The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“MILITARY COMMISSIONS AMENDMENT” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S10387-S10389 on Oct. 14, 2009.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
MILITARY COMMISSIONS AMENDMENT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to address several points raised by the Republican minority leader in his opening statement this morning. He stood in support and defense of an amendment that has been proposed by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham. What it basically would say is, we cannot try terrorists in the courts of America; in the criminal courts of America we cannot bring a terrorist to trial; they have to be tried, according to the Graham amendment and the position of the Republican leader, in military tribunals or commissions only. That is a dramatic change from the law as we know it, and very bad policy.
Since 9/11, we have successfully prosecuted 195 terrorists in America's criminal courts. During that same period of time, we successfully prosecuted in our military commissions and tribunals three--three--terrorists. So if one wants to know where we are more likely to end up putting a terrorist behind bars, I would suggest going to the Department of Justice and letting them decide whether the case best be tried in a criminal court in America or in a military tribunal. That is the current policy. But the position of the Republican side is to take away this discretion of the Attorney General and to tell them under no circumstances can you try a terrorist for violating American law in an American court.
It makes no sense.
Recently we had a case where a man named Ahmed Ghailani was brought to the United States for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania which killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. President Obama said this man is going to be tried for killing Americans, for his terrorist acts in Africa. I have seen the devastation it caused; almost unimaginable. The President said he will be brought to New York City and he will be tried in our courts. That is underway. It is the right thing to do. The surviving loved ones of those who died in that embassy have praised the administration for their leadership in bringing this man to justice.
Under the amendment which the Republicans are supporting, we would not be able to bring this man to trial in an American courtroom. Why? If the laws are on the books and can be successfully used to prosecute terrorists, why would we throw away this important opportunity and tool to stop terrorism? I will let the Republican side of the aisle explain why. But in the meantime, perhaps they can explain why we should ignore the reality that there are 355 convicted terrorists currently serving time in American prisons and 350 or more of them were convicted in our courts. We know we can do it. We know we can successfully prosecute them under American law. Why would the Republicans want to shield them from prosecution under American law and instead use military commissions and tribunals which have been very controversial and have only successfully prosecuted three terrorists over the last 7 or 8 years since 9/11? It is the Republican position and it makes no sense. We should use every tool in our arsenal to stop terrorism, and give the Attorney General every authority he needs to decide where is the best place to prosecute these individuals.
This notion that somehow we can't bring a terrorist to justice in America for fear they will be held in a jail in America--how do you explain 350 terrorists currently serving time in American prisons? They are being treated as every other criminal should be treated: incarcerated, isolated, away from the population. That is the way it should be. There are places other than Guantanamo to hold these prisoners safely, and I think the record speaks for itself.
National Debt
The second issue that was raised by the Republican leader was about our national debt. He is arguing that the debt is too high, and he is right. But he also ought to be very candid and open about how we reached this point in history. President Obama has been in office now for 9 months, and what did he inherit? The biggest debt in the history of the United States. What did his predecessor, George W. Bush, inherit? A surplus in the Federal Treasury. When President Clinton left office, he left behind a surplus. It is the first time in 30 years we had a surplus. President Bush took that surplus and turned it into the biggest debt in history, and took that and left the weakest economy in 70 years to the Obama administration. Now comes the Republican side saying this is a shame that the Obama people have gotten us into this mess with this debt.
How did we reach this point? Decisions under President George W. Bush to wage two wars without paying for them, simply to add to the national debt; to do what had never been done before by any President, to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America in the midst of a war; and to create a Medicare prescription drug program that wasn't paid for. The cumulative impact of those decisions increased the debt of America to record-breaking levels, and that is what was handed to President Obama when he took office. Now come the Republicans who supported those policies under President Bush and blame President Obama for the debt left behind by the previous President. That is unfair and it is not accurate.
I am sorry we have this debt. Once this economy turns--and I hope it does soon--and jobs are created and businesses are back generating the profits they need, our economy will be strong again and revenues will be created, but we are going to have to claw our way out of this recession and create jobs to make that happen. Twisting and distorting the history of our American debt does not help that conversation.
Health Care Reform
Incidentally, the minority leader said one thing which I hope he will come back to correct. He said the health care reform now underway is going to add to that national debt. If there is one thing President Obama made clear when he spoke to us about this health care reform issue it is that we cannot add to the debt. This bill reported by the Finance Committee yesterday does not add to the national debt. In fact, it reduces the deficit over the next 10 years. That is the standard the President has held us to when it comes to dealing with the deficit and health care reform.
Make no mistake. The opponents to health care reform are being led and inspired by many people but primarily by one group: the health insurance industry. The health insurance industry, one of the most profitable in America, has made its money by saying no and denying care to people when they need it the most. When we try to bring about real health insurance reform so they can't turn you down because of a preexisting condition discovered in some old document filed years before and they can't put limits on the coverage you need when you do get sick, the health insurance industry is fighting us tooth and nail, and many on the other side of the aisle are arguing their case. I think it is a tough case to argue to most Americans.
Most Americans understand we need to bring the costs of health care under control so that Americans have security and stability and don't see health insurance premiums going through the roof, businesses cancelling coverage, and individuals unable to protect themselves. They understand we need real health insurance reform. I have yet to hear the first Republican Senator stand on this floor and call for real health insurance reform, because the health insurance industry doesn't want it and many on the other side of the aisle are not going to cross them when it comes to this debate.
Finally, it is imperative that America move to the point where more Americans have the peace of mind of health insurance protection. To think that 40 million-plus Americans are going to go to bed tonight uncertain about whether a diagnosis tomorrow or an accident tomorrow will plunge them deeply into debt for medical bills they can't pay is unacceptable in this country. Today 14,000 Americans will lose their health insurance coverage by losing a job or reaching a point where they can no longer pay for it. That is the sad reality of the current system. The Republican side of the aisle has no alternative, no proposal for health insurance reform, or health care reform.
I wish to salute Senator Snowe of Maine for her extraordinary courage yesterday, stepping up and voting--the only Republican so far who has voted for health care reform in the U.S. Congress. I am sure she took a lot of grief for it, a lot of pressure, but she showed real courage, extraordinary courage in voting to join us in this effort for real health care reform.
We have heard from former Republican leader Frist; we have heard as well from Republican Governor Schwarzenegger; the mayor of New York, Mr. Bloomberg; the mayor of Minnesota, and others who have talked about the need for health insurance reform. It tells me that many of the congressional Republicans should listen to the leaders in their party across the country who understand what America needs and wants.
Now is our chance. In the next few weeks we are going to do something which we have been trying to do for 40 or 50 years: Bring real health care reform debate to the floor of the U.S. Senate. It won't be easy. There are a lot of differences of opinion about the goals we want to reach. But I want to tell my colleagues that we are finally taking that important step under the leadership of President Obama to do what America wants done: to make sure we have health care reform that will serve our Nation and serve families and businesses in the 21st century.
I see my colleague from Iowa is on the floor.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
____________________
