[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 170 (Tuesday, November 8, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7165-S7167]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       MILITARY DRAWDOWN IN IRAQ

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I listened carefully to the statement 
made

[[Page S7166]]

by the minority leader, Senator McConnell, the Republican leader. His 
last statement was about the military drawdown in Iraq.
  There were some of us on the Senate floor who were here 10 years ago 
when the vote was taken on the invasion of Iraq, and 23 of us voted 
no--1 Republican and 22 Democrats--because we felt the focus of 
American military power and energy should be to avenge what happened on 
9/11 by focusing our resources on the great men and women in uniform in 
Afghanistan and al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. President Bush and his 
supporters believed otherwise. They called for a war in another 
country, in Iraq, a country which was not implicated in any way with 
what happened on 9/11. Twenty-three of us thought that was a mistake.
  Well, here we are almost 10 years later. We have spent $1 trillion in 
Iraq, we have lost over 4,400 of our brave men and women who served in 
uniform, and now we have a leadership in Iraq which is suspect. Maliki, 
the leader, has shown in the past to be close to the Iranians--not our 
friends and not the friends of Western values. I am unhappy with that 
outcome. But when you deal with democracy or some form of it, the 
people of a country choose their leaders. That is the reality.
  President Bush, before he left office, negotiated a timetable to 
bring American troops home from Iraq, and the timetable called for that 
to happen by the end of this year. What President Obama did when he 
came into office was to take this planned withdrawal of American troops 
by President Bush and implement it. There came a question at the end 
whether all of the troops would leave or some would stay. What 
President Obama tried to negotiate was a guarantee that if American 
troops stayed in Iraq, they would not be charged and tried in Iraqi 
courts; that they would be subject to punishment for wrongdoing but it 
would be under the premise, as it would in most cases, that it would be 
done under American military law. Mr. Maliki and the Iraqis said no, 
and the President said we are not going to leave our men and women in 
uniform in Iraq subject to a government and courts that may not treat 
them justly or fairly.
  I think the President made the right decision. I think if he had made 
the other decision and said, Leave them there and let the Iraqi 
prosecutors do what they wish, we would have heard speeches on the 
floor from the other side about what an outrage it is to put American 
soldiers in harm's way, in jeopardy of an Iraqi military justice system 
or justice system that may be unfair and unjust. The President said, 
no, our troops will come home.
  Now comes the criticism from the Republican side of the aisle that we 
are leaving under a timetable established by President George W. Bush, 
leaving because President Obama could not get a guarantee of fair 
treatment of American soldiers if they stayed. What else would a 
President do?
  Then the argument is made, well, the problem we have is that we may 
reach a point where some of the people accused of terrorism now being 
held in Iraq--we are not certain what is going to happen with them now. 
That is a good question, and I don't know the answer to it. But Senator 
McConnell--he is consistent--believes we should not ever consider 
bringing such a foreign person accused of terrorism into America's 
judicial and court system. He argues that since this is a war and these 
are terrorists involved in the war, these people should all be directed 
to military courts in the United States, military tribunals. We have 
had that argument on the floor. In fact, we had the debate when we had 
the vote, when Senator Ayotte offered it 1 or 2 weeks ago.
  The majority sentiment in the Senate reflects a reality, and here is 
the reality: Since 9/11, 2001, more than 230 terrorists have been 
successfully prosecuted in the article III criminal courts of America. 
So even those who are foreign born, such as the most recent one, the 
Underwear Bomber--do you remember the story? He was on a plane headed 
to Detroit, tried to detonate a bomb, his clothes caught on fire, they 
put out the fire and arrested him. He pled guilty a few weeks ago in 
America's criminal courts. He was prosecuted by the Department of 
Justice, investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and pled 
guilty. He wasn't the first. In fact, since 9/11 more than 300 accused 
terrorists have been successfully prosecuted in our courts, the same 
courts Senator McConnell questions whether they could adequately 
protect America. Three hundred times accused terrorists have gone to 
jail. How many have been prosecuted in military tribunals in that same 
period of time? Three. Three. Three hundred to three, if you are 
keeping score.
  What I say is this or any other President should have the power to 
make the right decision as to where someone should be prosecuted. If it 
is in our court system, so be it. There is ample evidence that the FBI 
and our prosecutors are up to that task. If it is in the military 
tribunal, so be it. Let the President make that decision.
  Senator McConnell sees it otherwise, and he believes it is a mistake 
to go to our criminal courts. I would ask him, if he believes that, to 
explain the score 300 to 3 over the last 10 years.
  One last point. This notion that we cannot safely incarcerate 
convicted terrorists in American prisons has been proven wrong 300 
times since 9/11. These men have been sent to American prisons all 
around the United States, including Marion, IL, where we house 
convicted terrorists. I have been to southern Illinois recently, and 
people are not running screaming in the streets because four or five 
people convicted of terrorism are sitting in the Marion Federal 
penitentiary. Our people who work there will take care of those folks, 
and the folks who live around that community have no fear.
  I might add that Senator McConnell is mistaken in referring to the 
Thomson prison. Let me say a brief word about something that means a 
lot to me. Ten years ago, my State built a prison in Thomson, IL, and 
then didn't have enough money to open it. It has been sitting there 
largely empty for a decade. Now the State of Illinois is prepared to 
sell it to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Federal Bureau of Prisons 
negotiated a good price--good for the State of Illinois and good for 
us--and saves us about $35 million over building a new prison. So we 
get a pretty good deal as Federal taxpayers and Illinois gets sold a 
10-year-old prison it is not using. That is pretty good and creates a 
lot of local jobs.
  This has the support not only of myself but the Republican Senator 
from Illinois, Mr. Mark Kirk, and Republican Congressmen who represent 
this area. We all support this issue. The notion that Guantanamo 
detainees are coming to Thomson is a dead issue. The President proposed 
it initially. I had no objection to it, but it was clear the political 
sentiment on Capitol Hill opposed it. I accepted that, I accepted 
political defeat, if you will, on this issue, and said: So be it. No 
Guantanamo detainees can ever go to the Thomson prison if that is what 
it takes to close the deal.
  The President agreed to it. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a 
letter upholding it. Senator Kirk, who felt very strongly about this, 
acknowledged that this letter made it clear this administration was not 
going to transfer those prisoners to Thomson. Here it comes back on the 
Senate floor today.
  I can just say to my friend Senator McConnell I hope he will sit down 
with Senator Kirk who will explain this is no longer an issue. I am not 
fighting this issue, the President is not fighting it, there will be no 
Guantanamo detainees at Thomson. Let's do something right for our 
Bureau of Prisons and right, I hope, for my home State of Illinois.


                          Veterans Employment

  On a separate issue, we are going to consider a Veterans bill today 
on veterans unemployment, and we will vote on it soon, in the next day 
or two. It is a bipartisan bill, and it should be. It is a bill that is 
based on President Obama's jobs bill, which said in addition to all the 
other unemployed in America, we should give special help to our 
returning veterans.
  I remember the President's speech at the joint session of Congress. 
Members on the Republican side did not jump up and applaud very often, 
but they sure did when the President said we ought to help our 
veterans: They fought for America; they should not have to come back 
home and fight for a job. Let's give them a helping hand. Everyone 
stood up and applauded, as they should have.
  This bill provides incentives for people to hire unemployed 
veterans--we

[[Page S7167]]

estimate there are about 240,000 of these veterans--and the tax credits 
and all the other counseling and assistance is paid for in the bill. It 
appears now that this bill--inspired by President Obama's jobs bill and 
added to it, I might add, the work of the Senate Veterans' Affairs 
Committee under Senator Patty Murray--is likely to pass on a bipartisan 
basis, and it should, in time for Veterans Day.
  Let me add another point, if I can. I want to help these 240,000 
veterans and all veterans go to work. That is something we have a duty 
to do, a solemn moral duty to see happen. But don't forget there are 14 
million unemployed Americans. President Obama's bill goes beyond 
veterans and says there are many other people needing a helping hand. 
Help the veterans first--OK, I am for that; I sign up--but keep on the 
topic, keep on the subject of putting America back to work.
  Unfortunately, now, on three separate occasions we have called up 
President Obama's jobs bill on the Senate floor, and we could not get 
one single Republican Senator to vote for it--not one. Their reason is 
very clear, and they are very explicit about it. President Obama pays 
for his jobs bill by imposing a surtax on those making over $1 million 
a year. In other words, if someone is making more than $20,000 a week 
in income in America, they are going to pay a little more--it is about 
5 percent--for the money earned over $1 million. The Republicans have 
come to the floor and said clearly: No deal. We will not agree to any 
jobs bill that imposes any new tax burden on the wealthiest people in 
America.
  That is their position. They are very open about that position.
  Who disagrees with that? Virtually everyone in this country. An 
overwhelming majority of Democrats and Independents and a majority of 
Republicans and tea party members say it is not unfair to ask the 
wealthiest to pay a little more in taxes to get the American economy 
working again and to get people back to work. That is what the 
President proposes.
  As we pass this Veterans bill this week, remember it started in the 
President's jobs bill. It is now bipartisan, as it should be, and we 
should not stop here. We need to continue the effort. Last week we 
tried to put money into rebuilding America, infrastructure across 
America--roads, highways, airports, mass transit. We could not get a 
single Republican to support us--not one. A week before that we said: 
Let's try to focus on teachers, policemen, and firefighters who are 
losing their jobs. Let's try to make sure they do not lose as many as 
might happen if we do not act. We could not get a single Republican to 
support that either.
  They will not support any provision in the President's jobs bill that 
adds one penny in new taxes to a millionaire in America. That is their 
standard. That is what they are using.
  The Veterans bill does not do that, so they said they will go along 
with it. But it begs the question: If we are serious about dealing with 
this recession and putting people back to work, let's not stop with the 
veterans of America. Let's start with the veterans of America, and 
let's do the right thing by them and the rest of this country. A 
payroll tax cut for working Americans struggling paycheck to paycheck 
so they have more money, more money to get by, makes sense. They will 
spend that money--they will need to--on the necessities of life and the 
purchase of goods and services that will create more jobs; second, tax 
credits to hire those unemployed; third, make certain we invest in 
infrastructure, not only what I mentioned, roads and highways, but 
school buildings and community colleges. Also, make sure we do our best 
for the policemen, firefighters, and teachers who are facing layoffs 
all across America.
  Those ought to be priorities. They are the President's priorities. 
They should be our priorities in the Senate. The President has strong 
bipartisan support for what he is setting out to do. The sad reality is 
we have little or no support when it comes to votes in the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  (The remarks of Mr. WHITEHOUSE on the introduction of S. 1829 are 
printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and 
Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the chair and yield the floor and note the 
absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________