[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24830-24831]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     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

[[Page 24831]]

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.

                          ____________________