[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 12825-12826]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       SUPPLEMENTAL WAR SPENDING

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today, the Senate takes up the 
supplemental war spending bill for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. 
The need to consider such wartime supplementals is familiar to the 
Senate, but their importance has not diminished over time. Our Armed 
Forces have fought valiantly against global terrorism for more than 7 
years, and our intelligence community has made invaluable contributions 
to that effort. This week, the Senate will show, once again, that we 
are grateful for the service and dependent on the heroism of every 
American fighting to help protect us at home and abroad.
  Similar to any supplemental war spending bill, this week's bill must 
be viewed in the context of the broader fight against terrorism. This 
is a fight that began in earnest after the events of 9/11 but which 
found its justification in a long series of attacks that culminated on 
that terrible day. Eight years before 9/11, several Americans were 
killed in the first World Trade Center bombing. Two years later, five 
Americans were killed in an attack on a U.S. military site in Riyadh. 
In 1996, 19 U.S. servicemen lost their lives in the Khobar Towers 
bombing. In 1998, 12 Americans were killed in Embassy bombings in 
Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. In 2000, 17 American soldiers were killed in 
the attack on the USS Cole. Of course, on September 11, 2001, 19 
hijackers killed 3,000 Americans in New York, Virginia, and 
Pennsylvania.
  What is clear from all this is that terrorists were at war with us 
long before we were at war with them. But then, after 9/11, the 
Northern Alliance and U.S. forces, along with our allies, took the 
fight to al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Coalition forces 
later toppled Saddam Hussein and subsequently mounted a successful 
counterinsurgency against al-Qaida in Iraq that continues to this day. 
The supplemental we will consider this week funds all those efforts, 
and it provides vital assistance to Pakistan in its ongoing battle 
against insurgents.
  One of the more contentious issues that has arisen in the course of 
this protracted fight is the fate of captured terrorists. Since 9/11, 
the United States has captured hundreds of terrorists who wish to harm 
Americans. Many of them have been brought to the secure detention 
facility at Guantanamo Bay. Current inmates include some of the key 
coconspirators in the Embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, as 
well as Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the mastermind of the attack on the 
USS Cole. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, 
is also there, as are a number of his 9/11 coconspirators.
  Guantanamo was established to house terrorists such as these--
dangerous men who pose a serious threat to Americans. The fact that we 
have not been attacked at home since 9/11 confirms, in my view, the 
fact that this facility, when taken together with all our other efforts 
in the global fight against terrorism, has been a success.
  There is no doubt that some of the men who are held at Guantanamo are

[[Page 12826]]

eager to launch new attacks against us. Of those who have been released 
from Guantanamo, about 12 percent have returned to the battlefield. One 
of these men is currently a top al-Qaida deputy in Yemen. Another is 
the Taliban's operations commander in southern Afghanistan. These are 
men who were thought to be safe for transfer.
  More recently, the Defense Department has confirmed that 18 former 
detainees have returned to the battlefield and that at least 40 more 
are suspected of having done so. Earlier this year, the Saudi 
Government said that nearly a dozen Saudis who were released from Gitmo 
are believed to have returned to terrorism. This is a good reason to 
keep these men at Guantanamo until the administration can present us 
with a plan for keeping terrorists off the battlefield.
  Some have argued that the existence of the Guantanamo prison serves 
as a recruiting tool for terrorists. But it is hard to imagine that 
moving this facility somewhere else and giving it a different name will 
somehow satisfy our critics in European capitals. Even less likely is 
the notion that by moving detainees from the coast of Cuba to Colorado, 
terrorists overseas will turn their swords into ploughshares.
  The global terror network we are fighting targeted and killed 
Americans long before 9/11 and long before we opened the gates of 
Guantanamo. Shutting this facility now could only serve one end; that 
is, to make Americans less safe than Guantanamo.
  The supplemental spending bill that the Senate votes on this week 
will fund an effort to combat terrorism that has been hard fought. We 
have seen victories and we have seen setbacks and keeping detainees off 
the battlefield is part of the battle. Al-Qaida's terrorist networks 
remain vital and lethal, and releasing detainees to return to terror in 
places such as Yemen would be at cross-purposes with the underlying 
bill itself. If we are committed to funding the global fight against 
terrorism, then we will come up with a good alternative to Guantanamo 
before we move to close it.
  The administration has shown a willingness to change course on other 
matters of national security. It is my hope that it will show a similar 
willingness on Guantanamo. As the Senate considers this supplemental, 
we will have an opportunity to encourage such a shift in their thinking 
by expressing our opposition to closing Guantanamo until a good 
alternative emerges. This is the only way to ensure the same level of 
safety that Guantanamo has delivered and the supplemental itself is 
intended to promote.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly on the 
credit card legislation which we are going to be taking up in a minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized.

                          ____________________