Jim Webb

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, may I ask what is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. WEBB. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes on behalf of Justice Barbara M. Kennan, who is the nominee to serve on the Fourth Circuit Court. I respectfully request, in the name of good governance and the proper functioning of our constitutional system, that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle allow a prompt vote on her nomination. Justice Kennan was voted out of committee in October of last year by a unanimous voice vote. Her nomination is noncontroversial. She has been a dedicated public servant, a fair and balanced jurist, and her nomination has had broad bipartisan support. I believe it is critical that we move forward as quickly as possible to confirm her nomination. There are currently four vacancies on the Fourth Circuit, more than any other circuit. The seat that Justice Kennan would fill has been vacant for more than 2 years. Justice Kennan is an extraordinary choice to fill this vacancy. She has been a State supreme court justice since 1991. She has been a trailblazer for women in the law throughout her career. At the age of 29, she was the first female general district court judge in Virginia when she was selected for the Fairfax County bench. That was in 1980. She became the first female circuit court judge when she was promoted to that court in 1982. In 1985, she was 1 of 10 judges named to the First Virginia Court of Appeals and the only woman when that court was created. She was selected for the State Supreme Court, the second female justice ever to serve there, in 1991. She was, in fact, the first judge to have served on all four levels of Virginia's courts. I also would like to point out when Governor McDonnell was recently sworn into his office, he specifically requested that Justice Kennan deliver him the oath of office. There is a wide bipartisan consensus inside Virginia about the quality of this nominee, and I am very hopeful we can move forward in an expeditious way. I am mindful of the Senate's constitutional role in confirming executive nominations. It is vitally important, and a robust vetting process and debate is appropriate. We have conducted, inside Virginia in our delegation, that kind of vetting process which resulted in Justice Kennan's name being moved forward. In the spirit of pragmatic bipartisanship and good governance, I believe it is time to move past these procedural delays that seem to infect us and get on with the business of governing. I would like to point out that out of 876 Federal judgeships, there are now 100 vacancies. These delays affect the administration of justice. These vacancies delay the resolution of disputes and they diminish our citizens' rights to a speedy trial. It is my understanding that Justice Kennan has broad support in this body. The vote in the Judiciary Committee is evidence of that. In fact, I will be very surprised if any Senator were to vote against her confirmation. Again, I am asking my colleagues on the other side of the aisle if they might allow this nomination to advance in a timely way. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to speak quickly in opposition to this amendment. It has been my strong belief--

Mr. WEBB. That is correct. It has been my strong belief that individuals who were charged with international terrorism should be classified as enemy combatants, and I stated many times I do not believe they belong in our country. They don't belong in our courts. They don't belong in our prisons. At the same time, I recognize that the President retains the constitutional authority to bring charges against these individuals in article III courts. The Graham amendment did resolve that issue in terms of their transfer to U.S. soil. This amendment, unfortunately, would not address that issue. It prohibits appropriation of funds to modify facilities in the United States in order to hold such individuals. I believe that would prevent law enforcement officials from taking the steps that are necessary to improve security in our local communities and that it would put our security at risk. It is for this reason I oppose the amendment and I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to be cosponsoring this legislation with the senior Senator from Tennessee. This is a strong attempt by both of us to go toward the area of problem solving rather than political rhetoric that surrounds a lot of this issue when we examine the pieces of legislation that are before us that are making an attempt at solving climate change issues. They are, in some cases, in contradiction to what our energy needs are at large. On the one hand we stopped building nuclear powerplants 30 years ago because of widespread fears among people who were in the political process about the technology that was involved. On another level we stopped drilling for oil offshore after some incidents, now 40 years ago. Then on another level, we heard repeatedly that coal was too dirty. At the same time we consume more and more energy, rightfully so, given the productivity of the country and the state of our economy. But we are in contradiction in terms of what we need versus what we fear. I believe the time has come for us to focus on those areas in terms of energy production that we know are achievable, that we know are safe, where we know we are good and which also can contribute positively in the area of climate change. We have an enormously complex climate change bill that was passed in the House. We have another enormously complex climate change bill that may be before the Senate. We can't predict whether those bills will pass. If they do pass, we know there are some detriments. What Senator Alexander and I are trying to do on a bipartisan basis, hopefully, with the support of our colleagues, is to put a simple piece of legislation forward that will address the areas that are achievable, that can give us an end result and get this legislation passed, while all of these other issues continue to be examined. Senator Alexander outlined the major points of this legislation. I would like to emphasize a couple. One is that we will be able to provide $100 billion in loan guarantees, but that is not $100 billion in money. That is $100 billion in guarantees. It depends on the success rate. The basic projection on this is that it will be between 1 and 10 percent of that $100 billion that our taxpayers actually would be required to pay. So we are going to be able to bring at least a dozen nuclear powerplants online. When I say ``nuclear powerplants,'' I mean the electrical generation capability of a traditional nuclear powerplant. We may have more than those given the miniaturization of nuclear power that is now underway. We are going to be able to develop a nuclear workforce. Let me stay on this point for a minute. Senator Alexander was a former Secretary of Education. I have spent all of my life, since I was 18 years old, in and around the naval service from which our nuclear power programs first began. One of the great benefits of the nuclear power program in the United States has been quality individuals whose talents are unmatched around the world. I first watched this when I was at the Naval Academy many years ago, where among the brightest people at the Naval Academy, many were selected for the nuclear power program. They went through intensive training. But also among the enlisted sailors, the quality of the training was unsurpassed. We would like to see this take place in terms of workforce development in the United States. We want to put $100 million a year in over a 10-year period to develop superb craftsmen as well as nuclear engineers. We are looking at many mini-Manhattan Projects for alternate energy. This doesn't simply narrow the focus to nuclear energy. But we do know right now, even though we haven't built a new nuclear powerplant in the United States for 30 years, that 70 percent of the carbon-free electrical power in the United States comes from nuclear energy. This is a good match for what people are trying to do in the area of climate change. I believe the way we have designed this legislation is focused. I am comfortable with the fact that the expansion of nuclear power as an alternate energy is doable. It is reasonable in scope and in cost. It will go a long way toward our eventual goal of dramatically reducing carbon dioxide emissions. As a result, this is legislation that will be beneficial to our economy, to our national health, to our position around the world. I hope colleagues will join us in moving this legislation forward. We can do it in a timely manner, and we know the results are there. I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to be cosponsoring this legislation with the senior Senator from Tennessee. This is a strong attempt by both of us to go toward the area of problem solving rather than political rhetoric that surrounds a lot of this issue when we examine the pieces of legislation that are before us that are making an attempt at solving climate change issues. They are, in some cases, in contradiction to what our energy needs are at large. On the one hand we stopped building nuclear powerplants 30 years ago because of widespread fears among people who were in the political process about the technology that was involved. On another level we stopped drilling for oil offshore after some incidents, now 40 years ago. Then on another level, we heard repeatedly that coal was too dirty. At the same time we consume more and more energy, rightfully so, given the productivity of the country and the state of our economy. But we are in contradiction in terms of what we need versus what we fear. I believe the time has come for us to focus on those areas in terms of energy production that we know are achievable, that we know are safe, where we know we are good and which also can contribute positively in the area of climate change. We have an enormously complex climate change bill that was passed in the House. We have another enormously complex climate change bill that may be before the Senate. We can't predict whether those bills will pass. If they do pass, we know there are some detriments. What Senator Alexander and I are trying to do on a bipartisan basis, hopefully, with the support of our colleagues, is to put a simple piece of legislation forward that will address the areas that are achievable, that can give us an end result and get this legislation passed, while all of these other issues continue to be examined. Senator Alexander outlined the major points of this legislation. I would like to emphasize a couple. One is that we will be able to provide $100 billion in loan guarantees, but that is not $100 billion in money. That is $100 billion in guarantees. It depends on the success rate. The basic projection on this is that it will be between 1 and 10 percent of that $100 billion that our taxpayers actually would be required to pay. So we are going to be able to bring at least a dozen nuclear powerplants online. When I say ``nuclear powerplants,'' I mean the electrical generation capability of a traditional nuclear powerplant. We may have more than those given the miniaturization of nuclear power that is now underway. We are going to be able to develop a nuclear workforce. Let me stay on this point for a minute. Senator Alexander was a former Secretary of Education. I have spent all of my life, since I was 18 years old, in and around the naval service from which our nuclear power programs first began. One of the great benefits of the nuclear power program in the United States has been quality individuals whose talents are unmatched around the world. I first watched this when I was at the Naval Academy many years ago, where among the brightest people at the Naval Academy, many were selected for the nuclear power program. They went through intensive training. But also among the enlisted sailors, the quality of the training was unsurpassed. We would like to see this take place in terms of workforce development in the United States. We want to put $100 million a year in over a 10-year period to develop superb craftsmen as well as nuclear engineers. We are looking at many mini-Manhattan Projects for alternate energy. This doesn't simply narrow the focus to nuclear energy. But we do know right now, even though we haven't built a new nuclear powerplant in the United States for 30 years, that 70 percent of the carbon-free electrical power in the United States comes from nuclear energy. This is a good match for what people are trying to do in the area of climate change. I believe the way we have designed this legislation is focused. I am comfortable with the fact that the expansion of nuclear power as an alternate energy is doable. It is reasonable in scope and in cost. It will go a long way toward our eventual goal of dramatically reducing carbon dioxide emissions. As a result, this is legislation that will be beneficial to our economy, to our national health, to our position around the world. I hope colleagues will join us in moving this legislation forward. We can do it in a timely manner, and we know the results are there. I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB

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

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, may I ask the Chair, are we in morning business?

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I actually came to the floor to join with Senator Thune and to congratulate him on the effort he has undertaken to rededicate a site in Washington, DC, to become the National World War I Memorial. I am an original cosponsor on that legislation, and apparently he is tied up in some sort of meeting right now, so I will just precede him and give my thoughts and my support for the legislation he has introduced. Marine Corps 234th Birthday Before I do that, Mr. President, I would like to point out that this is November 10, and marines around the world stop on this day every year--no matter where they are, no matter what they are doing--to commemorate what we call the Marine Corps birthday, which is the celebration of the initial recruitment and organization of the Marine Corps, at a place called Tun Tavern in Philadelphia in 1775. This is the 234th anniversary of the founding of the Marine Corps. As one who has proudly served in the U.S. Marines, who has a brother who was a marine, a son who is a marine, and a son-in-law--three of us infantry combat veterans--I would like to extend my congratulations to all of those who served in the Marine Corps in the past and to those who are doing such a fine and difficult job today all around the world. This is the finest fighting organization in the world, and I am very proud to have been a part of it at one point in my life. We all wish success and the best to our marines. Frank Buckles World War I Memorial Act Mr. President, tomorrow is Veterans Day, where we will stop as a nation with a national holiday to commemorate the service of all of those who have served our country throughout our history and to thank the 23.4 million veterans in this country for the service they have given in war and in peace, extending all the way back, in terms of living veterans, to World War I, which I am going to talk about in a minute. I think we have one surviving veteran from World War I still alive. We have some 2.6 million World War II veterans who are still with us. And we want to, as so many people have pointed out today, do our best to take care of those who have served our country, to honor that service. With respect to the legislation Senator Thune put together and on which I am an original cosponsor, we should stop today and think about those who served in World War I. I think the memorial he is proposing has three important benefits to our country. The first is that it will help us remember a war that I think is not really appropriately remembered in our own history--the importance of it, the incredible carnage that took place, the way it changed the face of the civilized world. The second is to think about our own World War I veterans and the struggles they went through and in terms of putting together the right sort of care and benefits for those who followed them. The third is to talk about the site itself that Senator Thune has done such a fine job in discovering and proposing. We in this country did not get involved in World War I until the very end of the war. I think that is one of the reasons, perhaps, we do not consider in enough detail how much of an impact that war had on the civilized world as it was then known, on the relationships particularly among the European powers, and also the place of the United States in world affairs. These numbers are rough, but they are fairly close; I think they are accurate enough that I can use them today: In World War I, the German Army lost 1.8 million soldiers, dead; the French lost 1.7 million soldiers, dead; the British Empire lost nearly a million soldiers, dead. The impact on those cultures and on the economy and the health of the communities was enormous. We came in at the end of the war. The United States lost 55,000 soldiers on the battlefield in less than a year. We lost another 55,000 to the Asian flu epidemic that swept through the world and had a very strong impact on those who were serving in the military. We lost 110,000 people in uniform during that war. The impact it had on the relationships among European countries was enormous, and it is much more fully understood in other countries than it is here in the United States. The Russian Revolution occurred during World War I. The way we negotiated the settlement after World War I brought about, within a short period of time, the rise of fascism and, eventually, of nazism in Germany. The British Empire began to spend itself down in a way that finally had a fairly conclusive impact after the additional carnage of World War II. All of those things impacted this country in a way that pushed us to the forefront in many ways in terms of our place in the world because of the exhaustion that had happened in these other societies. Our World War I veterans had a very difficult time in a transitional period in terms of how we define veterans' benefits themselves. Previous to World War I, when soldiers left the military, they got what was called mustering-out pay, and when they reached a certain age, no matter what their service was in terms of disability or those sorts of things, they got a pension, an automatic pension, all the way through our history until World War I. World War I veterans didn't get either of those. Some of us who are fond of looking at American history in the 1930s will remember the Veterans Bonus March, where World War I veterans literally camped out here in our Nation's Capital, saying they needed to get the same kind of bonuses that those who had preceded them received. They didn't receive that bonus. They did fight hard and long and were able to bring about the creation of the VA medical system, but they didn't get a GI bill; they didn't get so many things the other veterans who followed them received. Yet when I was much younger and working as a committee counsel in the House on veterans issues, we were still seeing the World War I veterans. They felt a stewardship to those who served in World War II. They helped push through the GI bill. They helped push through compensation packages that were unheard of before. We owe our World War I veterans a great deal, not simply for what they did on the battlefield but for how they helped transform veterans law into today. The site Senator Thune proposed--and with which I agree--for a World War I memorial, I believe, is perfectly placed. We are all very sensitive in terms of putting additional memorials and monuments on The National Mall. I was involved in the formulation stages of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on The Mall. That was one of the big push-backs in Congress, as well as from the National Capital Planning Commission and other entities; that we don't want to put so many memorials on The Mall that you impact the free flow of tourists and people visiting that area. Right now, here is what we have on The Mall. I wish I had a diagram, but we have the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, just down from the Lincoln Memorial, and to its south we have the Korean War Memorial and further to the east, toward the Washington Monument, we have the World War II Memorial. Almost in a diagrammatic diamond there is an area presently where the District of Columbia was allowed to place a memorial to those who had served in World War I and were residents of the District of Columbia. What Senator Thune has proposed, and what I strongly also support, is to take this existing memorial, which is in some disrepair at the moment, quite frankly--I have been by there a number of times--and to upgrade it so it would become the National World War I Memorial, so we would have on The Mall, in a very tasteful way, four sites dedicated to the four major wars our country was involved in, in the 20th century. I can't think of a better way right now for us to recommend and remember the service of those who served in World War I and for the rest of the people in this country also to be encouraged to remember the impact that war had and the sacrifices the people who served in that war made. So I rise, as I mentioned earlier, to commend the Senator from South Dakota for his recommendation, as well as, as I said, to remember the Marine Corps today and to remember our veterans tomorrow. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, the administration's fiscal year 2010 defense budget request included authorization of an appropriation of $46.3 million for the dredging of the channel and turning basin at Naval Station Mayport, FL. The Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy confirmed that this dredging project is not associated with the Navy's proposal to homeport a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, CVN, in Mayport. However, advocates for the Navy's homeporting proposal continue to assert that the dredging project is the ``first step'' in having a carrier homeported in Mayport. It is time to set the record straight. There is no cause-and-effect linkage between the Navy's homeporting proposal with the authorization and appropriation of fiscal year 2010 military construction funds to dredge the channel at Mayport. The Navy's homeporting scheme is being reviewed separately as part of the Department of Defense's Quadrennial Defense Review. Dredging Mayport's channel will have no influence on its evaluation. Last April, when Secretary of Defense Gates announced key decisions associated with the President's fiscal year 2010 defense budget request, the Navy called me to confirm that its request for funds for dredging and pier improvement projects at Naval Station Mayport was not associated with its homeporting proposal. The Navy said its military requirement for dredging is to permit safer routine and emergency port visits by an aircraft carrier by lessening the current severe restrictions associated with the existing water depth in Mayport's channel and basin. The Navy acknowledged that the Quadrennial Defense Review would consider its carrier homeporting proposal separately. In August, Deputy Secretary of Defense Lynn wrote me to reconfirm this point. He said: Secretary Gates has taken the prudent step of seeking funding for the dredging of the Mayport channel within the fiscal year 2010 budget to provide an alternative port to dock East Coast carriers in the event of a disaster. As you know, the Secretary decided that the larger issue of whether Mayport will be upgraded to enable it to serve as a homeport for CVNs should be objectively evaluated during the Department's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). We continue to believe that the QDR will provide the best forum to asses the costs and benefits associated with a strategic move of this scale. Also in August, the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps wrote the chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services regarding conference action on the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. Their letter specifically addressed the reasons why it was necessary to dredge Mayport's channel and basin. They stated the military construction project was necessary regardless of a final decision on aircraft carrier homeporting at Mayport. The three senior leaders of the sea services stated dredging was needed for the following reasons: Mayport is currently used as a transient dock for nuclear aircraft carriers, and the current Mayport Channel and turning basin depths impose undesirable restrictions on the safe navigation of an aircraft carrier. Operational readiness is degraded because a nuclear aircraft carrier cannot enter the port with the embarked air wing and full stores and only during certain high-tide conditions. It is prudent to remove these operational limitations. The dredging provided in this project is therefore required irrespective of the final decision on aircraft carrier homeporting at Mayport. Conferees for the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill from the House of Representatives and Senate Armed Services Committees met in September and October to reconcile differences between each Chamber's bill. During their consideration of military construction projects, the conferees recognized that confusion could exist regarding the dredging project owing to the erroneous assertions that it would pave the way for homeporting a carrier in Mayport. As a result, a manager's statement accompanied the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act signed into law by President Obama last month. It states, in part, that the conferees authorized funding for the project based on assurances provided by the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations that the dredging is needed for current operational considerations irrespective of a final decision on carrier homeporting at Mayport. Of note, the manager's statement says: The conferees emphasize that the inclusion of an authorization for dredging at NS Mayport is not an indication of conferee support for the establishment of an additional homeport for nuclear aircraft carriers on the East Coast, or intended to influence the ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review, which may include a recommendation on the establishment of a second East Coast homeport for nuclear aircraft carriers. Furthermore, the conferees note that this funding is provided solely to permit use of Mayport as a transient port, and that any potential designation of Mayport as a nuclear carrier homeport will require future authorizations from the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives. Last year, the Navy said that the risk of a catastrophic event closing Hampton Roads is ``small.'' Dredging Mayport's channel and turning basin so that it can accommodate a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier for an unlikely emergency port visit clearly obviates the need to invest up to $1 billion to build duplicative nuclear-support infrastructure for carrier homeporting. During the Department of the Navy's budget testimony last June, Admiral Roughead, the Chief of Naval Operations, stated: ``Future shore readiness . . . is at risk.'' In fact, the Navy's shore readiness is at risk today. In January, the Navy acknowledged it had a $28 billion backlog in shore facility restoration and modernization. The need to sustain Naval Station Mayport is clear. Before investing what could be up to $1 billion to support a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, however, the Navy should first properly maintain its existing shore facilities. As the Navy's own studies reveal, there are other more fiscally responsible and strategically sound homeporting options for Mayport, including the assignment of a large-deck amphibious ship or Littoral Combat Ship, LCS, surface combatants. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WEBB

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

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, last night this body voted by a margin of 55 to 45 against an amendment I cosponsored, which had been offered by Senator Graham, the purpose of which would be to prohibit the use of funds from the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill to transfer individuals from Guantanamo and conduct trials of the alleged 9/11 perpetrators in the United States domestic court system. The key argument in favor of tabling that amendment was that the President should be allowed discretion between using article III Federal courts and the military commissions that had been set up in Guantanamo. First, I was clear to the President, and to others, that I recognize his constitutional authority to use article III courts in that type of situation. But, again, I want to express my deep concern that, as we proceed forward with examining the cases of those detainees who are at Guantanamo, this issue is actually going to get more complicated, and we should hope that the discretion the President uses is very narrowly applied. The amendment Senator Graham offered addresses only the six alleged perpetrators in the 9/11 situation. A number of my colleagues came up to me and said: If you have an individual who is conducting an act of terror on American soil, shouldn't the President be authorized the discretion to try them in a Federal court? My personal view is, it is perhaps constitutionally permissible but inappropriate, in the same sense as on December 7, 1941, when Japanese bombers attacked Pearl Harbor. This was a foreign entity killing Americans, including American civilians, on American soil. It was not considered appropriate at that time, say, if we had a prisoner of war, if we shot a pilot down, that we would have brought them into the American court system and given them all due process rights, tried them for homicides, et cetera. They were combatants. They committed an act of war, and they should have been--and they were in the past--treated in that way. My belief is, even with the 9/11 perpetrators conducting such acts on our soil, there should be a different way, a more proper way to address these situations that involve enemy combatants. This issue is only going to get more complicated. We have a second increment of people who are at Guantanamo who are foreign nationals, not American citizens, who were apprehended on foreign soil-- Afghanistan being a classic example--for acts of war that were conducted not in this country but, again, on foreign soil. They are in Guantanamo. One would question the logic of whether they should be brought on American soil to be examined by an American court system and then apprehended in American prisons. I strongly believe this is not the appropriate way to deal with these individuals and particularly since, with the national Defense authorization bill that was just signed by the President, we have built in appropriate procedural protections in the Military Commissions Act. Then we have a third increment of people who are in Guantanamo who, we are told, because of either tainted evidence or the lack of sufficient evidence, may never be tried at all, nor will they be released because they are considered to be threats to our future at a time when we have ongoing, basically, combat relations against the international forces of terrorism, of which they are a part. This third increment which, as I said, will probably never be tried, is also being considered relevant to move into the United States. Here is the question we are going to have to answer: If you bring these people into the United States, our Constitution provides that individuals tried in article III courts should have a right--or an individual subject to article III courts should be tried in a speedy manner. We all have a right to a speedy trial if you are in the United States. We are not going to do that. So then the question is: What are we going to do with them? If you read the Supreme Court cases--and, again, as I said yesterday during the debate, I read in detail the Hamdi case which deals in part with this situation--if this individual is deemed an enemy combatant, they can be held for the duration of what we call the hostilities, until hostilities cease. That is a huge conundrum in terms of dealing with people who are not going to be charged, who are not American citizens, who are apprehended for acts outside our country and yet are going to be put into our prison system potentially indefinitely. I don't think it is going to reduce the situation we have had in Guantanamo in terms of the way a lot of people have viewed the processes that were in place there. I think it is only going to transfer that concern into the United States because these people will be detained in U.S. prisons, and I don't think that is going to be mitigated if these U.S. prisons happen to be military prisons. I wished to come to the floor to express my concern that the President, who has been given the discretion through the vote yesterday which tabled the Graham amendment, should be using it very narrowly, should not be in a rush to shut down the Guantanamo facility in a manner that brings us the second and third increment of problems. I ask that the Members of this body join me in expressing their concern about a proper way to address this very complicated situation. I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I rise with some regret because I am in a contradiction with our President and with many members of my own caucus. I am a cosponsor of the Graham amendment. I have no regrets about cosponsoring the amendment. I do regret that I am in contradiction with a number of my colleagues on this side. I believe this is an appropriate amendment. I believe it is the best way for us to move forward and bring a solution with respect to those who are detained in Guantanamo. I would start by saying I have consistently argued that the appropriate venue for trying perpetrators of international terrorism who are, in fact, enemy combatants is a military tribunal. One of my primary focuses in my time in the Senate has been to work toward a fairer and more efficient criminal justice system in the United States. As all my colleagues know, we have an enormous backlog in many court systems right now. Prisons are overcrowded. We have 2.3 million people in prison right now, 7 million people inside the criminal justice system. The process of trying enemy combatants in our already overburdened domestic courts, on the one hand, is not necessary and, on the other, would introduce major logjams and work against our goals of improving our criminal justice system. As someone who served in the military, has spent 5 years in the Pentagon, and is privileged to serve in this body, I would like to say, in my view, the Guantanamo Bay detainee situation is challenging, it is complicated, it involves balancing an entire host of considerations, including national security, constitutional due process requirements, international law, procedural and practical considerations, and the responsibilities and authority of all three branches of government. Given the complicated nature of this situation, I believe it is very important for us to move forward with a careful and considered approach. These are among the considerations we should be looking at: First, the Supreme Court has reviewed this issue a number of times and, in several cases, has given clear guidance on due process requirements. Second, taking into consideration these Supreme Court's decisions, Congress enacted new procedures for military tribunals. These new pressures, which were included in the recently passed Defense authorization bill, contain safeguards that protect detainees' due process and habeas rights. President Obama, as a Senator, took part in the creation of these new procedures. President Obama signed these new procedures into law. Additionally, the facilities for properly holding and trying dangerous detainees who are, in fact in many cases, enemy combatants, exist at the cost of approximately millions of dollars in Guantanamo. The Guantanamo debate has, in my view, improperly focused on place versus process over the past couple of years. The most important factor has been to improve the process as we consider these different cases, not simply whether this was Guantanamo or anywhere else. Removing our detainees from Guantanamo to the United States is not going to solve the problem. The improved processes we have put in place is one of the key factors in addressing the problem. The people we are seeking to prosecute--I think it needs to be said again and again--are enemy combatants. They were apprehended during a time of war, while hostilities are still ongoing. Prosecuting these individuals in domestic courts gives rise to a host of problematic issues which are basically unnecessary because of the availability now of properly constituted military tribunals. The problems with trying alleged detainees in domestic courts include: procedural, constitutional, and evidentiary rules in place to protect civilian criminal defendants in our country. These protections would require the production of classified materials. It could require military and intelligence officers to be called from other duties, in some cases from the battlefield, to testify. This could lead to the exposure of sensitive material or, alternatively, to acquittal of enemy combatants who are guilty of these crimes. In the U.S. legal system, when a defendant is acquitted he goes free. In this complex scenario, it is unclear what will happen in our domestic judicial system if one of those enemy combatants is actually acquitted. This mixing of the legal and military paradigms, I believe, would confuse our criminal justice system without a real upside. The burden of trying enemy combatants in a domestic court is overwhelming. Other people have mentioned this. There is an issue, of course, of maintaining security for the courtroom and for the jail facilities: the additional security burdens to the U.S. Marshals Service and to local police services, the security and procedural complexities would tie up our court system at a time when we need to move criminal cases forward. I think it is very important for the understanding of this body, that while this amendment only applies to six detainees at Guantanamo Bay, it is long past time that we work to reach a consensus on how and where all these detainees are going to be tried and/or held. The administration has consistently talked about three different categories of detainees: Those who have been found not to be a threat to the United States and can be released and a number of them have; those who are a threat and can be prosecuted, which takes up most of our discussion, but, importantly, a third group is those who we have reason to believe will continue to be a threat to the United States, but we may not have sufficient admissible evidence to bring them to trial. That is the category that is the most troubling when we start talking about moving these detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the United States. Every Member of this body should be concerned with the implications of confining such individuals indefinitely inside the United States without due process. I took the time, after a number of discussions, including a long discussion with the President about this, to read the Hamdi case, the Supreme Court case that deals with indefinite detention of detainees. There is a conundrum here, if you think about the reality of what we are doing. If you bring these people into the United States and do not try them, you are going to put them in a civilian prison. There are only two possibilities here: either as legally here in the United States they have to be given a speedy trial or, as enemy combatants, we do not have to give them a speedy trial until the end of hostilities. How do we define the end of hostilities? We are simply going to be importing a problem, affecting about 50 people at Guantanamo, from Guantanamo into the United States. Again, it is not the place, it is the process. Ten years from now, fifteen years from now we don't want to find ourselves saying: There is an individual in a super-max prison somewhere in Illinois who has never been charged with a crime. Why do we need to bring that into our system? Why do we need to bring that into our country? We have to commit ourselves to examining that issue in detail and figure out a way to move forward. I am committed to working with the administration. I have said this to the President in the past and to Members of this body, we need to move forward and develop a final trial and detention plan. But the bottom line is, we are a nation at war. The Supreme Court has outlined due process rights for detainees. Guantanamo Bay is the appropriate facility for holding the enemy belligerents, particularly since we just passed these improvements in the Military Commissions Act. I hope this body will think seriously about the implications of bringing large numbers of Guantanamo Bay detainees into the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I rise to give my colleagues a progress report on the National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009, the goal of which is to create a blue ribbon national commission to take a long overdue and comprehensive look at our criminal justice system. This week the full Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider this bill, and the markup would not have taken place without the strong support of Chairman Leahy and Senators Hatch, Graham, Durbin, and Specter, all of whom have championed this bill. I express my appreciation to them and to other Members for all of the input and cooperation they have given. I wish to begin by revisiting the problem that drove this legislation. This is a chart that shows the incarceration rate in the United States compared to other countries. I don't think a lot of Americans are aware that we have 5 percent of the world's population but 25 percent of the world's known prison population. When I wrote about the Japanese prison system as a journalist 25 years ago, Japan, with half our population, had only 40,000 people in prison. At that time, we had 580,000. Today we have more than 2.38 million prisoners in our criminal justice system and another 5 million involved in the process either on probation or parole. That is 7 million Americans involved in the criminal justice process. It is important for us to understand, as we think about a way to fix it, that this is a relatively recent phenomenon in American history. We have not always had this type of incarceration rate. It stems from about 1980. Before that time--this chart goes all the way back to 1925--we had a fairly consistent incarceration rate. In this period, for a number of reasons--one of them being the fact that as we changed a lot of our policies toward mandatory confinement of the mentally ill; our prisons have absorbed a tremendous population of mentally ill--we have four times as many people in prison in the United States who are mentally ill than we do in mental institutions today. They are not getting the care they need, and they are also clogging up the prison system. Also if we go back to 1980, when I showed on the chart the beginning of this dramatic escalation of people in prison, we only had 41,000 people in our prison system for drug offenses. Today that number is up to 500,000. This is State prisons, a comparison from 1980 to today. These are local jails, and these are Federal prisons. At the same time--and it is important for us to say this--as we look at our criminal justice system, people don't feel any safer. This chart shows the percentage of Americans who believe crime is more prevalent than a year ago. In 2009, more than 70 percent in this country believe crime is more prevalent than it was a year ago. We have two phenomena here. We are locking up more people on a percentage basis than anyone else in the world. We have 7 million Americans involved in the criminal justice process, yet we don't feel any safer. I have two theories about why this fear is prevalent in America's neighborhoods. Both of them speak for the need for this type of commission. The first is that we have been locking up far too many people, people whose transgressions could have been dealt with in more creative ways. As a result, we have hundreds of thousands of people who have been released from prison each year and are reentering American society hardened by their prison experience and without the kind of structured programs that would allow them to become productive citizens. They become recidivists. So we have more people involved in the criminal process than we would otherwise, and they are threatening our neighborhoods. The second is that gangs have grown in size and impact, including sophisticated transnational drug cartels operating in cities across America. It is estimated that Mexican drug cartels alone are operating in at least 230 American cities and not simply along the border. Incidents on the border illuminate the severity of the problem, but clearly it is not a border problem. It is a national problem, and it is not simply a problem with Mexican gangs. In northern Virginia alone, it is estimated there are 4,000 members of MS-13, a Central American gang; 4,000 members is about 3 battalions of marines. Gangs are estimated to commit 80 percent of the crime in some locations. They are in many cases the primary retail distributors of drugs. Gang violence that affects so many of our communities speaks to the need to make sure our law enforcement officials have the time and the energy to dedicate to going after the major problems that threaten communities--resources and the policies they need to go after violent crime. The hundreds of thousands of men and women leaving prisons and jails today to return to our communities speaks volumes about the need to reexamine the availability of and the support for community corrections programs, including reentry programs, probation, and parole policies. Once we started talking about these issues on my staff, as part of the Joint Economic Committee, holding hearings over the past more than 2 years, we began receiving messages, communications, and having contact with people from all across the country, people from every different aspect of the political and philosophical arenas that come into play wherever we talk about criminal justice and incarceration. It is an emotional issue from across the philosophical spectrum. I heard personally from Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court, from prosecutors, judges, defense lawyers, former offenders, people in prison, police on the street. All of them agree we need an interrelated examination, a national commission to examine the criminal justice system and to come up with different types of approaches. As former Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton noted in his testimony in support of the commission: We cannot use arrests as our only tool to deal with the crime problem . . . our problems are systemic, widespread, and growing, and only a singularly focused blue ribbon commission comprised of informed practitioners, scholars, policymakers and civil rights activists can adequately address the calculated formation of intervention and prevention strategies. Formation of this important commission is a major and essential step in the right direction. That was from Los Angeles police chief and one of the most highly respected law enforcement officials in the country, William Bratton. I introduced the National Criminal Justice Commission Act in March. The criminal justice commission would examine all of the elements involved in criminal justice in those specified areas which could then be voted on by the Congress. When this legislation becomes law, the first step for the commission will be to address a series of specific findings and to recommend policy changes. The commission will bring the greatest minds in the country together with a specific timeline to make specific findings and then give those recommendations regarding the entire gamut of the criminal justice system. Since I have introduced the bill, we have gained the support of 35 Members of this body. We have also engaged in a dialog with more than 100 organizations across the political and philosophical spectrum, as diverse as the Heritage Foundation, the Sentencing Project, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the Cato Institute, the NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Correctional Association, the Prison Fellowship, the American Probation and Parole Association, and many others across the entire political spectrum. We have listened. We have learned. We have incorporated many suggestions and modifications to the bill. For example, in the initial findings of the bill, we incorporated suggestions that we include the number of crime victims, advances in policing policies, decreases in violent crime and property crime, and the protection of civil rights and liberties. We added an examination of changes in policing as a result of 9/11, the cost and benefits of prevention and diversion programs, and an examination of the availability of reentry programs. We also added requests that the commission identify effective practices in reducing crime and assisting victims; that it decrease, where possible, racial, ethnic, and gender disparities; and that it help law enforcement address the challenges stemming from combating terrorism and promoting homeland security. We also expanded, importantly, the number of commission members to ensure better representation of State and local government. I wish to spend a minute on this for the understanding of my colleagues. This commission is designed to be bipartisan. It is to be composed of 13 members: the chairman, appointed by the President; four members coming from State and local governments, appointed by the President in agreement with the minority and majority leader and the Speaker of the House; 2 members appointed by the majority leader of the Senate, in consultation with the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary; 2 members appointed by the Speaker of the House with the same process; 2 members appointed by the minority leader of the Senate; 2 members appointed by the minority leader of the House. It will be a 7-6 commission. Through the course of many meetings, we found a solid consensus in support of a comprehensive review of the system. This represents our best effort to set politics aside and to find solutions that will allow us to ensure the safety of our communities while being smart about how we deal with crime in America. Again, I appreciate the chairman of the Judiciary Committee scheduling a markup on this bill. I commend it to my colleagues and hope we can all join together in passing it this year. I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 3, 2009, at 9 a.m. in Room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Increasing Health Costs Facing Small Businesses'' on Tuesday, November 3, 2009. The hearing will commence at 2:30 p.m. in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 3, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. WEBB

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

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Mr. WEBB. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Webb pertaining to the introduction of S. 1774 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, we are debating a lot of great long-term issues in this body. I wish to speak for a short period of time today about something on the other end of the political spectrum, about something that I believe is an issue--a small issue--a private bill that all of us should come together on in rather quick measure. Every now and then, there comes an issue that tells us a lot about who we are and how we live up to our promises, great and small, and particularly the promises that we make to those who step forward and place their lives on the line in order to carry out the policies that we ourselves put in place. Like all of the Members of this body, I take a back seat to no one in my affection and support for the people who step forward and serve our country. I come from a family that has a long citizen-soldier tradition. I have several ancestors--direct ancestors--who fought in the American Revolution, and we have participated as citizen-soldiers in just about every war since then. My colleagues know how strongly I feel about the U.S. Marine Corps. I had the great privilege of commanding marines in combat in Vietnam. My brother was a marine. My son is a marine. My son-in-law is a marine. Many of my colleagues know of my long association with the people of Okinawa, beginning almost 41 years ago when I first was there on my way into Vietnam, but continuing as a journalist, as a government official, as a tourist, as a guest of the government. As most of my colleagues know, in my nongovernment service, I principally made my living as a writer, as a novelist. All of these issues dovetail in this private bill that I and the two Senators from Tennessee are introducing today. In the first novel I wrote, which was about the Vietnam war, a subplot was about a young marine who fell in love with an Okinawan girl and who, after being wounded, went back into Vietnam, had left her with child, and was killed. She, not knowing this, bore the burden of carrying his son without having been formally married to this young marine. Flash forward 40 years to the future and to a different war, and we have a situation that I believe needs some prompt action on our part. This private bill is not asking for any favors. It is not asking for any special consideration. It is simply asking that the young widow of a marine be treated like any other widow. SGT Michael Ferschke, a 22-year-old marine, had been serving in Okinawa and had met Hotaru Nakama. They dated for a year before he deployed to Iraq. Just before he deployed, they found out that she was with child. They had, by all independent verifications, agreed that they would be married before they discovered she had been with child. He deployed to Iraq, and due to the circumstances of his combat time, they arranged to be married by telephone on July 10, 2008, when he was in Iraq. One month later to the day, he was killed. That marriage is a marriage that is recognized, including in the State of Virginia, as a valid marriage. And yet because of an idiosyncracy in our immigration laws that dates back 55 years, the Department of Homeland Security, for immigration purposes, will not recognize this marriage. This quirk in the law was put into place during the Korean war in order to prevent fraudulent marriages that had never been consummated. But clearly in this case, this is a marriage that could not be consummated because this young man was serving our country in Iraq. They have a child. Every agency of the U.S. Government has done everything they can on this young widow's behalf. She is staying with the young marine's family in Tennessee on a tourist visa. The Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, the U.S. Marine Corps--all have been as helpful as they can be in assisting this marine's young widow in her desire to have permanent immigration status in this country. There is no way it can happen under present law because of the peculiarities of the law. There is only one way that can happen, and that is if we pass a special bill that will do only one thing, and that is to give her the exact status that she would have had if they had been standing next to each other when they exchanged their vows in marriage. And there is only one reason they were not standing next to each other when they exchanged their vows in marriage, and that is because he was serving his country in Iraq. I earnestly hope that all of this body and the other body can come together and remove this idiosyncracy from the lives of these people who have suffered so much because Michael Ferschke, sergeant, U.S. Marine Corps, stepped forward and did what we asked him to do and served our country.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, regrettably, I must rise in opposition to this amendment. I believe this amendment is not timely. It is premature to eliminate a congressionally imposed sunset clause for an existing temporary exception to the Berry amendment, an exception that was supposed to be temporary. In May of this year, Senator Graham and I jointly requested the Secretary of Defense to review the Department of Defense continuing reliance on this exception. The Under Secretary of Defense, Mr. Carter, has confirmed that this review is now underway and the results are expected soon. I do not believe we should modify the current statutory requirement, which would prejudice the outcome of the Department of Defense review, until we have heard the Department's assessment. Removing the sunset clause would result in an indefinite extension of an exception that favors foreign suppliers of rayon over our own American companies. A vote against this amendment will not have an adverse effect on current arrangements to obtain rayon from foreign sources. Today's Army uniform procurement contract will continue until 2013, so long as the Army stipulates that a requirement for rayon fiber in fire-resistant uniforms and the Department of Defense maintains the exception to the Berry amendment is needed. The 2013 sunset clause was designed to ensure that American industry will be fairly treated during future competitions for contracts if industry can demonstrate an ability to manufacture materials that satisfy Army requirements for fire resistance and other features. Under the current arrangement, companies are losing jobs because they cannot compete to provide alternate materials. Our domestic manufacturers are now able to provide alternate materials that could satisfy Army procurement requirements. It is not in the best interests of the U.S. defense industrial base, our economy or the U.S. military to remove a congressionally imposed sunset provision at this time. We have had discussions with General Fuller, the Army's Program Executive Officer Soldier, who is responsible for acquiring the best equipment for the Army and fielding it as quickly as possible. He has confirmed to my staff that he will consult industry to determine what the domestic market has to offer to satisfy performance-based requirements for military uniforms. This will allow American industry to come in with a whole spectrum of ideas and alternate materials. The Army would then be able to explore new technologies that may have evolved since we last visited this issue. Removing the sunset clause also poses a risk to the Army's future research and development requirements. The Army relies on American private industries to an extensive degree to conduct R&D for next- generation materials and fabrics for uniforms, body armor, and other mission-essential materials. Some companies, such as Dupont, for example, have already lost hundreds of jobs owing to that inability to compete for Army contracts. A continued reliance on this Berry amendment exception would jeopardize their ability to remain competitive in this segment of the defense industrial base. I do not believe the Army can afford to lose this critical R&D capacity. For those reasons, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to also oppose it. I yield the floor.