[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 24, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S732-S736]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HANDLING OF TERRORIST SUSPECTS
Mr. President, in recent weeks, my Republican colleagues have
directed a barrage of criticism at President Obama for his handling of
terrorist cases, and I wish to respond.
Let's start with the recent case of Umar Faruk Abdulmutallab, the man
who tried to explode a bomb on a plane around Christmas when it was
landing in Detroit. My colleagues on the other side have been very
critical of the FBI's decision to give Miranda warnings to
Abdulmutallab.
The Republican minority leader recently said, referring to
Abdulmutallab:
He was given a 50 minute interrogation, probably Larry King
has interrogated people longer and better than that. After
which he was assigned a lawyer who told him to shut up.
That is what the minority leader said. But here are the facts.
Experienced counterterrorism agents from the FBI interrogated
Abdulmutallab when he arrived in Detroit. According to the Justice
Department, during this initial interrogation, the FBI ``obtained
intelligence that has already proved useful in the fight against Al
Qaeda.'' After the interrogation, Abdulmutallab refused to cooperate
further with the FBI. Only then, after his refusal, did the FBI give
him a Miranda warning. What the FBI did in this case was nothing new.
During the Bush administration, the FBI also gave Miranda warnings to
terrorists detained in the United States.
I respect Senator McConnell, but I say, respectfully, that he got his
facts wrong as stated on the floor of the Senate. Frankly, this
unfounded criticism of the FBI and their techniques should be
corrected. That is why I stand here today.
Attorney General Eric Holder recently sent a detailed, 5-page letter
to Senator McConnell explaining what actually happened in this case.
I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Office of the Attorney General,
Washington, DC, February 3, 2010.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: I am writing in reply to your
letter of January 26, 2010, inquiring about the decision to
charge Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab with federal crimes in
connection with the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines
Flight 253 near Detroit on December 25, 2009, rather than
detaining him under the law of war. An identical response is
being sent to the other Senators who joined in your letter.
The decision to charge Mr. Abdulmutallab in federal court,
and the methods used to interrogate him, are fully consistent
with the long-established and publicly known policies and
practices of the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the
United States Government as a whole, as implemented for many
years by Administrations of both parties. Those policies and
practices, which were not criticized when employed by
previous Administrations, have been and remain extremely
effective in protecting national security. They are among the
many powerful weapons this country can and should use to win
the war against al-Qaeda.
I am confident that, as a result of the hard work of the
FBI and our career federal prosecutors, we will be able to
successfully prosecute Mr. Abdulmutallab under the federal
criminal law. I am equally confident that the decision to
address Mr. Abdulmutallab's actions through our criminal
justice system has not, and will not, compromise our ability
to obtain information needed to detect and prevent future
attacks. There are many examples of successful terrorism
investigations
[[Page S733]]
and prosecutions, both before and after September 11, 2001,
in which both of these important objectives have been
achieved--all in a manner consistent with our law and our
national security interests. Mr. Abdulmutallab was questioned
by experienced counterterrorism agents from the FBI in the
hours immediately after the failed bombing attempt and
provided intelligence, and more recently, he has provided
additional intelligence to the FBI that we are actively using
to help protect our country. We will continue to share the
information we develop with others in the intelligence
community and actively follow up on that information around
the world.
1. Detention. I made the decision to charge Mr.
Abdulmutallab with federal crimes, and to seek his detention
in connection with those charges, with the knowledge of, and
with no objection from, all other relevant departments of the
government. On the evening of December 25 and again on the
morning of December 26, the FBI informed its partners in the
Intelligence Community that Abdulmutallab would be charged
criminally, and no agency objected to this course of
action. In the days following December 25--including
during a meeting with the President and other senior
members of his national security team on January 5--high-
level discussions ensued within the Administration in
which the possibility of detaining Mr. Abdulmutallab under
the law of war was explicitly discussed. No agency
supported the use of law of war detention for
Abdulmutallab, and no agency has since advised the
Department of Justice that an alternative course of action
should have been, or should now be, pursued.
Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the practice of the
U.S. government, followed by prior and current
Administrations without a single exception, has been to
arrest and detain under federal criminal law all terrorist
suspects who are apprehended inside the United States. The
prior Administration adopted policies expressly endorsing
this approach. Under a policy directive issued by President
Bush in 2003, for example, ``the Attorney General has lead
responsibility for criminal investigations of terrorist acts
or terrorist threats by individuals or groups inside the
United States, or directed at United States citizens or
institutions abroad, where such acts are within the Federal
criminal jurisdiction or the United States, as well as for
related intelligence collection activities within the United
States.'' Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD-5,
February 28, 2003). The directive goes on to provide that
``[f]ollowing a terrorist threat or an actual incident that
falls within the criminal jurisdiction of the United States,
the full capabilities of the United States shall be
dedicated, consistent with United States law and with
activities of other Federal departments and agencies to
protect our national security, to assisting the Attorney
General to identify the perpetrators and bring them to
justice.''
In keeping with this policy, the Bush Administration used
the criminal justice system to convict more than 300
individuals on terrorism-related charges. For example,
Richard Reid, a British citizen, was arrested in December
2001 for attempting to ignite a shoe bomb while on a flight
from Paris to Miami carrying 184 passengers and 14
crewmembers. He was advised of his right to remain silent and
to consult with an attorney within five minutes of being
removed from the aircraft (and was read or reminded of these
rights a total of four times within 48 hours), pled guilty in
October 2002, and is now serving a life sentence in federal
prison. In 2003, Iyman Faris, a U.S. citizen from Pakistan,
pled guilty to conspiracy and providing material support to
al-Qaeda for providing the terrorist organization with
information about possible U.S. targets for attack. Among
other things, he was tasked by al-Qaeda operatives overseas
to assess the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City as a possible
post-9/11 target of destruction. After initially providing
significant information and assistance to law enforcement
personnel, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison. In 2002,
the ``Lackawanna Six'' were charged with conspiring,
providing, and attempting to provide material support to al-
Qaeda based upon their pre-9/11 travel to Afghanistan to
train in the Al Farooq camp operated by al-Qaeda. They pled
guilty, agreed to cooperate, and were sentenced to terms
ranging from seven to ten years in prison. There are many
other examples of successful terrorism prosecutions--ranging
from Zacarias Moussaoui (convicted in 2006 in connection with
the 9/11 attacks and sentenced to life in prison) to Ahmed
Omar Abu Ali (convicted in 2005 of conspiracy to assassinate
the President and other charges and sentenced to life in
prison) to Ahmed Ressam (convicted in 2001 for the Millenium
plot to bomb the Los Angeles airport and sentenced to 22
years, a sentence recently reversed as too lenient and
remanded for resentencing)--which I am happy to provide upon
request.
In fact, two (and only two) persons apprehended in this
country in recent times have been held under the law of war.
Jose Padilla was arrested on a federal material witness
warrant in 2002, and was transferred to law of war custody
approximately one month later, after his court-appointed
counsel moved to vacate the warrant. Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-
Marri was also initially arrested on a material witness
warrant in 2001, was indicted on federal criminal charges
(unrelated to terrorism) in 2002, and then transferred to law
of war custody approximately eighteen months later. In both
of these cases, the transfer to law of war custody raised
serious statutory and constitutional questions in the courts
concerning the lawfulness of the government's actions and
spawned lengthy litigation. In Mr. Padilla's case, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the
President did not have the authority to detain him under the
law of war. In Mr. Al-Marri's case, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a prior panel
decision and found in a fractured en banc opinion that the
President did have authority to detain Mr. Al-Marri, but that
he had not been afforded sufficient process to challenge his
designation as an enemy combatant. Ultimately, both Al-Marri
(in 2009) and Padilla (in 2006) were returned to law
enforcement custody, convicted of terrorism charges and
sentenced to prison.
When Flight 253 landed in Detroit, the men and women of the
FBI and the Department of Justice did precisely what they are
trained to do, what their policies require them to do, and
what this nation expects them to do. In the face of the
emergency, they acted quickly and decisively to ensure the
detention and incapacitation of the individual identified as
the would-be bomber. They did so by following the established
practice and policy of prior and current Administrations, and
detained Mr. Abdulmutallab for violations of federal criminal
law.
2. Interrogation. The interrogation of Abdulmutallab was
handled in accordance with FBI policy that has governed
interrogation of every suspected terrorist apprehended in the
United States for many years. Across many Administrations,
both before and after 9/11, the consistent, well-known,
lawful, and publicly-stated policy of the FBI has been to
provide Miranda warnings prior to any custodial interrogation
conducted inside the United States. The FBI's current Miranda
policy, adopted during the prior Administration, provides
explicitly that ``[w]ithin the United States, Miranda
warnings are required to be given prior to custodial
interviews. . . .'' In both terrorism and non-terrorism
cases, the widespread experience of law enforcement
agencies, including the FBI, is that many defendants will
talk and cooperate with law enforcement agents after being
informed of their right to remain silent and to consult
with an attorney. Examples include L'Houssaine Kherchtou,
who was advised of his Miranda rights, cooperated with the
government and provided critical intelligence on al-Qaeda,
including their interest in using piloted planes as
suicide bombers, and Nuradin Abdi, who provided
significant information after being repeatedly advised of
his Miranda rights over a two-week period. During an
international terrorism investigation regarding Operation
Crevice, law enforcement agents gained valuable
intelligence regarding al-Qaeda military commanders and
suspects involved in bombing plots in the U.K. from a
defendant who agreed to cooperate after being advised of,
and waiving his Miranda rights. Other terrorism subjects
cooperate voluntarily with law enforcement without the
need to provide Miranda warnings because of the non-
custodial nature of the interview or cooperate after their
arrest and agree to debriefings in thc presence of their
attorneys. Many of these subjects have provided vital
intelligence on al-Qaeda, including several members of the
Lackawanna Six, described above, who were arrested and
provided information about the Al Farooq training camp in
Afghanistan; and Mohammad Warsame, who voluntarily
submitted to interviews with the FBI and provided
intelligence on his contacts with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
There are other examples which I am happy to provide upon
request. There are currently other terrorism suspects who
have cooperated and are providing valuable intelligence
information whose identities cannot be publicly disclosed.
The initial questioning of Abdulmutallab was conducted
without Miranda warnings under a public safety exception that
has been recognized by the courts. Subsequent questioning was
conducted with Miranda warnings, as required by FBI policy,
after consultation between FBI agents in the field and at FBI
Headquarters, and career prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's
Office and at the Department of Justice. Neither advising
Abdulmutallab of his Miranda rights nor granting him access
to counsel prevents us from obtaining intelligence from him,
however. On the contrary, history shows that the federal
justice system is an extremely effective tool for gathering
intelligence. The Department of Justice has a long track
record of using the prosecution and sentencing process as a
lever to obtain valuable intelligence, and we are actively
deploying those tools in this case as well.
Some have argued that had Abdulmutallab been declared an
enemy combatant, the government could have held him
indefinitely without providing him access to an attorney. But
the government's legal authority to do so is far from clear.
In fact, when the Bush administration attempted to deny Jose
Padilla access to an attorney, a federal judge in New York
rejected that position, ruling that Padilla must be allowed
to meet with his lawyer. Notably, the judge in that case was
Michael Mukasey, my predecessor as Attorney General. In fact,
there is no court-approved system currently in place in which
suspected terrorists captured inside the United States can be
detained and held without access to an attorney; nor is there
any known mechanism to persuade an uncooperative individual
to talk to the government
[[Page S734]]
that has been proven more effective than the criminal justice
system. Moreover, while in some cases defense counsel may
advise their clients to remain silent, there are situations
in which they properly and wisely encourage cooperation
because it is in their client's best interest, given the
substantial sentences they might face.
3. The Criminal Justice System as a National Security Tool.
As President Obama has made clear repeatedly, we are at war
against a dangerous, intelligent, and adaptable enemy. Our
goal in this war, as in all others, is to win. Victory means
defeating the enemy without damaging the fundamental
principles on which our nation was founded. To do that, we
must use every weapon at our disposal. Those weapons include
direct military action, military justice, intelligence,
diplomacy, and civilian law enforcement. Each of these
weapons has virtues and strengths, and we use each of them in
the appropriate situations.
Over the past year, we have used the criminal justice
system to disrupt a number of plots, including one in New
York and Colorado that might have been the deadliest attack
on our country since September 11, 2001, had it been
successful. The backbone of that effort is the combined work
of thousands of FBI agents, state and local police officers,
career prosecutors, and intelligence officials around the
world who go to work every day to help prevent terrorist
attacks. I am immensely proud of their efforts. At the same
time, we have worked in concert with our partners in the
military and the Intelligence Community to support their
tremendous work to defeat the terrorists and with our
partners overseas who have great faith in our criminal
justice system.
The criminal justice system has proven to be one of the
most effective weapons available to our government for both
incapacitating terrorists and collecting intelligence from
them. Removing this highly effective weapon from our arsenal
would be as foolish as taking our military and intelligence
options off the table against al-Qaeda, and as dangerous. In
fact, only by using all of our instruments of national power
in concert can we be truly effective. As Attorney General, I
am guided not by partisanship or political considerations,
but by a commitment to using the most effective course of
action in each case, depending on the facts of each case, to
protect the American people, defeat our enemies, and ensure
the rule of law.
Sincerely,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Mr. DURBIN. Here is what General Holder said:
Across many administrations, both before and after 9/11,
the consistent, well-known, lawful, and publicly stated
policy of the FBI has been to provide Miranda warnings prior
to any custodial interrogation conducted inside the United
States.
In fact, the Bush administration adopted new policies for the FBI
that said ``Within the United States, Miranda warnings are required to
be given prior to custodial interviews.'' That was a requirement from
the Bush administration. Senator McConnell and others have tried to
politicize this issue when the facts tell us otherwise.
Let's take one example from the Bush administration. Richard Reid,
the shoe bomber, tried to detonate an explosive in his shoe on a flight
from Paris to Miami in December 2001.
This was very similar to the attempted attack by Abdulmutallab,
another foreign terrorist who also tried to detonate a bomb on a plane.
So how does the Bush administration's handling of the shoe bomber, Mr.
Reid, compare with the Obama administration's handling of
Abdulmutallab? The Bush administration detained and charged Reid as a
criminal. They gave Reid a Miranda warning within 5 minutes of being
removed from the airplane and they reminded him of his Miranda rights
four times within the first 48 hours he was detained.
Has America heard that side of the story, as we have heard all these
criticisms about Miranda warnings for Abdulmutallab?
The Republicans have been very critical of the Obama administration
for giving a Miranda warning to this Detroit, attempted, would-be
bomber 9 hours after he was first detained, after a 50-minute
interrogation. But they did not criticize their own Republican
President when his administration gave a Miranda warning to the shoe
bomber 5 minutes after he was detained, and before he was interrogated
at all.
How do they square this? How can they be so critical of President
Obama when a similar parallel case was treated so differently under the
Republican President?
In mid-January, Abdulmutallab began talking again to FBI
interrogators and providing valuable intelligence--after the Miranda
warnings. FBI Director Robert Mueller described it this way:
. . . over a period of time, we have been successful in
obtaining intelligence, not just on day one, but on day two,
day three, day four, and day five, down the road.
According to another law enforcement official:
The information has been active, useful, and we have been
following up. The intelligence is not stale.
How did this happen? The Obama administration convinced
Abdulmutallab's family to come to the United States. Then he started
talking. And his family persuaded him to cooperate.
This is a very different approach than we saw in the previous
administration, when detainees who refused to talk were subjected to
torture techniques such as waterboarding.
Real life is not like the TV show ``24.'' On TV, when Jack Bauer
tortures someone, the suspect immediately admits everything he knows.
Here is what we learned during the Bush administration. In real life,
when people are tortured, they will say anything to make the pain stop.
So they often provide false information, not valuable intelligence.
Richard Clarke was the senior counterterrorism adviser to President
Clinton and President George W. Bush. Here is what he said recently
about the Obama administration's approach:
The FBI is good at getting people to talk . . . they have
been much more successful than the previous attempts of
torturing people and trying to convince them to give
information that way.
Would Abdulmutallab's family have traveled to the United States and
persuaded him to cooperate if they thought he was being tortured here?
I do not think so. A senior Obama administration official said:
One of the principal reasons why his family came back is
that they had complete trust in the U.S. system of justice
and believed that [their son] would be treated fairly and
appropriately.
You do not hear that much. There is a belief that if you do not
waterboard a person or torture them, you are not going to get
information. Exactly the opposite happened here. This man was treated
respectfully through our system of justice. He was not given special
favors. He was treated like the criminal who I believe he is, and yet
he was treated in such a manner that his family was willing to come to
the United States and beg him to cooperate with our government, which
he did at the end of the day.
So how do my Republican colleagues respond to this development? Did
they commend the Obama administration for successfully bringing his
family over and getting more information? No. They now claim the
intelligence from him was worthless. They have no basis for saying
that, but they do anyway.
During the previous administration, Republicans argued that detainees
held at Guantanamo were still providing valuable intelligence for years
after they were arrested. Now they are saying that days and weeks after
Abdulmutallab was arrested his intelligence was worthless. They cannot
have it both ways.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that Abdulmutallab
should be held in military detention as an enemy combatant. But
terrorists arrested in the United States have always been held under
our criminal laws. Here is what Attorney General Eric Holder said in
his letter to Senator McConnell:
Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the practice of the
U.S. government, followed by prior and current
Administrations without a single exception, has been to
arrest and detain under federal criminal law all terrorist
suspects who are apprehended inside the United States.
Without exception. That was the standard under the Bush
administration.
The Bush administration did move two terror suspects out of the
criminal justice system after they were arrested. One of them was Jose
Padilla. He was designated as an enemy combatant and transferred to
military detention. But then what happened? In a court filing, the Bush
administration admitted that Padilla had not talked to his
interrogators for 7 months. They said:
There are numerous examples of situations where
interrogators have been unable to obtain valuable
intelligence from a subject until months--or even years,
after the interrogation process began.
Two important points about the Padilla case: My Republican colleagues
[[Page S735]]
criticize the Obama administration for holding Abdulmutallab under our
criminal laws. But Padilla was held in military detention and the Bush
administration acknowledged that he did not talk to his interrogators
for at least 7 months. Second, Republicans argue that intelligence from
Abdulmutallab, after several weeks in detention, was stale and
worthless, but the Bush administration argued that information gathered
from Padilla after months--or even years--was still valuable.
There is no consistency in the position they have taken on the other
side of the aisle.
In the end, the Bush administration changed course on Padilla. They
transferred him back to the criminal justice system for prosecution. He
was convicted. He is now serving a long sentence in a Federal supermax
prison--convicted in our criminal courts.
What about the shoe bomber? Richard Reid was also prosecuted and
convicted in the criminal justice system. He is now serving a life
sentence without parole in a Federal supermax prison, where he will
never again threaten an American life.
My Republican colleagues did not complain when the Bush
administration prosecuted Reid and Padilla in criminal courts. But now
they argue terrorists such as Abdulmutallab and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
should be tried in military commissions only because Federal courts are
not well suited to prosecute terrorists.
Well, let's look at the numbers. Since 9/11, 195 terrorists have
successfully been prosecuted and convicted in our Federal court system.
Besides Reid and Padilla, here are just a few of the terrorists who
have been convicted in our Federal court system and are now serving
long prison sentences: Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World
Trade Center bombing; Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called Blind Sheikh;
and the 20th 9/11 hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, who was tried across
the river in Virginia and now sits in a prison cell in Florence, CO.
Compare this with the track record of military commissions. Some
would have us believe that military commissions have been so much more
effective in going after terrorists. So let's look at the record. Mr.
President, 195 terrorists have been successfully prosecuted and
convicted in our criminal courts. How about military commissions? Since
9/11, only three individuals have been convicted by military
commissions--that is 195 to 3--and two of those individuals spent less
than a year in prison and are now living freely in their home countries
of Australia and Yemen.
GEN Colin Powell, the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
Secretary of State under President Bush, supports prosecuting
terrorists in Federal courts. Here is what he said about military
commissions last week:
The suggestion that somehow a military commission is the
way to go isn't borne out by the history of the military
commissions.
What would GEN Colin Powell know about the history of military
commissions? A heck of a lot, having given his life to the U.S.
military in dedication to his country. His opinion means a lot to me.
Military commissions are unproven venues, which ultimately may serve
us well in some circumstances, but to say they are all good and courts
are all bad is to ignore the obvious and ignore the evidence.
Just 2 days ago, there was more compelling evidence about the
effectiveness of Federal courts. Attorney General Holder announced that
Najibullah Zazi has pleaded guilty to plotting to bomb the New York
subway system. Zazi, who planned the bombing with al-Qaida while he was
in Pakistan, could be sentenced to life in prison without parole--
convicted in the Federal criminal courts.
Here is what Attorney General Holder said about the subway bombing
plot:
This is one of the most serious terrorist threats to our
nation since September 11th, 2001 . . . This attempted attack
on our homeland was real, it was in motion, and it would have
been deadly. . . . In this case as in so many others, the
criminal justice system has proved to be an invaluable weapon
for disrupting plots and incapacitating terrorists.
I hope all my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--will join me in
commending the Obama administration for their success in disrupting
this dangerous plot and bringing Zazi to justice. I sincerely hope this
case will cause some of the critics of trying terrorists in Federal
courts pause to at least reflect on the obvious. This was a successful
prosecution--another one, 195 of them since 9/11.
There is a great irony here. For 8 long years, during the Bush-Cheney
administration, Republicans used to argue that we should not criticize
the administration's national security policies. Time and again, they
told us it was inappropriate--maybe even un-American, some of them
said--for Congress to ask basic questions about the Bush
administration's policies on issues like Iraq, Guantanamo, torture,
warrantless wiretapping. Time and again, we were reminded there is only
one Commander-in-Chief. But now Republicans feel it is fair game to
second-guess every decision President Obama makes in the area of
combating terrorism.
I think we have a right, an obligation, as Senators, to ask questions
of all Presidents regardless of party. But I think we also have an
obligation for fairness and balance, as one of the notorious networks
says. In this case, I think if you look at the evidence in a fair and
balanced fashion, you can see we are in a situation where the approach
of using Federal criminal courts has worked. It has worked because we
know we have the very best in the FBI and the Department of Justice,
and they have a track record of success. We have an obligation to get
the facts right when we either defend or criticize the President.
I am also concerned about the tone of some of the criticism we have
heard. We can surely disagree with this administration, but when I hear
the President's critics suggest that he is soft on terrorism and he
does not care about defending our country, that goes over the line, as
far as I am concerned.
Recently, Senator McConnell gave a speech to the Heritage Foundation,
a conservative think tank on Capitol Hill, and he said the Obama
administration ``has a pre-9/11 mindset'' and ``has a blind spot when
it comes to prosecuting this war.'' I think those statements go too
far.
GEN Colin Powell has a different opinion, different than Senator
McConnell. Here is what he said last weekend:
To suggest that somehow we have become much less safe
because of the actions of the administration, I don't think
that's borne out by the facts.
What is the motivation for this criticism of the President? Well, as
Senator McConnell said to the Heritage Foundation:
You can campaign on these issues anywhere in America.
I guess he is right. I guess there is always room for fear, and
peddling fear is something that is going to appeal to a lot of people.
It is right that we be mindful of the threat of terrorism and we do
everything in our power to stop it from ever occurring again. But
living and quivering in fear, is that what America should be all about?
Richard Clarke, the senior counterterrorism adviser to Presidents
Clinton and Bush, said:
Recent months have seen the party out of power picking
fights over the conduct of our efforts against Al Qaeda,
often with total disregard to the facts and frequently
blowing issues totally out of proportion, while ignoring the
more important challenges we face in defeating terrorists.
Mr. President, 9 years after 9/11, al-Qaida still is a serious threat
to America. We know that terrorists are plotting to attack us even as
we speak. President Obama knows it as well. He understands as Commander
in Chief that he has a special commitment to the American people to
keep us safe. Congress is a political body and this is an election
year, but this issue is too important to become a political football.
Democrats and Republicans should be united in supporting all of the
efforts of all of the good men and women, including the President, in
trying to fight terrorism and keep America safe.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page S736]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________