[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 170 (Tuesday, November 17, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11395-S11396]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         MILCON APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there is a proposal by the Federal 
Government that relates to a small town in the State I represent. The 
town is Thomson, IL. It is in Carroll County. It is 150 miles from 
Chicago in the northwestern portion. Carroll County is one of the 
small, rural counties which has been struggling because a lot of 
employers have gone and a lot of people have moved. Those who remain 
are hit hard by the recession and desperate for employment. The mayor 
of Thomson, Jerry ``Duke'' Hebeler, wrote a letter to me and Governor 
Quinn and others asking for us to consider a prison which had been 
opened there for expansion as a Federal prison, and the administration 
is now looking at that possibility. If the Federal Government moves to 
take over this prison, it could create up to 3,000 jobs in the area, 
good-paying jobs with benefit packages. It would be a dramatic infusion 
into the local economy. In fact, it is estimated it would increase 
growth in the local economy by over $200 million a year, almost $1 
billion over 4 years.
  There is nothing that could be brought more quickly to have that kind 
of positive impact on a local economy. Part of this is to transfer the 
detainees from Guantanamo to this new prison and basically close 
Guantanamo. Guantanamo detainees cost the Government about $430,000 a 
year per detainee. It is an extremely expensive facility, manned by the 
Department of Defense. Of course, we have to provide barracks and 
accommodations and creature comforts that we want our men and women in 
uniform to have at Guantanamo. Moving it to Thomson, IL, will 
dramatically reduce that cost.
  There are those who resist this and do not want to see us move 
forward. I say they don't understand these detainees would be placed in 
a portion of this Thomson facility run by the Department of Defense. 
They would be in what is virtually the most secure prison in America 
today, where there has, incidentally, never been an escape from the 
supermax facility since it was built. They would be housed in this 
situation with no visitors. In military prisons, there is no 
requirement for visitation, even though some critics have said 
otherwise. They would not be released into the general population under 
any conditions because we have passed laws saying that will never 
happen, prohibiting release of these detainees into America. The net 
result is to create a dramatic number of new jobs.
  Today we are going to consider amendment No. 2774 to the Military 
Construction appropriations bill, offered by Senator Inhofe of 
Oklahoma. It prohibits any funds in this bill from being used to 
construct or modify a facility to hold a detainee from Guantanamo. The 
Obama administration strongly opposes this amendment, and I hope my 
colleagues will join. This morning Senators Reid and McConnell received 
a letter from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Homeland Security 
Secretary Janet Napolitano, and Attorney General Eric Holder, 
expressing strong opposition to the Inhofe amendment. It reads, in 
part:

       Like the President and numerous others, both Republicans 
     and Democrats, we are convinced that closing the Guantanamo 
     Bay detention center is in the national security interests of 
     the United States. . . . We acknowledge that closing 
     Guantanamo has proven difficult, but that is not a reason for 
     the Congress to preclude this important national security 
     objective. . . . We need to get on with the work of enhancing 
     our national security by finally closing the Guantanamo 
     Bay detention center. The Inhofe amendment would have the 
     opposite effect and would likely prevent further progress 
     on this important issue. We ask that you join us in 
     opposing the Inhofe amendment.

  Let me be clear. This amendment would not prevent Guantanamo 
detainees from being transferred to the United States. Under current 
law, detainees can be transferred to the United States to be 
prosecuted. The Inhofe amendment does not change this. Here is what it 
would do: It would prohibit the Obama administration from upgrading 
security at any facility in the United States where Guantanamo 
detainees would be held. That is unwise and unprecedented. It certainly 
is not in the best interests of homeland security in the United States.
  Let's take a hypothetical situation. In fact, let's move beyond a 
hypothetical. Let's take a real-life example. Last Friday, Attorney 
General Eric Holder announced five Guantanamo detainees who were 
allegedly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack will be prosecuted in 
Federal court in the Southern District of New York. They include Khalid 
Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. I agree 
with Michael Bloomberg, the Republican mayor of New York, who recently 
said:

       I support the Obama Administration's decision to prosecute 
     9/11 terrorists here. It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face 
     justice near the World Trade Center where so many New Yorkers 
     were murdered. . . . I have great confidence that the [New 
     York Police Department], with federal authorities, will 
     handle security expertly.

  Federal courts are clearly capable of prosecuting terrorists. Since 
9/11, we have successfully prosecuted 195 terrorists in our article III 
Federal courts. I strongly support the Attorney General's decision to 
prosecute these suspects in Federal court. But regardless of how one 
feels about the issue, every Member of Congress should know what the 
Inhofe amendment means. Under the Inhofe amendment, the government 
could not spend any money to upgrade security facilities in New York 
City to make certain any of these terrorist suspects are held safely. 
We would be prohibited from spending money because Guantanamo detainees 
are involved. How much sense does that make? If there is the need to 
upgrade security so they can be tried in a safe environment with no 
danger to the people of New York City, we want to spend that money, if 
necessary. The Inhofe amendment stops us, precludes us from spending 
that money. Why would the Senator from Oklahoma want to tie the 
President's hands?
  In his zeal to keep open Guantanamo, he is trying to limit this 
administration. I think that is a mistake. He believes--others do as 
well--we should not close Guantanamo. I agree with GEN Colin Powell. He 
said: If I had my way, I wouldn't close Guantanamo tomorrow. I would 
close it this afternoon. He knows, and we know, it has become a 
dangerous symbol to the world, a dangerous symbol being used by 
terrorist organizations to recruit more for their ranks. That is why 
GEN Colin Powell has called for the closure of Guantanamo. That is why 
it has also been called on to close by former President George W. Bush, 
who on eight different occasions called for its closure. GEN David 
Petraeus has also called for its closure, as has ADM Mike Mullen, 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as Robert Gates, 
Secretary of

[[Page S11396]]

Defense under Presidents Bush and Obama. I urge colleagues to oppose 
the Inhofe amendment, give this administration the tools it needs to 
keep America safe. Let us not second-guess them when it comes to safety 
and security for America's people. That is what the Inhofe amendment 
would do. That, in and of itself, would be a serious mistake.

                          ____________________