Rico. Her mother joined the Army. She lost her dad when she was very young. Her mother raised Judge Sotomayor and her brother under difficult circumstances. Her brother is a doctor. She has been able, Judge Sotomayor, to excel academically and reach the highest rung of America's legal system. That, to me, is a hell of a story. Nobody in my family ever expected me to be a United States Senator--including myself. Only in America can these things happen. I choose to vote for Judge Sotomayor looking at her from the most optimistic perspective, understanding I could be wrong but proud of the fact that my country is moving in the right direction when anybody and everybody can hit it out of the park. I would not have chosen her if I had to make this choice as President, but I understand why President Obama did choose her and I am happy to vote for her. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I always thought this debate kind of went down the side of liberal versus conservative until I got to understand during the confirmation hearings of Judge Sotomayor that Senator Feingold is probably one of the strongest gun guys in the Senate. So I have had to recalibrate where I stand on this issue in terms of trying to pigeonhole people. The point of the amendment, No. 1, is it should not be on the Defense bill. I think we all agree with that. We are talking about a Defense authorization bill to protect our troops and provide them the equipment they need and give them a pay raise. Now we are talking about guns and hate crimes. I don't know how we got here as a body, but we are here. If you had to pick a nongermane amendment to talk about that makes some sense, that most Americans, I think, would like us to be talking about, it would be something fundamental to our country. I think most Americans are a little bit right to center on an issue such as this, for lack of a better phraseology. Most Americans believe in lawful and responsible gun ownership. Quite frankly, that is what this is trying to bolster. I make an observation that if you take the time to get a concealed carry permit in South Carolina or any other State that allows it, you let the law enforcement authorities know you are interested in owning a gun, you go to a training seminar that most States have to be able to get the permit or you have to go through whatever hoops the State set up to be able to carry a weapon in a concealed fashion, that you are probably not high on the list of people who want to use a gun to commit a crime. You would be incredibly stupid. You are pointing out to the whole State: Hey, I have a gun. I argue that the people who go through the exercise of getting a concealed carry permit are the ones you probably want to have a gun because they seem to understand the responsibility that goes with owning it. The idea of does this make us less safe by allowing reciprocity nationwide makes no sense to me. I think of all the people we need to worry about committing gun crimes and violence unlawfully, the people with concealed carry permits are probably last on the list. Americans do object to guns being used in the commission of crimes, and a lot of States have enhanced punishment whereby if you use a firearm in the commission of a crime your incarceration time can go up. In other words, we want to deter people from using a gun in the commission of a crime, and I think most Americans agree with those laws. I think the city of Richmond was one of the first cities in the Nation to have enhanced punishment for the use of a weapon. It is true that some people do misuse a weapon. Some people misuse a car. But it is a fundamental right under our Constitution, according to our Supreme Court, to possess a gun. This amendment makes sense at every level. If I go through the process of getting a concealed carry permit in South Carolina and I go to another State that has a similar law, I automatically get the benefit of that law--no more than that law. So I don't know what the law is about carrying a gun in Central Park in New York. I know this: If you have a permit to carry a gun in South Dakota or South Carolina and you go to New York, you don't have any greater rights than the people in New York. And I also understand that whatever Federal restrictions on gun ownership that exist are not changed by this. So this is pretty common sense to me. If someone goes through the process of getting a permit to carry a weapon in their own State and they choose to go to another State, they automatically get the benefit of that State's law when it comes to concealed carry. They do not get any more, they do not get any less, and it may be less than I would have in South Carolina. But because we are a group of people who travel around and visit among ourselves, this Federal legislation allows us to go from one State to the next and get the benefit of any law that may exist when it comes to concealed carry. But the precondition is that you would have to have that permit in your own State and you have to go through the rigors of getting that permit in your own State. To anybody who says this makes America less safe or more dangerous, again, that just makes no sense to me. Whatever gun crimes are being committed out there, they are not being committed, as an overwhelming general rule, by the people who have gone through the process of getting a permit and who carry a weapon. So, to me, it makes sense. I congratulate my friend from South Dakota and tell him he has done something I think most Americans would agree with. He has allowed the American public to be able to travel and get the benefit of whatever law exists in a State when it comes to carrying a weapon--no more, no less. And this argument that people are somehow going to start carrying a weapon across the border makes no sense because whatever Federal restrictions there are on arms trafficking still stand. At the end of the day, this legislation will help people who follow the law and obey gun laws to travel throughout the country without tripping themselves up and getting in trouble when they do not mean to get in trouble. If we didn't have this law, it really would be a mess. What we are trying to do is provide some clarity to gun ownership in America. We are not enhancing the ability to commit a crime. Quite frankly, I think it is the other way around; if everybody had the same attitude about gun ownership as people who get a permit, the country would be okay. We are not changing any law that regulates trafficking of firearms. We are not allowing criminals to get access to guns. We are simply allowing people who go through the process of getting a permit in their own State to travel to any State in the Union which has a similar law and to get the benefit of that law. That will make life better for them, it will make life better in terms of legal compliance, and I think it is a proper role for the Federal Government to play. This amendment enhances our second amendment rights. It doesn't change them in a way that makes America less safe. It allows people who are going to do the right thing to be able to do the right thing with some knowledge as to what the right thing is. So Senator Thune has done the country a great service, and I think we will have a big vote--I hope we will--across party lines. You don't have to agree with my right to carry a weapon lawfully. You may not choose that same right for yourself. But that is kind of what makes the country great--the ability for one citizen to understand that even though I wouldn't make that choice, as long as you make a choice responsibly, I am going to allow you to do that. That is what makes this a very special place. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and pay tribute to LTG Scott C. Black for his many years of loyal and exceptionally meritorious service to our Nation culminating in his steadfast devotion, stewardship, and leadership of the Army Judge Advocate General's Corps as the 37th and first 3-Star Judge Advocate General. Lieutenant General Black will retire from the Army on 1 October 2009 having completed a distinguished military career of over 35 years. We owe him a debt of gratitude for his many contributions to our Nation and the legal profession, particularly during operations in support of the global war on terror. Born on September 1, 1952, in Camp Cook, CA, this great patriot grew up traveling around the world in a military family but always considered California his home and is a resident to this day. He graduated in 1974 from California Polytechnic State University with a bachelor of arts in political science. While attending Cal Poly, Lieutenant General Black was enrolled in the Reserve Officers' Training Corps. Upon graduation, he began his military career as a commissioned armor officer. After completing the armor officer basic course and Airborne and Ranger schools, he returned to California for his first duty assignment and served at Fort Ord from 1974-1977. In 1977, the Army selected him to attend law school through the Funded Legal Education Program. He remained on the west coast and graduated in 1980 with his juris doctor degree from the California Western School of Law. He then attended the Judge Advocate Officer Basic Course in Charlottesville, VA, before heading to Fort Bliss, TX, where he honed his legal skills serving as the chief of legal assistance; trial counsel; chief, criminal law; and as a contracts attorney. In 1984, he returned to Charlottesville to attend the judge advocate officer graduate course. In the short time he was a judge advocate before attending the graduate course, Lieutenant General Black quickly distinguished himself from his peers as possessing the legal acumen and interpersonal skills to serve in the Judge Advocate General's Corps' most visible and challenging positions. From 1985-1989 he served in the general law branch, administrative law division, Office of The Judge Advocate General. During this time period, he received the high honor and rare distinction of being selected to serve as an assistant counsel to the President of the United States. After leaving the White House, his stellar performance led to his selection to attend the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, KS. In 1990, he returned to Fort Ord, CA, where he served as the deputy staff judge advocate for the 7th Infantry Division, Light, until 1993. After leaving Fort Ord, Lieutenant General Black continued to expertly fill and excel in challenging positions. In 1993, Lieutenant General Black and his family moved to Europe where he was the chief, military and civil law division, Office of the Judge Advocate, U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army, Germany. In 1994 he became the staff judge Advocate, 3d Infantry Division, later redesignated 1st Infantry Division, U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army, Germany. In 1996, he returned to Washington, DC, where he served as the legislative counsel and chief, investigations and legislative division, Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison, Office of the Secretary of the Army, until 1998. From 1998-1999, Lieutenant General Black attended the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. In 1999 he returned to the Office of The Judge Advocate General to serve as the chief, personnel, plans, and training office. In 2000, Lieutenant General Black returned to Germany as the staff judge advocate, V Corps, U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army, Germany. In 2001 Lieutenant General Black was selected for promotion to brigadier general, and so he returned to Washington, DC, to serve as the assistant judge advocate general for military law and operations. In 2003 he was assigned as the first commanding general of the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School. In 2005 he became the 37th The judge advocate general of the Army. He was promoted to lieutenant general on 8 December 2008 to become the Army's first 3- star the judge advocate general. As the judge advocate general of the Army, Lieutenant General Black served as the principal staff officer responsible for the largest legal services corps within the Department of Defense, with over 9,000 uniformed and civilian attorneys, paralegal noncommissioned officers, and civilian support staff across 651 offices in 19 countries. Lieutenant General Black expertly advised the Secretary of the Army and the Army Staff on sensitive issues affecting the Army and the Department of Defense during a tumultuous and difficult time in our Nation's history. Along with the judge advocate generals of the other services he was the conscious of the nation as he provided counsel on novel legal issues in international law and the ethical values fundamental to the United States. Under his leadership the Judge Advocate General's Corps transitioned along with the rest of the Army so that judge advocates were more accessible and effective to the commanders who rely on their advice. Lieutenant General Black's awards include the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, Army Meritorious Service Medal with four Oak Leaf Clusters, Army Commendation Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, and the Army Achievement Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster. He has earned the Ranger Tab and the Parachutist Badge. Lieutenant General Black and his wonderful wife Kim have been married for 33 years. They have four children and one grandchild. I know all my colleagues join me in saluting LTG Scott C. Black and his family for their many years of truly outstanding service to the Judge Advocate General's Corps, the U.S. Army, and our great Nation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to speak on the record in support of the Kerry-Lugar legislation that was passed by this body basically without objection--by voice vote. It went through so quickly, to me it demonstrates the power of the bill, and so I want to congratulate Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar for this piece of legislation. To the public, what I am talking about is an aid package to Pakistan of I think it is over $1.5 billion a year for the next 5 years. I know we need money here at home. Trust me, in South Carolina we have the third highest unemployment in the Nation. Times are tough. But all I can tell the taxpayers and the American people is that what happens overseas does matter. September 11 was planned in Afghanistan. It was an area of the world, quite frankly, that we ignored. Pakistan has been an ally in the war on terror generally. It is a regime with nuclear weapons. It is a country that has been hit incredibly hard by the downturn of the world economy. There are millions of people in Pakistan who are looking to find a better way. The government is fighting forces that are aligned with the al-Qaida movement--the type of people who would impose a period of darkness in the Middle East that would affect the quality of our lives. So $1.5 billion is a lot of money, but it will do a lot of good in Pakistan and it will help this government and the Pakistan military combat the growing threat of terrorism in Pakistan. The aid package is going to help the government provide a better quality of life for its people. Where the government fails to provide a decent quality of life in Afghanistan and Pakistan, you will have a vacuum that will be filled by the Taliban. The Taliban is not in favor with the Afghan people, but when the government of Afghanistan cannot deliver justice, provide the basic necessities of life, that allows the drug dealers and the Taliban to come along and fill in the vacuum. Pakistan is a large country with nuclear weapons. It is in our national security interest to make sure that the government is stable, that the military will be supportive of civilian control of the government and will be able to defeat the forces of extremism we have seen. We know what they can do when left unchecked. So this bill is an aid package which focuses on civil capacity. The bill also makes sure that we know where the money is going to go. It is not a $1.5 billion check to Pakistan that could be stolen through corruption. It is a very accountable system that follows the money. It makes an effort to upgrade the Pakistan military to deal with counterinsurgency, because they do not have the capacity now that they need. Again, it provides assistance to the Pakistani people and the government to improve the quality of their lives. I think we are getting something for our money. I think we are going to get a good return if we can stabilize Pakistan. It helps us in Afghanistan, where we have thousands of American troops stationed and fighting as I speak. So to Senators Kerry and Lugar, congratulations on being able to get this bill through the Senate so swiftly. To Senators McConnell and Reid, I applaud them both, the minority and majority leaders, for working for the common good here. The administration has also been very supportive. I have had my differences with this administration, and I will continue to have them, but I want to acknowledge that Ambassador Holbrooke, who is now in charge of monitoring Pakistan and Afghanistan as a unit, has done a good job of focusing on what we need to do in both countries, because one does affect the other. The Kerry-Lugar bill, according to the Ambassador and General Petraeus, would be the most important thing the Congress could do to aid the Pakistan Government and the Pakistan military at this crucial time. So I am glad to see that in a bipartisan fashion we responded to that call from our general and from our Ambassador, and hopefully this will become law soon. To the American taxpayer, I know times are tough. I know money is in short supply. But quite frankly, this is an investment we have to make. We have soldiers serving in Afghanistan. If we can make Pakistan more secure and less of a safe haven for terrorists who are attacking our troops, that makes their lives better. If we can stabilize Pakistan and put it in the column of moderation and not extremism, not only will our Nation prosper now, but future generations will be able to prosper. It is impossible for us as a nation to have a strong, vibrant economy and to enjoy the freedom we enjoy today and pass it on to our kids and grandkids without confronting these problems head on. Anytime you ignore problems such as Pakistan and Afghanistan, they always come back to bite you. This is a wise investment at a time that it matters. The tide is turning in Pakistan, it is turning our way, and I hope this aid package will allow it to accelerate and get a result in Pakistan that helps us in Afghanistan. Every American should be proud of the history and tradition of our country. We have been blessed in many ways. The challenges we face are enormous, but we have to remember we are the most blessed nation on Earth and this is a chance for us not only to help ourselves but help the world at large. I am proud of the Senate. I look forward to working in the future with Ambassador Holbrooke and the administration on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, to find ways to make sure we are successful. This is not a Republican or Democratic problem, this is a problem for anyone who loves freedom. This is a problem that needs to be addressed and the Kerry-Lugar bill does address the problem of Pakistan in a reasoned way. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the importance of the tourism industry to our country and the State of South Carolina, and to express my support for the passage of initiatives like the Travel Promotion Act of 2009 and a spouse travel tax deduction that seek to bolster an industry that is a vital component to the economies of so many communities and States. South Carolina is home to some of the most unique destinations for leisure or business travel in the world. From the trails of Table Rock Mountain in the Blue Ridge, to the quaint mill villages throughout the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor, to a kayak excursion in the Congaree Swamp National Park, to a horse carriage ride through the streets of historic Charleston, the Palmetto State is a wealth of natural, cultural, recreational and historic opportunities for any visitor. Golf Digest magazine selected 11 of South Carolina's more than 500 golf courses as some of the top 100 public courses in the Nation for 2009. Conde Nast Traveler magazine named Charleston as the No. 2 destination in the country, rounding out 16 consecutive years as one of the magazine's top 10 travel destinations in America. The list goes on. The one-of-a-kind history, landscape and culture of our State help all visitors to understand our pride in the motto ``Smiling Faces, Beautiful Places.'' The sum of these treasures is an economic engine that drives the prosperity of our State. The tourism industry is the second largest industry in the State of South Carolina. In 2007, the industry generated $17.2 billion and employed more than 12 percent of the State's workforce. Not only does tourism generate more than $100 billion in tax revenue and employ more than 7 million individuals nationwide, but the industry also encourages investment, attracts new business, and enhances the quality of life for local residents. Tourism is truly the lifeblood for many communities not only in South Carolina but throughout America. Unfortunately, the economic downturn is taking its toll on the tourism industry. I remain concerned with the impact that the recession continues to have on the decisions of domestic and international leisure travelers, and on business meetings travel. Families and individuals are tightening their belts, afraid to spend hard-earned money in an unpredictable economy that could still worsen. International travel to the United States has declined since September 11, 2001, despite the weak dollar enabling most overseas travelers to do and see even more in our country. Domestic business travel accounts for about one-fifth of all trips to South Carolina each year. More and more companies are hesitant to book perfectly legitimate corporate meetings and conferences in destinations like Greenville and the South Carolina coast for fear that they will be singled out for irresponsible spending during an economic recession. According to a Meetings and Conventions magazine study, more than half of those interviewed believed that recent harsh criticism against meetings and events has influenced their companies' decisions to hold such events. We must not allow the irresponsible behavior of some to damage public opinion regarding business travel for responsible organizations. In the first 3 months of 2009, hotel occupancy in South Carolina was down more than 12 percent, with losses in all of our traditional tourist and business meeting destinations. Tourism-related tax revenue is down 5 percent from this time last year. These are only a couple of real numbers that directly impact employment and local economies in South Carolina, a State currently suffering from one of the highest unemployment rates in the Nation at 12.1 percent. While I believe the economy will rebound eventually, consumer confidence is not showing sufficient signs of improvement. We must encourage international travelers, Americans, and American business to continue to travel for leisure and to hold appropriate destination corporate meetings and conferences, despite the downturn in the economy. I remain committed to exploring new ways to accomplish this goal in the U.S. Senate. I recently signed on as a cosponsor to S. 1023, the Travel Promotion Act, as I believe it is a significant step in restoring and encouraging overseas travel to the United States. While I supported a measure for the Senate to proceed to this legislation last week, I was unable to support cloture on S. 1023 as I do not believe the majority provided the minority with sufficient opportunity to offer amendments. My vote was unrelated to the substance of the legislation, and I am disappointed that the Senate was unable to complete action on the bill this week. The Travel Promotion Act facilitates collaboration between various stakeholders in the tourism industry so that they may share ideas on how best to promote travel to America. South Carolina welcomes about 1 million international travelers each year. While this number may be low compared to other tourism destinations, overall South Carolina benefits greatly from their visits as international travelers tend to stay longer and spend more in our hotels, restaurants, shops, cultural sites and more. Through this legislation, I am hopeful that efforts to encourage travel to our country will benefit South Carolina. To encourage business travel nationally, I authored legislation, S. 261, which would allow for a spouse to deduct travel expenses such as transportation, food and lodging expenses, when traveling with his or her spouse on business travel. Business travel accounts for more than 20 percent of all travel in South Carolina. I strongly believe that restoring this tax deduction would encourage additional travel and subsequent exploration of work-travel destinations. It is my hope that Congress will act on this legislation in a timely manner. Now is an opportune time to travel, as nearly all tourism destinations are offering packages and deals to entice families and corporate meetings to choose their respective areas. Hotel rates are some of the lowest we have seen in years, while gas prices remain affordable. I am hopeful that families and corporations will take advantage of this opportunity, and consider South Carolina for their next destination. It is vital that Congress recognize the importance of the tourism industry to our country, and encourage all Americans to continue to travel. I look forward to working with my colleagues on new ways to support the tourism industry.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of a dedicated servant and leader, Warren H. Abernathy. After a lifetime of unprecedented service to his State and Nation as a World War II veteran and a 49-year staffer of Senator Strom Thurmond, Mr. Abernathy passed away in Spartanburg, SC, on June 22, 2009, at the age of 85. While he will be remembered by most as a ``private man who wanted to make a difference,'' I will remember him as a larger than life figure who greeted everyone with a smile. He was a World War II veteran who was prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our freedom. After a lifetime of duty, he retired as colonel with the U.S. Army Reserves. Born and raised in Spartanburg, Mr. Abernathy attended Spartanburg High School, Wofford College, and graduated from Spartanburg Methodist College and the University of South Carolina. He later received a master's in business administration from Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, KS, and in September of 1992 he received an honorary doctorate of humane letters from Voorhees College in Denmark, SC. In 1948 he began working for then-Governor J. Strom Thurmond as his administrative assistant. When Governor Thurmond was elected Senator Thurmond, Mr. Abernathy transitioned with him and served as the Senator's State assistant for 49 years. Mr. Abernathy also served as the former secretary-treasurer of the Strom Thurmond Foundation, a U.S. marshall, a member of the Civil Service, an honorary member of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, and in 2007 the Spartanburg County Bar Association awarded him the E. C. Burnett, III, Contribution to Law and Justice Award for his contributions as a nonlawyer to the overall improvement of the legal system in Spartanburg County. In addition to his time in politics, Mr. Abernathy was an active member of the Southside Baptist Church where he participated in the Layman's Sunday school class and served as a former deacon. In 1997 a portion of highway 29 in Spartanburg, SC, was renamed Warren H. Abernathy Highway by the Department of Transportation in honor of his service. And after decades of serving South Carolina, Mr. Abernathy was awarded the Order of the Palmetto from Governor David Beasley on April 13, 1998. Mr. Abernathy, the husband of the late Margaretta Scruggs Abernathy, is survived by family and friends who are rightfully proud of a well- lived life in service of his fellow man. I ask that the U.S. Senate join me in commemorating Mr. Abernathy's lifelong dedication to service to our country and to the State of South Carolina.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. That is correct.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I see Senator Bennett from Utah. How would the Senator like to do this I have about 5 minutes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the lawsuit said if these photos are released, our enemies will use them against our troops. These photos will incite additional violence against men and women serving overseas and Americans who are in theater. There is nothing new to be learned, according to the President. I agree with that. These are more of the same. The people involved at Abu Ghraib and other detainee abuse allegations have been dealt with. The effect of releasing these photos would be empowering our enemies. Every photo would become a bullet or an IED. I wish to applaud the President for saying he opposes their release. The status of the lawsuit is that there is a stay on the second circuit order that would allow the photos to be released until the Supreme Court hears the petition of certiorari filed by the Supreme Court. I have been promised two things that were important to me to remove my holds and to let the supplemental go without objection. No. 1, there would be a freestanding vote on the Lieberman-Graham amendment, the legislative solution to this lawsuit. The Senate has previously allowed this legislation to become a part of the supplemental war funding bill. It would prevent the disclosure of these photos for a 3-year period. If the Secretary of Defense said they were harmful to our national security interests, it could be renewed for 3 years. Senator Reid has indicated to me that before July 8 we will have a chance to vote on that provision as a freestanding bill, which I think will get the Senate back on record in a timely fashion before the next court hearing. Secondly, I wanted to be assured by the administration that if the Congress fails to do its part to protect these photos from being released, the President would sign an Executive order which would change their classification to be classified national security documents that would be outcome determinative of the lawsuit. Rahm Emanuel has indicated to me that the President is committed to not ever letting these photos see the light of day, but they agree with me that the best way to do it is for Congress to act. So in light of that, I am going to remove my hold on the bills I have a hold on, and I will support the supplemental. Because I think it is very important for our soldiers, airmen, sailors, marines--anybody deployed--civilian contractors and their families to know there is a game plan. We are going to support General Petraeus and General Odierno and all our combat commanders to make sure these photos never see the light of day. I think we have a game plan that will work. It starts with a vote in the Senate. I am urging the House to take this up as a freestanding bill. There were 267 House Members who voted to keep our language included in the supplemental. It was taken out. I am very disappointed that it was taken out, but we now have a chance to start over and get this right sooner rather than later. With that understanding, that we are going to get a freestanding vote on the Lieberman-Graham amendment and that the administration will do whatever is required to make sure these photos never see the light of day if Congress fails to act, I am going to lift my hold on all the legislation and support the supplemental. I look forward to taking this matter up as soon as possible. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 America's Top Generals Warn against Photo Release declaration of general david h. petraeus, commander of the united states central command Endangering the Lives of U.S. Servicemen and Servicewomen ``The release of images depicting U.S. servicemen mistreating detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, or that could be construed as depicting mistreatment, would likely deal a particularly hard blow to USCENTCOM and U.S. interagency counterinsurgency efforts in these three key nations, as well as further endanger the lives of U.S. Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, Sailors, civilians and contractors presently serving there.'' (Declaration of General David H. Petraeus, para. 2, Motion to Recall Mandate, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No. 06-3140-cv) Threaten Troops in Afghanistan ``Newly released photos depicting, or that could be construed as depicting, abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody in Iraq and Afghanistan would place U.S. servicemen in Afghanistan at heightened risk and corrosively affect U.S. relations with President Karazai's government, as well as further erode control of the Afghanistan government in general.'' (Declaration of General David H. Petraeus, para. 12, Motion to Recall Mandate, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No. 06-3140-cv) ``An influx of foreign fighters from outside Afghanistan and new recruits from within Afghan could materialize, as the new photos serve as potent recruiting material to attract new members to join the insurgency. . . . Attacks against newly- arriving U.S. Marines and soon-to-arrive U.S. Army units in the south, and transitioning U.S. Army units in the east, could increase, thus further endangering the life and physical safety of military personnel in these regions.'' (Declaration of General David H. Petraeus, para. 12, Motion to Recall Mandate, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No. 06-3140-cv) ``In addition to fueling civil unrest, causing increased targeting of U.S. and Coalition forces, and providing an additional recruiting tool to insurgents and violent extremist groups, the destabilizing effect on our partner nations cannot be underestimated.'' (Declaration of General David H. Petraeus, para. 12, Motion to Recall Mandate, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No. 06-3140-cv) Turn Back Progress in Iraq and Incite Violence ``Newly released photos depicting abuse, or that could be construed as depicting abuse, of Iraqis in U.S. military custody would inflame emotions across Iraq and trigger the same motivations that prompted many young men to respond to calls for jihad following the Abu Ghraib photo release. After the Abu Ghraib photos were publicized in 2004, there was a significant response to the call for jihad, with new extremists committing themselves to violence against U.S. forces. Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and Sunni insurgents groups in Iraq will likely use any release of detainee abuse images for propaganda purposes, and possibly as an opportunity to widen the call for jihad against U.S. forces, which could result in a near-term increase in recruiting and attacks.'' (Declaration of General David H. Petraeus, para. 7, Motion to Recall Mandate, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No. 06-3140-cv) Help Destabilize Pakistan ``Newly released photos depicting abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody in Afghanistan and Iraq would negatively affect the on-going efforts by Pakistan to counter its internal extremist threat.'' (Declaration of General David H. Petraeus, para. 8, Motion to Recall Mandate, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No. 06-3140-cv) declaration of general raymond t. odierno, commander of multi-national force--iraq (MNF-I) Release of Photos will Result in Harm to U.S. Soldiers ``The 2004 publication of detainee photos resulted in a number of posting on internet websites. Perhaps the most gruesome of internet reactions to the photo publication was a video posted in May 2004 showing the decapitation murder of U.S. contractor Nicholas Berg. A man believed to be Zarqawi specifically made the linkage between the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Berg's murder saying, And how does a free Muslim sleep comfortably watching Islam being slaughtered and [its] dignity being drained. The shameful photos are evil humiliation for Muslim men and women in the Abu Ghraib prison. . . . We tell you that the dignity of the Muslims at the Abu Ghraib prison is worth the sacrifice of blood and souls. We will send you coffin after coffin and box after box slaughtered this way.'' (Declaration of General Raymond T. Odierno, para. 8, 9, Motion to Recall Mandate, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No. 06-3140-cv) ``I strongly believe the release of these photos will endanger the lives of U.S. Soldiers, Airmen, Marines, Sailors and civilians as well as the lives of our Iraqi partners. Certain operating units are at particular risk of harm from release of the photos. One example is our training teams throughout Iraq. These are small elements of between 15 and 30 individuals who live on Iraqi-controlled installations and thus do not have the same protections afforded to many of our service members. In addition, as they assist our Iraqi partners, members of such teams are regularly engaged in small-unit patrols, making them more vulnerable to insurgent attacks or other violence directed at U.S. forces. Accordingly, there is good reason to conclude that the soldiers in those teams and in similarly situated units would face a particularly serious risk to their lives and physical safety.'' (Declaration of General Raymond T. Odierno, 4, Motion to Recall Mandate, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No. 06-3140-cv) ``MNF-1 will likely experience an increase in security incidents particularly aimed at U.S. personnel and facilities following the release of the photos. Incidents of spontaneous violence against U.S. forces, possibly including attacks from outraged Iraqi police or army members are likely. Such increased attacks will put U.S. forces, civilians, and Iraqi partners at risk of being killed, injured, or kidnapped. The photos will likely be used as a justification for adversaries conducting retribution attacks against the U.S. for bringing shame on Iraq.'' Declaration of General Raymond T. Odierno, para. 11, Motion to Recall Mandate, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No. 06-3140-cv) Release of 2004 Photos Resulted in Successful Attacks Against U.S. Forces ``The public dissemination of detainee abuse photos in 2004 likely contributed to a spike in violence in Iraq during the third quarter of 2004 as foreign fighters and domestic insurgents were drawn to Iraq to train and fight. Attacks on C[oalition] F[orces] increased from around 700 in March 2004 to 1800 in May (after the photographs were broadcast and published) and 2800 in August 2004. Attacks on C[oalition] F[orces] did not subside to March 2004 levels until June 2008. These increased attacks resulted in the death of Coalition Forces, Iraqi forces, and civilians.'' (Declaration of General Raymond T. Odierno, Motion to Recall Mandate, para. 7, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No. 06-3140-cv) Increase Recruitment for Extremist Organizations and Incite Attacks ``I believe these images will be used to inflame outrage against the U.S. and be used by terrorist organizations to recruit new members. The release of the photos will likely incite Muslim idealists to join the cause to seek retribution for the dishonor they may perceive to have been brought against all Muslims by the U.S. inside Iraq, the publicity over the images could incite additional attacks on U.S. personnel by members of the Iraq Security Forces.'' (Declaration of General Raymond T. Odierno, Motion to Recall Mandate, para. 16, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket No. 06-3140-cv)

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I come to the floor to acknowledge an agreement I have reached with the majority leader and the administration regarding the issue of detainee abuse photos. I think, as my colleagues are well aware, there are some photos of alleged detainee abuse that have existed for several years; more of the same, nothing new. The President has decided to oppose their release. The ACLU filed a lawsuit asking for these photos to be released. General Petraeus and General Odierno are the two combat commanders, and I ask unanimous consent that their statements be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today marks a somber anniversary. Twenty years ago today, months of peaceful protests throughout China culminated with the violent deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Chinese citizens advocating for democratic reforms. It is with sadness that we mark this occasion, but it is also an opportunity to renew our call for political reform in the People's Republic of China. One of the first things you see when you walk into my office is a large poster depicting the iconic image of a lone man staring down a line of Chinese tanks. This image has come to symbolize the worldwide struggle for democracy, the rule of law, and the promotion of basic human rights. Unfortunately, a generation of students in China can't identify the image or tell you about the events leading up to June 3 and 4, 1989. This is because China has failed to acknowledge or account for the actions that led up to this event. While the intervening years since the tragedy have seen China grow into a rapidly developing country, economically intertwined with the rest of the world, China's failure to deal with the Tiananmen events prevents the nation from making the political reforms necessary to truly become a respected member of the international community. In the years following Tiananmen, leaders of the Communist Party of China including Jiang Zemin, declared, ``If we had not taken absolute measures at the time, we would not have the stability we enjoy today. A bad thing has turned out to be good.'' General Chi Haotian, the General in charge of the People's Liberation Army's response to the protest later stated that, ``I can tell you in a responsible and serious manner that at that time not a single person lost his life in Tiananmen Square.'' Leaders of the military crackdown such as Deng Xiaoping and Li Peng, have never been held accountable for the actions of the People's Liberation Army and there has never been an official acknowledgement of the number of protesters killed or put in prison. Some accounts have claimed that more than 20,000 people were arbitrarily arrested and held without trial. A number of these people remain in prison today. Today would have been a landmark occasion for the Chinese government to announce that they were starting an independent and open investigation relating to the events of June 4, 1989. However, other than checkpoints set up in Tiananmen Square and efforts by the Chinese government to prevent international media outlets from filming in the square, there are no signs that today is anything other than an ordinary day in China. While the events of 20 years ago by the Chinese government launched a coordinated effort to prevent further unrest, it also helped crystallize a movement that continues today. Democracy advocates in China have built upon the legacy of Tiananmen and have led various efforts to force accountability and political reforms. All who watch China applaud the tireless work of Ding Zilin, the leader of Tiananmen Mothers, Liu Xiaobo and the rest of Charter 08, as well as countless others such as Jiang Qisheng who continue to face intimidation and imprisonment, yet persist with their cause. They can rest assured that ultimately their efforts will be successful. Today's world is increasingly interconnected. Communication and travel have gotten easier, and with the development of the internet, despite censorship efforts, information is becoming more readily available to the Chinese people. Every day it becomes more difficult for the Chinese government to keep its people in the dark. They will find out about Tiananmen, they will find out about how the outside world operates, they will demand changes at home.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask that my time be taken from the minority side when it comes to the 30-minute allocation.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I stand up in support of my friend and colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman. We were able to get passed a piece of legislation, through an amendment on the supplemental bill, that is directly on point regarding the pending court case, the subject matter of which is releasing additional detainee photos of past abuse. The President has looked at these photos, and we all understand that it is more of the same--that the photos in question came from American troops' cameras, who were engaged in inappropriate activity. Disciplinary action has been taken where appropriate, and nothing new is to be learned. There is no new evidence of crimes by people who have yet to be dealt with. It would, as my friend from Connecticut said, be voyeurism for the sake of voyeurism. The photos are offensive but no different than what we have already seen. The reason we are here supporting this legislation and supporting the President is because, as Senator Lieberman said, the consequences of releasing the photos are not a mystery. Americans are going to die. I just got back from a trip to North Africa, Morocco, and Algeria, and I went to Greece. Every embassy very much was worried about what would happen to Americans if these photos were released. They were preparing to be, quite frankly, under siege. As Senator Lieberman indicated in the Miami Herald article, when Prime Minister Maliki in Iraq was informed these additional photos may be released, another tranche of photos coming out about detainee abuse, according to American military officials involved, he went pale in the face and uttered the phrase: ``Baghdad will burn.'' To those who are arguing for the release of the photos, I do not question their patriotism, I do not question their motives. I question their judgment. To our House and Senate colleagues who are in conference, please understand that Senator Lieberman, myself, and I think the vast majority of our Senate colleagues--we did not take a recorded vote--believe this is a life-and-death matter. I believe that to release the photos would result in certain death and attack against American interests abroad, particularly against the diplomatic corps and our men and women serving abroad, and no higher purpose would be achieved here at home. We made compromises in the legislation, but we did not destroy the intent of the legislation. And for the courts that may listen to try to discern the legislative intent, the intent by both authors was to make sure that the photos subject to the pending litigation were never released and Congress weighed in and agreed with the President's decision not to release those photos. We have changed the law, directly on point, to give legislative backing to the idea that these particular photographs, and those like these photographs, should not be released for a period of 3 years, and that is in our national security interests to do so. I hope the courts will understand what we were trying to do and what we actually did. To our House and Senate colleagues trying to find compromises on the supplemental legislation, please understand the purpose of this amendment, how important it is to the war effort, why the President is in support of the amendment. He is making a very responsible decision as Commander in Chief. I applaud him for doing that. This language needs to stay as is, intact. Again, it is a matter of life and death. And if for some reason it came out, it would be a disaster--because the court case is pending now--if it came out, please understand that there will be nothing done in the Senate for as long as I am here and Senator Lieberman is here that would not have this amendment attached. You could not name a post office without this amendment. It is not going away. I thank my colleague from Arkansas for her courtesies. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, today I ask the Senate to join me in recognizing Mayor Harry M. Hallman, Jr., on the occasion of his retirement as mayor of Mount Pleasant, SC. Mayor Hallman is a dedicated public servant and his work has earned our gratitude and appreciation. It was with much personal and professional sadness that he recently announced he would have to relinquish his position as the mayor of one of South Carolina's largest municipalities as he continues his personal battle with Alzheimer's. In an address to the residents of Mount Pleasant, the mayor made clear this was a difficult decision. He could have stayed in office and carried on. But Mayor Hallman felt he could no longer meet the high standard he had set for himself of being ``effective.'' As Mayor Hallman said in his resignation, ``To me, being `effective' means `excellence'. I realize now that I am not meeting my personal definition of `effective.' This Town deserves only the best from its leadership. Half way will not do for my Town.'' His resignation was the mark of a true public servant willing to put the interests of the town he loves above his own personal interests. Mayor Hallman has compiled a long and distinguished career of service in public office and private life. After being elected to the office of mayor in September of 2000, Mayor Hallman spent nearly two terms in office growing his town and improving its assets. He will be remembered as a mayor who instituted infrastructure projects that helped change the face of Mount Pleasant. After only 3 years under his service, the town saw over $150 million worth of road improvements and city development. Additionally, he helped secure Federal and State moneys for a newly debuted farmer's market venue and a waterfront park for public use. During his time as mayor of Mount Pleasant, Mr. Hallman chaired the Police, Legal and Judicial Committee and the Transportation Committee. He also served on the Water Supply Committee and as an ex-officio member of the Mount Pleasant Waterworks Commission, the Patriots Point Authority, and the Charleston Aviation Authority. In 1988, Mayor Hallman was elected to serve in the South Carolina House of Representatives. While in office, he chaired the Charleston County Legislative Delegation as well as the State House Committee, which was responsible for overseeing the $78 million renovation of the South Carolina State House. He also offered his skills on the Joint Bond Review Committee, and the State Development Board. Born and raised in South Carolina, Mayor Hallman took great pride in seeing his State develop from corner to corner. As the son of a retired oil executive and a stock market investor in Greenwood, SC, he grew up to appreciate all that the State has to offer. He was a 1958 graduate of the University of South Carolina, where he finished with a degree in business administration. Years later he was awarded an honorary doctor of humanity letters degree from the University of Charleston. As a distinguished member of the State community, Mayor Hallman was often asked to participate in the development of multiple health and educational improvements and expansions. He served on the University Study Committee as their chairman, as well as the Low Country Graduate Advisory Board. Mayor Hallman chaired the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and served as treasurer for Charleston Memorial Hospital. His dedication to all aspects of life in South Carolina was broad in scope and great in impact. A devoted citizen, Mayor Hallman formally retired on May 20, 2009, as a revered member of the Mount Pleasant and South Carolina community. His leadership and his commitment to our State will be forever marked by his extraordinary vision and endless sacrifice. Throughout his entire career and to this day, Mayor Hallman has served as a model to those around him. Along with his wife Shirley ``Brooke'' Hallman, who has stood next to him with unwavering loyalty and shared sacrifice, he celebrates his retirement with his three children and six grandchildren. I thank him for his service and wish him the very best in his retirement. I ask that the Senate join me in honoring him for his lifelong career of service and also send along our best wishes to him and his family as he continues his battle.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. No. 1, I would like to associate myself with the comments of the minority leader about Guantanamo Bay. It is a location that does protect our national interests in terms of a location. It is probably the best run military prison in the world. I have been there several times. To the guard force and those who are serving at Guantanamo Bay, in many ways, you are the unsung heroes in this war because it is tough duty. You have to go through a lot to be a member of the Guantanamo Bay guard team. They do a wonderful job. It is a very Geneva Conventions-compliant jail, and there are some pretty bad characters down there who make life miserable for our guard force. But those who serve at Guantanamo Bay do so with dignity and professionalism. Their motto, I believe, is ``honor bound.'' That certainly reflects upon them well. The idea of the Congress saying we want to plan before we appropriate money to close Guantanamo Bay makes a lot of sense to me. We see a bipartisan movement here to make sure we know what we are going to do with the detainees who are housed at Guantanamo Bay. The American people should be rightly concerned about how we dispose of these prisoners. Quite frankly, they are not common criminals accused of robbing a liquor store; they are accused of being a member of al-Qaida or allied groups that have taken up arms against the United States. Their mission and their purpose is to destroy our way of life and to put our allies and friends in the Mideast into the dark ages. So if you do not want to go back to the dark ages in terms of humanity; if you want young girls to grow up without having acid thrown in their face; if you want a young woman to be able to have a say about the future of her children in the Mideast, then we need to come up with a rational policy regarding fighting al-Qaida and, once we catch them, how to dispose of their cases and make sure they are not only fairly treated but their mission and their goals are defeated and they do not return to the fight. We have seen in Iraq that there are Muslim populations that do not want to be part of the al-Qaida agenda. Al-Qaida followed us to Iraq because they understood if we were successful there in creating a democracy in the heart of the Mideast, it would be a threat to their agenda. Iraq has a way to go, but I am very proud of the Iraqi people. They have come together. They are making political reconciliations. Their army and police forces are getting stronger. The story of the surge is that the Iraqi people joined with our forces and coalition forces and delivered a mighty blow against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida is, quite frankly, in the process of being defeated by the Iraqi people with our help. Now the fight goes to Pakistan and Afghanistan. I cannot think of a more noble cause than to take up arms and fight back against these terrorists who wish the world ill, who will do anything in the name of their religion to have their way, and who would make life miserable for parts of this world and eventually make life miserable for us. Imagine a caliphate being established in Baghdad, which was their plan, to put the Mideast in constant turmoil. We would not be able to travel freely in this world. We could not interact or do business with the people in the Mideast. It is a very oil-rich region, so it is in our national security interests to stand with moderate people in the Mideast and other places where al-Qaida attempts to take over, and fight back. But when we fight back, we don't have to be like them. Quite frankly, if we are like them when we fight back, we will lose. This is an ideological struggle. There is no capital to conquer. There is no navy to sink or air force to shoot down. We cannot kill enough of the terrorists to win the war. What we have to do is contain them, fight them, and empower those who live in the region who want to live in a different way, give them the capacity to defend themselves and bring about a stable life in their countries. That is what we are trying to do in Iraq. If we win in Iraq, we will have a democracy in the heart of the Arab world that will be an ally to this country in perpetuity. We will have replaced a dictator named Saddam Hussein, and we will have a place where we can show the world that there are Muslims who do not want to be governed by the al-Qaida agenda, and to me that is a major win in the war on terror. Now we are in Afghanistan. We have lost ground, but we are about to recapture that ground from the Taliban, which are al-Qaida sympathizers and, quite frankly, allowed them to operate in Afghanistan late in the last century and early in this century to plan the attacks of 9/11. So that is why we are fighting. That is why we are in this discussion. That is why we are concerned about releasing these prisoners within the United States, and that is why we are concerned about Guantanamo Bay. We have every right and reason to be concerned as to how we move forward. I want to move forward. We need a plan to move forward. We should not close Guantanamo Bay until we have a comprehensive, detailed, legal strategy as to what we will do with these prisoners. Where we put them is only possible if people know what we will do with them. So we have to explain to the American people and our allies the disposition plan. What are we going to do with these detainees? Then where you put them becomes possible. Without what to do, we are never going to find where to put them. I do believe the President and our military commanders are right when they say it is time to start over. It is a shame we are having to start over, because Guantanamo Bay is a well-run jail. But as I mentioned before, this ideological struggle we are engaged in, the enemy has seized upon the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the mistakes at Guantanamo Bay, and they use that to our detriment. They inflame populations in the Mideast based on our past mistakes. Our commanders have told me to a person that if we could start over with detention policy and show the world that we have a new way of doing business--a better way of doing business--it would improve the ability of our troops to operate in the regions in question where the conflict exists; it would undercut the enemy; it would help our allies be more helpful to us. Our British friends are the best friends we could hope to have, and they have had a hard time with our detainee policy. So we have every reason in the world to want to start over, but the Congress is right not to allow us to start over until we have a plan. The Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, is absolutely right to keep Guantanamo Bay open until we have a complete plan. I do believe this President understands how to move forward with Guantanamo Bay. The best way to move forward, in my opinion, is to collaborate with the Congress, to look at the military commission system, which I think is the proper venue to dispose of any war crimes trials. Remember, these people we are talking about have been accused of taking up arms against the United States. They are noncitizen, enemy combatants who represent a military threat. Military commissions have been used to try people such as this for hundreds of years. We did trials with German saboteurs who landed on the east coast of the United States for the purpose of sabotaging our industries. They were captured and tried in military commissions. So there is nothing new about the idea of a military commission being used against an enemy force. I do think the President is right to reform the current commission. I, along with Senator McCain, Senator Warner, and others--Senator Levin particularly--had a bill that set up a military commission process that received complete Democratic support on the Armed Services Committee, and four Republicans. I think that document is worth going back to. The ideas the President has put on the table about reforming the commission, quite frankly, make a lot of sense to me. So we do need to move forward. We do need to start over. If we could start over with a new detention policy that is comprehensive, it would help our war effort, it would help operations in the countries in question and in the Mideast at large, and it would repair damage with our allies. Quite frankly, we have lost a lot of court decisions. It would give us a better chance to win in court. What do I mean by starting over? Come up with a disposition plan that understands that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay represent a military threat and apply the law of armed conflict in their cases. That means we have to treat them humanely. The Geneva Conventions now apply to detainees under Common Article 3 held at Guantanamo Bay based on a 2006 Supreme Court decision. We are bound by that convention because we are the leader of the convention. We have signed up to the convention. As a military lawyer for 25 years, I hold the Geneva Conventions near and dear to my heart, as every military member does, because it will provide protections to our troops in future wars. Yes, I know al-Qaida will not abide by the conventions but, quite frankly, that is no excuse for us to abandon what we believe in. When you capture an enemy prisoner, it becomes about you, not them. They don't deserve much, but we have to be Americans to win this war. There are plenty people in this world who would cut your head off without a trial. I want to show the world a better way. How we dispose of these prisoners can help us in the overall ideological struggle. What I am proposing is that we come up with a comprehensive plan that will reform the military commissions and that the President come back to the Congress and we have another shot at the commissions to make them more due process friendly but we realize that the people we are trying are accused of war crimes and we apply the law of armed conflict. I have been a military lawyer, as I said, for 25 years. The judges and the jurors and the lawyers who administer justice in a military commission setting are the same people who administer justice to our own troops. It is a great legal forum. You have rights in the military legal system. You get free legal counsel. Usually cost is not an object. The men and women who wear the uniform who serve as judge advocates take a lot of pride in their job. They are great Americans. They are great officers. They believe in justice. We have seen verdicts, and the few verdicts we have had at Guantanamo Bay indicate that our juries are rational. Our military jurors do hold the prosecution to the standards of proof and they balance the interests of all parties. As I say, I have never been more impressed with the legal system than within our military justice system. Military commissions need to be as much like a court-martial as possible, but practicality dictates some differences. The one thing this body needs to understand is that it is illegal under the Geneva Conventions to try an enemy prisoner in civilian court. Why is that? You are afraid that civilian justice, jurors and judges, will have revenge on their mind. They are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Participants in a military commission are covered by the convention--every lawyer, every judge, every juror. They have an obligation to hold to the tenets of the convention and any misconduct on their part in a trial could actually result in prosecution to them or disciplinary action, and that would not be true in the legal world. So having these trials in a military commission setting is the proper venue because they are accused of war crimes. Having the trials in military commissions is consistent with the Geneva Conventions. It is a world-class justice system. Quite frankly, it is the best place to balance our national security interests. But to the hard part. We can do that. We can reform the commissions. Some of these detainees can be repatriated back to third countries in a way I think is rational and will not hurt our national security interests. But there is going to be a group of detainees--maybe half or more--where the evidence is sound and certain that they are a member of al-Qaida, but it is not of the type that you would want to go to a criminal trial with. It may have third country intelligence service information where the third country would not participate in a criminal trial because it would compromise their operations. Some type of evidence would be such that you would not disclose it in a criminal trial because it would compromise national security. You have to remember, when you try someone criminally, you have to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. You have to share the evidence with the defendant. You have to go through the rigors of a criminal prosecution. Under a military commission people are presumed innocent, and that is the way it should be. But I want America to understand that we are not charging everyone as a war criminal; we are making the accusation that you are a member of al-Qaida. In military law what you have to do if you are accusing someone of being part of the enemy force is prove by a preponderance of the evidence that you are, in fact, a part of the enemy force. So what I would propose is to set up a hybrid system. For every detainee once determined to be an enemy combatant by our military or CIA, there will be a process to do that, a combat status review tribunal, and we need to improve that process--but you run each detainee through that process and if the military labels them as an unlawful enemy combatant, a member of al-Qaida, then we will do something we have never done in any other war, and that is allow that detainee to go into Federal court. Under article 5 of the Geneva Conventions, status decisions are made by the military, not by civilian judges. It is usually done by an independent member of the military in an administrative setting. These are administrative hearings. But this war is different. There will never be an end to this war. We will never have a signing on the Missouri as we did in World War II. I realize that. An enemy combatant determination could be a de facto life sentence. So I am willing to build in more due process to accommodate the nature of this war. What I have proposed is that every detainee determined to be an enemy combatant by our military would go to a group of military judges with uniform standards where the Government would have to prove to an independent judiciary by a preponderance of the evidence that the person is, in fact, an enemy combatant, and if our civilian judges who are trained in reviewing evidence agree with the military, that person can be kept off the battlefield as long as there is a military threat. About 12 percent of the detainees released from Guantanamo Bay have gone back to the fight. The No. 2 al-Qaida operative in Somalia is a former Gitmo detainee. It is true we put people in Gitmo, in my opinion, where the net was cast too large and they were not properly identified. You are going to make mistakes. What I want to do is have a process that our Nation can be proud of: transparent, robust due process, an independent judiciary checking and balancing the military, but never losing sight that the goal is to make sure that the determination of enemy combatant is well founded and, if it is, not to release people back to the fight knowing they are going to go back and kill Americans. That doesn't make us a better nation, to have a process where you have to let people go when the evidence is sound and clear they are going to go back to the fight. That does not make us a better people. You do not have to do that under the law of armed conflict. Let's come up with a new system that will give every detainee a full and fair hearing in Federal court. If they are tried for war crimes, put them in a new military commission, and every verdict would be appealed to civilian judges. Let the trials be transparent. Balance national security against due process. But never lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with people who have taken up arms against the United States. Some of them are so radical and their hearts have been hardened so much, they are so hate-filled, it would be a disaster to this country and the world at large to let them go in the condition that exists today. Where to put them. Mr. President, 400,000 German and Japanese prisoners were housed in the United States during World War II, and 15 to 20 percent, according to the historical record, were hardened Nazis. A hardened Nazi is at the top of the pecking order when it comes to mass murder. The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational. We have done this before. They are not 10 feet tall. It is my belief that you need a plan before you close Gitmo, and when you look at a new facility, it needs to be run by the military because under the Geneva Conventions you cannot house enemy prisoners in civilian jails. I look forward to working with the President of the United States to start over, but we need a plan to start over--a plan to try these people, consistent with the law of armed conflict, in a military commission that is reformed, that will administer justice fairly and balanced and will realize that these people present a military threat. We need a system to allow for keeping the detainees off of the battlefield--who are committed jihadists--that will allow them to have their day in court with an independent judiciary but also will allow a process that will keep them off the battlefield as long as they are dangerous. If the judges agree with the military on the enemy combatant, you should have an annual review process to determine whether they present a military threat. No one should be held without a pathway forward, but no one should be released because you think this is a crime we are dealing with. If you criminalize this war and do not use the law of armed conflict, you are going to make a huge mistake. There are countries that have terror suspects in jail right now that are about to have to release them because under criminal law you cannot hold them indefinitely. Under military law, you can hold the enemy force off the battlefield if they are properly identified as part of that force, as part of the military threat. That has been the law for hundreds of years, and it ought to be the law we apply. Where we put them is important, but what we do with them is more important, how we try them and detain them. We have a chance to show the world that there is a better way, a chance to showcase our values. Yes, give them lawyers and put the evidence against them under scrutiny. Put burdens on ourselves, make us prove the case--not just say it is so, prove it in a court that is appropriate for the venue we are talking about, appropriate for the decisions we are about to make. Put that burden on us, and treat them humanely because that is the way we are. That may not be the way they are, but that is the way we are. That makes us better than they. The fact that we will do all these things and they won't is a strength of this Nation, not a weakness. Some people in the past have lost sight of that. The fact that we give them lawyers and a trial based on the evidence, not prejudice and passion, makes us stronger. We will find a better way to do what we have been doing in the past. We will find a way to close Gitmo, and we will come up with a new plan because we are Americans and we are committed to our value system and committed to beating this enemy. I look forward to working with the Members of this body to come up with a comprehensive disposition plan that will find a new way to try these people, a new process to hold them off the battlefield, and always operating within our values, which will allow our commanders the chance to start over in the region. Every military commander I have talked to said it would be beneficial to this country to start over with detainee policy. They also understand that we are at war and we need to have a national security system. As to where we put them, there were six prison camps in South Carolina during World War II. There is a brig near the city of Charleston, a naval brig. It is not the location, because it is near a population center. The place I have in mind is an isolated part of the United States--if necessary--that will be run by the military, with a secure perimeter, that will be operating within the Geneva Conventions requirement, that will have a justice system attached to it, that will be transparent and open where we can administer justice and reattach our Nation to the values we hold so dear. Part of war is capturing prisoners. That is part of war. We know what the other side does when they capture a prisoner. Let the world know that America has a better way, a way that will not only make us safe but help us win this war. In conclusion, the goal of this effort to start over is to undermine the enemy's propaganda that has been used against us because of our past mistakes, allow our allies to come join us in a new way forward, and protect us against a vicious enemy that needs to be held off the battlefield, maybe forever. Some of these people are literally going to die in jail, and that is OK with me because I think the evidence suggests that if we ever let them out, they would go back to killing Americans, our friends, and our allies. I will not shed a tear. The way to avoid getting killed or going to jail forever is, not to join al- Qaida. If you have made that decision to do so, let it be said that this Nation is going to stand up to you and fight back, within our value system. Some of these people will never see the light of day, and that is the right decision. Some of them can be released. Let's have a process that understands what we are trying to do as a nation. Make sure it is national security oriented, make sure it is within our value system but also that everything we do is as a result of a nation that has been attacked by these people. They have not robbed a liquor store; they have tried to destroy our way of life. The legal system I am proposing recognizes that distinction. I yield the floor.