[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 11233-11234]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             CLOSING GITMO

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, President Obama has set an arbitrary 
deadline of January of 2010 to close our prison at Guantanamo Bay. 
There is currently no plan on how to accomplish that. Nevertheless, the 
President has requested $80 million in a supplemental appropriations 
bill to accomplish it. The question is, before we approve $80 million 
for this purpose, should we not know what the money is going to be used 
for? We are not in the business of appropriating large sums of money 
without having any idea of what is going to happen to the money. There 
are a lot of questions, but there are virtually no answers.
  This facility is virtually brand new. It is a $200 million state-of-
the-art prison. I have not heard that any of the money is going to 
actually go to shutter the facility. That would be very strange, 
indeed, since I gather even if all of the terrorists were removed from 
it, there would still be a reason to have that prison so that it could 
house others. So what is the money going to be used for?
  We have not heard that any other country has agreed to take these 
prisoners. I think France was willing to take one. But presumably very 
little of this $80 million is going to be used to pay other countries 
to take these prisoners. So what is the money going to be used for?
  Obviously, we will not release them into society. I heard one wag 
talking about the possibility that they would be given some money and 
turned loose and directed to make the best of their new life. That, 
obviously, makes no sense. I haven't heard that any of the $80 million 
would be used for that purpose.
  What could it be used for? Well, I guess the only other option would 
be these people would be transferred to other prisons, either State 
prisons or maybe a Federal or a military prison. I will go into why 
that is not a good idea in a moment. But I suppose some of the money 
could be used to pay a State prison, for example, or to provide funding 
for a Federal prison, even though they are already funded, and I am not 
sure why they should need the additional money. But maybe they need 
additional security, for example. Perhaps some of the money could be 
used for that.
  Why the number $80 million? Where did that number come from? Is there 
a plan, and we have not been told about it yet? There are a lot of 
questions that have to be answered before I am willing to vote to spend 
$80 million--or not spend it but to authorize $80 million to be spent 
but on what I do not know.
  Let's understand that the reason these terrorists are at Guantanamo 
Bay--there are two reasons. No. 1, these are the worst of the worst. 
These are extraordinarily dangerous people who have all said that if 
given half a chance they will kill Americans or anybody else with whom 
they disagree. The second reason is, this facility keeps them in a 
place where they are safe but also we are safe from having the facility 
attacked in order to release them or to have the guards or the prison 
officials put into jeopardy as a result of the proximity to terrorists 
who could have access to them.
  Guantanamo Bay is not a place where terrorists can easily get access. 
As a result, it is the perfect place to keep these kinds of dangerous 
criminals. We have already let a lot of the people at Guantanamo Bay 
free because we judged they were not a danger any longer. 
Unfortunately, we were wrong about many of them. There are well over 
30--and I think the number may be over 50 by now--who we actually have 
information have returned to the battlefield. Some of them, we know, 
have been killed, some have been captured again, and we know some have 
gone right back to committing terrorist atrocities. These are people 
who we thought were rehabilitated or were not terrorists in the first 
place.
  Now we are talking about roughly 240 or 245 who we know are very 
dangerous if they were ever to be released. What can be done with them? 
We cannot release them back to the battlefield. We cannot take them to 
some country such as Switzerland and turn them loose and say: Well, go 
wherever you want to. Other countries do not want to take them. You 
cannot turn them over to countries that we believe will obviously 
mistreat them or will turn them loose.
  The only other option I can see is they would be put in some American 
prison. Think for a moment about that. One reason the prison guards at 
Guantanamo do not wear any identification is because they do not want 
these terrorists to know who they are. If they did, it would be 
possible to locate their families back in the States and to threaten 
them or actually do harm to them. This is not hard.
  If they are transferred to the State prison in Arizona, let's say, 
what would have to be done there? Well, everybody knows who the warden 
of the State prison is in Arizona. Is that person and the family going 
to be jeopardized as a result of the fact that person is in charge of 
the Arizona prisons? Obviously, all the guards would have to have the 
same kind of training that our very capable people at Guantanamo have 
received. This would cost extra money. They could not be identified in 
any way to these individuals. The facilities would probably have to be 
hardened in order to ensure there could be no escape.
  But as we found in both Afghanistan and Iraq, when terrorists are 
aware--and I believe this may have happened in Pakistan, though I could 
be corrected--when terrorists are aware their colleagues are being held 
in a facility, they make plans to try to spring them and they attack 
the facility and they try to hold hostages so they can trade for their 
colleagues who are in the prison.
  Is that what we are going to expose Americans to in our communities? 
These are the kinds of things that have not been thought through and, 
obviously, have to be thought through. When somebody says to me: Will 
you vote for $80 million to close the prison at Guantanamo? I am going 
to say: Tell me what the $80 million is going to be used for. Tell me 
what the plan is and then I will think about it.
  Let me mention--I said before these are the worst of the worst. They 
include 27 al-Qaida leaders, including the mastermind of the September 
11 attacks, key al-Qaida operatives, and Osama bin Laden lieutenants, 
as well as the orchestrator of the attack on the USS Cole, which killed 
17 American sailors. In total, I believe there are 241 terrorists who 
remain under military guard at Guantanamo--those who have been 
identified as too dangerous to be released.

[[Page 11234]]

  The Attorney General, about a month ago, said about these detainees--
and I am quoting now--for ``people who can be released, there are a 
variety of options that we have and among them is the possibility that 
we would release them into this country.''
  ``Release them into this country''? I cannot imagine the American 
people being willing to do that.
  Senator McConnell asked a question of the Attorney General. He said: 
What is the legal basis for bringing these terrorist-trained detainees 
to the United States, given that Federal law specifically forbids the 
entry of anyone who endorses or espouses terrorism, has received 
terrorist training or belongs to a terrorist group?
  It would be against U.S. law, as well as extraordinarily foolish, to 
release these people into this country, as the Attorney General 
intimated. As I said before, transferring them to facilities within our 
borders would create new terrorist targets.
  The Senate has already spoken to this issue. In July of 2007, the 
Senate voted 94 to 3 that Guantanamo detainees should not be 
transferred stateside into facilities in American communities and 
neighborhoods.
  So I repeat the question: Where will they go? European nations have 
said they will not take any of the terrorists because they cannot be 
integrated into their societies. Well, that is an understatement, to 
say the least.
  Obviously, repatriating them to their native country has proven to be 
extraordinarily difficult too. That was obviously plan A. But these 
countries either, A, do not want them; B, could not take care of them; 
or, C, we believe would mistreat them.
  We learned a lesson on repatriation in the case of Said Ali al-
Shihri, who was returned home to Saudi Arabia after his release from 
Guantanamo. He promptly fled to Yemen. He is now a top leader of al-
Qaida's Yemeni organization. Yemenis, interestingly, make up the 
largest population of Guantanamo prisoners. But Yemen has been the 
hardest country to engage on this issue. Even if it agreed to U.S. 
demands, it might not be capable of honoring them.
  In fact, there are many areas of Yemen today that are very poorly 
governed. Its borders are porous. I do not think there is any 
confidence that if prisoners were released to Yemen, they would not 
immediately go back to the battlefield and we would be facing them 
again.
  We should also keep in mind the conditions at Guantanamo are very 
good. Everyone who has visited there, I think, has agreed that the 
detainees are well treated, that they are exercised regularly, fed 
culturally and religiously appropriate meals, get medical and dental 
benefits--most far superior to any they had received before that in 
their life. They have access to mail, a library, are free to practice 
their religion. The International Committee of the Red Cross has 
unfettered access to monitor detainees.
  It is not as if, in this particular facility, they are being 
mistreated. In fact, in this particular facility, they probably could 
be treated better than being returned stateside to some existing prison 
that would have to be modified in order to provide this kind of 
treatment for them.
  I know of no better alternative than their current incarceration at 
Guantanamo. They are dangerous people who were picked up on the 
battlefield or in situations where we have very good reason to believe 
they are terrorists, that they would engage in terrorism or support 
terrorism if they were released.
  We, obviously, are committed to moving forward because of the 
President's commitment. I believe the Congress will be willing to work 
with the President on this very difficult situation. But if the 
President is going to ask the Congress for money, then the President 
has to be able to share with us what his plan is, and we will try to 
help. What I do not think we will do is agree, as the Attorney General 
suggested, to release them into the United States.
  I think it will be extraordinarily difficult to house them in some 
prison in one of our communities. We clearly have not been able to talk 
our allies into taking them. It is very difficult to return them to 
other countries because of the potential they would either be 
mistreated or immediately go back to the battlefield.
  The President has committed to doing something, in my opinion, 
without thinking through carefully the consequences of the decision and 
the difficulty of implementing the decision.
  To the extent he needs help from Congress, he needs to bring us into 
the discussion and share with us what he intends to do. Because we are 
not--as the vote before the Senate clearly indicated--we are not going 
to endorse a blank check on this and say: Fine, Mr. President, whatever 
you want to do, even though it could have an adverse impact on our 
communities or on our country.
  That is why, despite the fact there are very good reasons to support 
other aspects of the supplemental appropriations bill that has been 
proffered to the Congress, this particular piece has to be modified. 
Either the President has to make clear what he intends to do with the 
$80 million, explain to the American people how he intends to move 
forward on this, or he should defer.
  The supplemental appropriations bill, after all, is merely an 
emergency amount of money that may be needed in a place such as Iraq, 
Pakistan or Afghanistan, prior to the regular appropriations process 
taking place. If the President can suggest to us there is some 
emergency need for this money, then, obviously, we can consider that. 
But absent that, there is no reason to put it in the supplemental 
appropriations bill--a bill we need to pass because of the emergencies 
that do exist in places such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
  But short of explaining to us what he wants to do with the $80 
million, I do not think this is something the Congress is going to be 
willing to include in the supplemental appropriations bill.
  I would say this to the political operatives who sometimes get 
involved in these issues: Do not think that you can blackmail the 
Senate into supporting something such as this because of the urgency of 
getting the rest of the funds out into the field. Yes, those funds are 
important. But I think every one of our constituents would rightly be 
extraordinarily critical of any Senator who simply agreed carte blanche 
to appropriate $80 million if that meant these prisoners could be 
released into their communities or even be put behind bars in their 
communities. We have already spoken out against that, so that should 
not be part of the plan.
  I think it is very important the President understands the Senate 
cannot approve a bill that has this kind of appropriation in it without 
bringing us into the process, getting our counsel as to how to deal 
with the problem, and then ask for our support for the funding to 
execute that particular plan.
  Madam 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. MARTINEZ. 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.

                          ____________________